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

yquantum
To everyone,

I have search for information that would be digestible and informative in thought.

This most likely will be my last post for some time to come due to the workload, but I really do not like leaving you with this but to use CERN, or Fermilab I think would be an injustice to you.

Just read and think about the implication that it offers, I believe I can honestly express the frustration that QM leaves one. So, hopefully this will give a different perspective and you will not think of it as mainline physics, which btw, I do feel is necessary.

http://nobeliefs.com/light.htm

http://www.seti.org/site/apps/nl/content2....91981&ct=290165

I wish everyone the very BEST!

Carpe Diem,
yquantum
cool.gif
Confused2
yquantum,

Many thanks for finding those sources for us. Best wishes for work and play.
(Duality replied to me smile.gif )

TRoc

I'm still thinking .. I will post soon

Best wishes all,

-C2.
jal
TRoc
yquantum's link ( http://nobeliefs.com/light.htm ) addresses some of your points of view. smile.gif Worth reflecting upon.
yquantum I hope you will still lurk and feed us some info of the results of the next experiments. smile.gif
Laserlight
QUOTE
I just started reading Jal's board http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5203]symmetrically structured spacetime
... and I'm intriqued. Some very interesting stuff there, and I've only just begun.

Thanks
Everytime that I think that I've reached the end of the road.... I find more "stuff".
I found a model/program (which I'll present later...) that might advance the understanding of a structured spacetime, "SPOT".
I'm going to need the help of a programmer "geek" for that model.
GoodElf
I don't know what other evidence could be presented. We are still left with "interpretations"
Duality
I hope it's not your turn to go too. Don't go too far for too long. We're nice guys/gals...you'll miss us. smile.gif
Share a beer with us and share some stories.
jal smile.gif
Confused2
TRoc,

If we set up a DSE in that brilliant applet ( http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm ) and then we set up another DSE anywhere .. we get another DSE. If you generate extra frequencies every time then the analysis of your next DSE becomes more difficult .. perhaps impossible .. perhaps simply wrong.

If we took an ordinary cardboard box and covered the inside of it with CD's so the whole surace is covered with the reflactive/refractive bits of the cd's.. ready?

Now we drill a hole in one side and another hole in an adjacent side. Shine a light into the one hole and put detector at the other hole. I think I need to check this before I carry on... I just need to peer in .. it's test of something but I'm not sure what. I will report if you do not post meanwhile. hmmm ... glooo

Best wishes,

-C2.


"THEY"2
Thanks C2 for the link to the applet with the red and green waves. SCIENCE AND MUSIC ARE RELATED! One such example is one of the xylophones with pipes underneath each of the 'keys'. The pipes, with vibrations, change the pitch. The shorter the pipe, the shorter the vibrations go, the higher the note!

And thanks to yq also for the link to the laser expirement. It was fun to see the light lines get skinnier the further apart the slits go. It was really fun to slide the slits around and observe the light on the board behind it.

"THEY"2 tongue.gif
Confused2
Hi THEY2,

My thanks go specially to yquantum for helping us to get this far and to the other marvellous people who so generously allow us to use their applets and time and so on. There really are a lot of super nice people about.

And thanks for your input too.

Best wishes,

C2.
Good Elf
Hi Jal, laserlight, confused2, Yquantum et al,

Unfortunately I have been very busy the last day or so. I understand people's concerns about the propositions I have made. I will state their basis and proofs here...

When I say proofs ... what I mean is strong experimental basis.

The first point is that any Theory of Everything or String Theory which is "particle free" and utilizes only waves is by definition "already Unified". This means that as long as we stick to the concepts of electromagnetism in this realm we are safe from any challenge from those that would believe otherwise. According to Juan Maldacina and his AdS/CFT theory even gravity is a result of Conformal Field Theory on the lower dimensional surfaces of Universes (this is exactly what we are saying here) so does not 'spoil" the symmetry... once you do away with 'particles".
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT Theory
However I will speak only in terms of our "perceived" dimensions rather "AdS/CFT Dimensions because we cant "see" in those dimensions)
The Special and General Equivalence Principles were the sound principles that Einstein based both his Special and his General Relativity on. These principles have been debated on this Forum "ad nausium" without too much reference to the vast volume of experimental evidence to confirm that the principles in those theories are 'rock solid". I do not want to branch off into areas where we need to debate the interpretation of Special Relativity and the number of people on this forum that cannot or will not accept Einstein's Theories. There have been hundreds of tests and not one has conclusively or repeatedly shown any violations. So dealing with waves instead of particles will remove the current inability to Unify Gravity with the other three forces which are all conjectured to be expressions of electromagnetism (EM and the Strong Force) or conjectured to be an expression of EM and the weak force... (Electro-strong and Electro-weak forces -> Electromagnetism). This way you have an "Already Unified Theory" without the ugliness of quantizing the manifold... All part of a AdS/CFT Holographic Universe.

The next point is in Special Relativity the faster we travel near the speed of light the slower relative time progresses in the rest frame of the traveler. The most extreme case of this is the "rest frame" of the photon itself. In that 'special" frame time is completely arrested for the relatively non-existent life of that photon. The "instant" it is created is the "instant" it is destroyed. Having no time in whcih to perform dynamics really cramps the style of the photon... so how come it has "time" to form standing waves with itself? The answer to this problem is in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. The photons do not "change" the standing wave pattern in space it is already there. It has always been there and it will always be there. The understanding of this is provided by the Wheeler-Feynman Theory of Emitter-Absorbers. The advanced and retarded waves are "canceled" outside the immediate zones in which events are occurring. This is not actually a global cancellation but because of wave theory could re-emerge anywhere where suitable conditions have occurred.

The DCQE Experiment is not a theory ... all that remains is the interpretation. In the case of signal photon and idler photons that have been "entangled", the destruction of the detected signal photon is connected with the way in which the idler photon has been "interacted". If "which way" information has been extracted then the signal photon will form part of a pattern which will have a Gaussian distribution. I stress that the pattern that has a Gaussian distribution not individual photons which have a "fresnel" distribution but "uncorrelated" and are individually Complex Functions. Otherwise the photon is "correlated" and will form part of the diffraction pattern.

What this is saying is the pattern inside of cavities are "already" existent and does not respond "in time" to any dynamic since the original event has formed "outside of time". This is no 'assertion" if you think about it it is simply the way things are. The standing waves in cavities already exist there and the photon just moves over the three dimensional surface as an "illumination" of that existing pattern. An uncorrelated photon does not have the phase relationship to "fit the same pattern". There will be special individual patterns for all uncorrelated photons... and in the real world there will be many of these if you consider that point (eg. Camera Obscura). All correlated groups of photons will have their own separate pattern in which they will partake in only one single set of interference lines. Other sets of interference lines due to uncorrelated sources will form in space and on the screen without mutual interference. This goes the same for all photons of different frequencies which are also not correlated with any photons of any other frequency.... they can't be, they have different wavelengths and frequencies. But they do form their own set as shown by this animation of Zephirs.
user posted image
These overlap. I noticed Laserlight mentioning energy being converted from one frequency to another and to correlation between different frequencies. I must be quite explicit in these matters, photons do not lose or gain energy by any known process I know of. The arrive at destinations without any changes other than relativistic reference frame changes due to moving sources. I would also like to state that once you have "read" a photon that particular photon can no longer be used to interpret the fate of all "unread" photons. Only "unseen" photons can be used to infer any standing waves in space. The "image" above cannot be seen for a single photon... I hope everyone is agreed that this is not "seen". All that is "seen" is the photon hitting some parts of the screen and not others and the pattern 'builds up" over time.

Therefore I can confidently say that the interference pattern of standing waves "exist" simultaneously everywhere and it is only that the photon "envelope" that propagates around all those places in space "illuminating" the relevant paths of the pattern (seeking all paths). After all this is like a shadow on our spacetime and is not the realm of the "real photon" that only has two places where it has 'reality".... when it is created and when it is absorbed. At some point in time the photon will lose its qubit of information and become uncorrelated in the DCQE Experiment. At that point in time then Wheeler-Feynman Theory comes into play and the function is "suppressed" by a collapse of the wavefront in all space. I have spoken of the phase velocity before. This is not a destructive event in WF Emitter-Absorber Theory since everything in the Universe is waves even the matter. If you are focusing on the "local" events too much then you miss the point of global events where this is not a local phenomenon. It is one of the strongest arguments for higher dimensions I know. The same explanation is used to "mask" or 'suppress" the waves in regions of low probability (if you want to use those terms)... but to have that change you would only need to have a correctly positioned "reflector" to alter the dynamic phase spatially and "bingo" an a particle would have a strong chance of being there. These are then "Kondo Phantoms" see papers by NIST. There are many "Kondo Phantoms" which are every bit as real as the original particle and you would think of them as "multiple reflections" or "images" but electromagnetically these have the same effect as separate individual photons. They are responsible for Electromagnetic Forces in matter. These are also the explanation for "virtual photons"... photons that emerge into existence but connected with the first event for their existence. Do not believe the "random" VP explanation, photon events are "correlated". There are nothing random about these entities. "Kondo Phantoms" of entire atoms have been produced that enter into chemical interactions with "normal matter". "Kondo Photons" also are an extension of this phenomenon.

Cheers
Duality
Hi Jal, laserlight, confused2, Yquantum, {he will be gone for awhile, I was told},sad.gif et al,

I have a question before I reply to this comment, could you explain how much you have researched this in order to know how to respond? That is if your physical framework below embodies a set of fundamental assumptions.

There is a way to show who said what, still working on this, hang in there with me guys. I am here because of a friends request {Yq}. Oh, do you mean, Juan M. Maldacena instead of Juan Maldacina sure it was a typo, just want to make sure we are talking about the same person.

quoted by Good Elf,
QUOTE
String Theory which is "particle free" and utilizes only waves is by definition "already Unified".


Yquantum/yquantum, not sure what he has used, but tells me you as well as those on this post have refreshing & awesome desire to have a better understanding in many fields. So I ask this in respect, not sure of gender but I hear it does not matter.

Best of intentions,
Duality/Lisa
Why Not?
Hey Good Elf, TRoc, C2, yq, Duality, LL, jal, et al.

Good Elf, I am a bit fond of the Holographic Principle myself, so I ask this in all sincerity, you seem to be sold on AdS/CFT, so I have to ask... How do you respond to the concluding statements in Juan Maldacena article, http://homepage.mac.com/photomorphose/documents/qpdf.pdf,
QUOTE
Many questions about the holographic theories remain to be answered.  In particular, does anything similar hold for a universe like ours in place of the anti–de Sitter space? A crucial aspect of anti–de Sitter space is that it has a boundary where time is well defined. The boundary has existed and will exist forever. An expanding universe, like ours, that comes from a big bang does not have such a well-behaved boundary. Consequently, it is not clear how to define a holographic theory for our universe; there is no convenient place to put the hologram.


TRoc, QM (particularly QED) reduces to good old Maxwell in the classical limit. As such, I doubt it would have a difficult time dealing with FM. wink.gif Regardless, there are aspects of QM (not necessarily strictly optical) that need to be adequately addressed before you can throw out the QM bath water. To start, could I humbly request your explanation of the photoelectric effect?

C2, I admire your tenacity! You have stated a couple of times that we are not ready to delve into interpretations but that seems to be most of the gist of the last 20 pages or so. Maybe it would help all involved to provide a review of the experimental results (sans the interpretations)?

Can we create a "one photon at a time" DSE? If not, will a "one electron at a time" (or one M&M from yq's link http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/quantum.html biggrin.gif ) DSE suffice?

Do the bands (minima and maxima) represent intensity distribution? If so, is this distribution definable by good old wave mechanics?

If yes to the first two, is there any effective way to predict where an individual detection event will occur or are we limited to deducing that it will occur around a maxima with some level of probability? To be more direct, GE and TRoc, within the predictive abilities of your theories, can you determine where the thirteenth (or eighth, or 1,364,297th) photon/electron or M&M will be detected or are you limited to stating that it will land at or near one of the maxima?
Laserlight
Hi Good Elf and All,

HMMMMmmm, think about this comment:

QUOTE
I noticed Laserlight mentioning energy being converted from one frequency to another and to correlation between different frequencies. I must be quite explicit in these matters, photons do not lose or gain energy by any known process I know of.


With due respect:
My comment was in the context of how energy is converted to different forms
(frequencies) by interacting with matter.

Do you agree that if you heat matter to white hot it radiates white light photons
at numerous frequencies from infrared and upward thru the visible spectrum.
If the energy source is removed the matter cools and the frequencies that it
radiates become longer as it loses energy and shift toward infrared until a steady
state temperature is reached.

Think about the mechanism going on here at the subatomic level. The electron
energy levels and orbital "distances" are changing over time relative to their
respective protons, therefore their energy level and oscillating frequency is
also changing over time. So, logically there is an electron oscillating frequency
shift that is taking place.

Another example: When 13.56Mhz RF is applied to different gases in a plasma
chamber the gases ionize and radiate different frequencies of light according to
their energy levels. So we inject 13.56 mhz and the byproduct is spectral
light at a different frequency + heat. So we have converted RF energy to
light and heat.

Do you agree? I'm open to other interpretations.

Comments, opinions, discussion welcome,
LL
Good Elf
Hi Duality, Why Not? et al,

Yquantum is a very busy person and has tasks elsewhere and he often has a few cents worth on this Forum. Whatever he says is well worth listening to.

Sorry about typo's. I did mean Juan Maldacena. As you may have guessed you are speaking to a "real elf" here. While Juan Maldacena is a very respected theorist I am something quite different. I am not his "apologist' and I assure you he is not mine. wink.gif he quite rightfully does not know I exist. I differ from his theory quite significantly and my interpretation and it is quite significantly differently though I agree that an Anti-deSitter Universe is the correct interpretation his "connection" does not dovetail with my interpretation of the same things. I have been pushing this barrow for quite a while now and I would not get any appreciation of the statements I have been making lately from the establishment in either String Theory or within the community of Particle Theorists. When I said:
QUOTE (good Elf+)
String Theory which is "particle free" and utilizes only waves is by definition "already Unified".
I meant "my" String Theory, which is well known around this Forum as opposed to standard String Theory (if there is such a thing!). In a nutshell what I am saying is when developing a Unified Field Theory the standard approach is to take the Continuum Theory of Gravity and quantize the manifold at the Planck Length. I have previously argued that this was "illogical" and that the logical theory would be the exact opposite that is "drop" particle theories and use a wave theory connect the added dimensions 'reciprocally" ... as demonstrated in nature with quantum optic principles. This provides a particle free solution that covers all bases and shows how Juan Maldacena's Anti de Sitter Universe as attached to our three dimensional Universe Holographically.

IMHO it is my belief that current String Theories are defunct and need this approach to make them realistic. I can genuinely claim my interpretation is "already Unified" since it is a theory of electrodynamics and gravity in this theory is pure "holographic geometry" (A Pseudo-force... as it was in Einstein's Theories). Yquantum has not expressed any of these theories to me personally but he was instrumental in pointing me toward a String Theory Interpretation of "everything". He is very much along the particle Interpretation of matter and to Richard Feynman and his Quantum Electrodynamic view which in a great part do ascribe. I am also a very strong supporter of the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter -Absorber Theory which so clarifies the "event-scape". He probably does not want to shift from that point of view just now... We are just very good friends on this Forum. He has made some very kind and encouraging statements about my particular version of String Theory and that is what I am imparting to others here. I genuinely believe that this interpretation give an insight that you will find nowhere else, not now , not ever. The reason I do this is because my version allows a very clear view of the physics that conventional String Theory cannot provide since it is still otherwise lost in insoluble problems. My theory is also based entirely on experiments already in existence. It has no Planck Length by definition.

Cheers
Mom
Hello all, I have a question & I would like it if someone could help me out. It is about a code & need broken...... I'm not a jaded lover or anything like that, I need help getting into my sons computer. Can anyone help me?
Laserlight
Mom....

If the computer is password protected you won't be able to access it without
the password.

LL
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight, Why Not? and Duality et al,

QUOTE (laserlight+)
Do you agree that if you heat matter to white hot it radiates white light photons at numerous frequencies from infrared and upward thru the visible spectrum. If the energy source is removed the matter cools and the frequencies that it
radiates become longer as it loses energy and shift toward infrared until a steady
state temperature is reached.
What I mean is the photons cannot change in energy once created. You are referring to the changing wavelength of Photons radiating from a black body source due to falling temperature. Individual photons do not change wavelength in their "life", even traveling across an entire galaxy they remain the same without loss of energy 'forever"... our time. . The process above and those you are referring to are generally not coherent processes but I will admit that some of the photons emitted from the source that have the same frequency will tend toward coherence as they travel "together". I know you do understand that photons of different frequencies (even slightly different frequencies) cannot be coherent. Even with black body radiation usually the photons are still only a sub-set of all the frequencies possible. So one frequency will drop out and be replaced by other frequencies etc.

Your reference I was referring to was that infra-red photons might be coherent with other photons that are possibly shorter in wavelength. i do not think this would occur. But what will happen is just because there is a barrier (the plate with the dual slits) the waves are in some way continuous even when not seen. This is due to Wheeler Feynman Theory. The boundary conditions still remain throughout all space. So even when one photon every 10 seconds are emitted and not interfered with, as part of the original "strong' source of coherent photons which will still be represented by the complex function at the slits, as one of the original coherent photons it will still be 'illuminating" the same "fixed" pattern inside the cavity as all the other "blocked" photons would have done from outside the cavity. In other words the coherency is taken from the source and is fixed in space at the moment it was created (... from that source). If a photon is "absorbed" then that is the end of its 'coherency" but until then its qubit remains intact forever "our time".

Cheers
Laserlight
Good Elf,

I believe in the concept of an "electromagnetic" universe. Frequency is merely
the mathematical solution to electromagnetic fields. In that context,
you are correct that it is "unified". We simply have not fully developed the
science or math to adequately observe or explain it. As we stated in earlier posts,
science is selectively choosing parts of the various theoretical and experimental
models and trying to fit the various puzzle pieces together to fit a preconceived
new theoretical model. It is impossible to put different scrambled pieces of
different puzzles together and expect to get the right "picture" soluiton.

JMHO.

LL
Good Elf
Hi Mom,

Pretty hard to crack passwords.... this is an easier option you may need to arrange with some computer friends.

You need to boot using a Knoppix or Ubuntu Boot CD. If you are on a Windows network start Samba shares. Go to a separate networked Windows Computer and find the Knoppix Computer on your local network and copy the files you need off the drive to the second windows Computer.

If you only need to "read" a file or two, then you can do that from within Knoppix desktop environment. Knoppix can be downloaded as Freeware off the Internet (suggest version 3.6 or 3.7). Burn the ISO image using Burning Software.

This is a Physics Forum and not a Computer Forum.... this is "off topic". Please use the appropriate venue.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=10

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)
It is impossible to put different scrambled pieces of different puzzles together and expect to get the right "picture" solution.
Nothing is "impossible"... The pieces are not "scrambled" just 'jumbled". You can only do what is reasonable. That is what I have tried to do. I use existing experiment and current theory and this is what you can come up with. The pieces fit and the maths exist already. What people do with it is up to them. Who is to say that "Elf Theory" is not already being used? wink.gif

Cheers
Laserlight
Good Elf -

I agree totally with those statements. Can you explain why the wavefunction
of a single photon does not collapse upon striking the matter of the perpendicular
walls and post of the slits? Obviously, there must be reflections back toward the
source (or absorption) of a portion of the energy of the photon wavefront that does
not pass thru the slits.

I am also questioning some of the theoretical aspects about single photon
wavefunction collapse since the energy level and symmetry of the EM fields of the photon is split by the 2+ slits, and the reflection off of obstructing wall surfaces.

In my mind, it seems that if the photon's full wavefront energy intensity is diminished by "losses", then the intensity of the photon striking the target is diminished.

I'm still grappling with the theoretical "mechanics" of elements of this experiment
and quantum interactions.

Regards,
LL


Confused2
mom

Just assume the worst and get over it. If the child is worrying you then talk to him or have a good shout at him - even if you don't know exaxcly why you're doing it - I'm quite sure he will.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Confused2
A fairly basic DSE

There are two slits between the thing we call the light source and detector

'Something' happens in the light source
'Something' happens in the detector

We count the somethings that happen in the detector.

The number of counts the something counter gives is shown here

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

We read the wavelength off the side of our source

This accurately predicts the overall distribution of counts
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../imgpho/sinslit

This equation accurately predicts where most and least counts will be detected
http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html

It has been shown that the total number of counts with both slits open is the sum of the number of counts with each slit open individually (within about 5%)

The experiment has been performed many times. If the rate at which events in the source were happenening had any influence on the observed distribution of counts then it would have been headline news, no such headlines are known. The effect is stable and therefore is probably not influenced or caused by the phase of the moon .. etc. etc.

IMHO it is helpful to look at the results before attempting to explain what is happening.

-C2.
Confused2
Fellow travellers can set up their own DSE using this applet
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm

To explain the observed distribution it is clear (to me) that more than one 'wave' is required to explain the number of peaks of intensity which appear in the experimental result

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

Having looked at the result for as long as is required fellow travellers are invited to reach or dispute the conclusion that the distribution appears to be best predicted by the steady state excitation by a single frequency, from such analysis I suggest impulses, shaped impulses etc. simply won't do.

-C2.

[Sorry.. I seem to be in God mode this morning .. it will wear off shortly .. strong black coffee will probably do the trick]
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal et al,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I agree totally with those statements. Can you explain why the wave function
of a single photon does not collapse upon striking the matter of the perpendicular
walls and post of the slits? Obviously, there must be reflections back toward the
source (or absorption) of a portion of the energy of the photon wavefront that does
not pass thru the slits.
For a start the graphic that Zephir has is "good" but not perfect. For individual photons... If a node just happens to fall on a wall it is highly likely that if the photon is not absorbed at other points where there are anti-nodes then it will reflect off that screen wall. We previously discussed the "eye of the little hurricanes" concept .... we do not know and cannot know just where that point will strike. Next issue this is just one photon in the "weak" case". Eventually it will probably be absorbed, when that happens all wavefronts "globally" will collapse for that one photon. Naturally an electron wave is a totally different beastie. While it has "waves" it also has charge and the waves cannot be collapsed since the fields are "evanescent" and come from "inside the particle cavity" through tunneling (from our point of view). The reason this particle cannot collapse is because it is "knotted" through "parity" (symmetry) and Time (causality) and this is also linked to charge .... CPT conservation.

QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I am also questioning some of the theoretical aspects about single photon wave-function collapse since the energy level and symmetry of the EM fields of the photon is split by the 2+ slits, and the reflection off of obstructing wall surfaces.
In my mind, it seems that if the photon's full wavefront energy intensity is diminished by "losses", then the intensity of the photon striking the target is diminished.
Be very certain about this... the photon is not diminished at all by all that "bouncing around". An individual photon is either absorbed or scattered (particle interactions), everything else is pure and simple propagation without loss inside the space that it is confined to. The way I am able to understand this is "literally nothing is actually happening between the events creation and its ending"... the event and its outcome happened in a single instant when the photon was created and absorbed. Quite frankly there is no time for anything to happen to the photon... so nothing "dynamic" can happen to it without any passage of time (think about it!). Everything else is "smoke and mirrors" and a mirage in which this phenomenon may as well not be happening... indeed this is exactly what Quantum Mechanics actually says aboiut it (I do not believe that though)... it says the photon actually does not have any existence at all until its "wave-function" collapses. This is what Yquantum means by "waves of nothing". My view is once you believe that you will believe anything at all and I can tell you about the faries at the bottom of the garden and you will say "Really?" blink.gif

Photons cannot be partly scattered. Once the qubit is lost that is the end of the coherent interference game for that one photon. The interactions are "all or nothing". Loss of brightness is due to a loss of photon numbers not due to photons losing energy a little bit at a time. This is nothing more than wave reflections and do not involve any actual energy processes. We know that individual photons can travel millions of light years through space and arrive at Earth with exactly the same original energy they left with. We know this through spectroscopic analysis of distant stars and aside from proper motion of the source, the frequency matches exactly the emission or absorption lines of the same elements here on Earth or on our Sun. If the frequency is the same then the energy is the same...
E = hf ... for all photons regardless of source. They do not "get tired" or run down in energy since they do not have any time, in their own rest frame, to do anything at all.

The photon when it is finally absorbed, only then is the energy of the photon 'reallocated" through loss of the qubit. The absorption of the photon into a particle or cavity involves possible reallocation of energy such that a photon may be absorbed and some kinetic energy might be left over after an electron is ejected in a photoelectric interaction in certain materials for instance.

Cheers
Confused2
Hi Good Elf,

The Zephir applet shows a blob with a physical width and length (spherical). If you give it infinite length then there would only be one frequency present .. and if you gave it infinite width then there would be no need to line it up with the slits.

Could the difference between my description of reality and your explanation of it be a matter of degree rather than form?

If we had very narrow slits we might see (say) fifty peaks * .. would this change the form of your photon?

-C2.

50 peaks is the description not the explanation. 1/Observe 2/Explain.
Confused2
Hi Good Elf,

Looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse

and comparing with

QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Naturally an electron wave is a totally different beastie. While it has "waves" it also has charge and the waves cannot be collapsed since the fields are "evanescent" and come from "inside the particle cavity" through tunneling (from our point of view). The reason this particle cannot collapse is because it is "knotted" through "parity" (symmetry) and Time (causality) and this is also linked to charge .... CPT conservation.


I think it would be helpful to show that these apparently very different processes are either equivalent or make clear that 'Wavefunction collapse (Elf)' is indeed a very different process from 'Wavefunction collapse (QM)'.

-C2.
Good Elf
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Jal et al,

We are probably the only two people reading this stuff you realize...
QUOTE (Confused2+)
The Zephir applet shows a blob with a physical width and length (spherical). If you give it infinite length then there would only be one frequency present .. and if you gave it infinite width then there would be no need to line it up with the slits.

Could the difference between my description of reality and your explanation of it be a matter of degree rather than form?
I did not see a caption with that blob... did you? Is it a photon or a particle like an electron. Electrons do not spread very much do they? But they can... look at this... You have seen this animation before. This does not show psi squared. Why do you think that is the case since only psi squared is used in almost all classical quantum mechanics?
user posted image
These are "realistic" concepts regarding trapped matter waves in cavities. Like I have said before, there is only one way to measure frequency that is perpendicular to the wavefront. That will always give the same wavelength (the distance between successive wavefronts with CW). The spatial frequency due to spreading does not matter. Collapse in that direction perpendicular to the wavefront can occur at an "infinite" speed. You still are not looking at it my way... that's OK though. When you "square"... inner product... a complex quantity you no longer able to "unsquare the function" since it has become a "projection".

The width of a packet can depend on the number of internal modes... For instance a laser pointer reduces the spreading wavelets to a single spatial direction with only a small amount of spreading. Still along that wavefront the same arguments apply. All waves do not spread on the surface of a complete sphere. Dipole radiators will spread on the surface of a sphere. Most natural sources of light will spread on the surface of a sphere. Please note ... a sphere not a hypersphere.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Naturally an electron wave is a totally different beastie. While it has "waves" it also has charge and the waves cannot be collapsed since the fields are "evanescent" and come from "inside the particle cavity" through tunneling (from our point of view). The reason this particle cannot collapse is because it is "knotted" through "parity" (symmetry) and Time (causality) and this is also linked to charge .... CPT conservation.
I think it would be helpful to show that these apparently very different processes are either equivalent or make clear that 'Wave-function collapse (Elf)' is indeed a very different process from 'Wave-function collapse (QM)'.
Like I said also before.... The Quantum Mechanical wave, as even quantum mechanist's will tell you, are "waves of nothing". Ask them what it means? I will not be saying that the QM Treatment gives the same level of self consistent interpretation that my concepts can only that my concepts does not cast away valuable data at an early stage of the analysis. It may be that the answers may be more difficult to arrive at and the results in certain calculations might be indistinguishable, but what I am attempting to find is the underlying Physics that conditions the statistics. In some areas I believe that the answers can be slightly better than with standard QED. In other areas it will give answers in regions where standard QED have no answers such as in "higher dimensions". There is no one mathematics to solve all problems, it is not my intention to do that. In the same way you may choose to use two dimensional equations of motions to solve for intersecting geodesics in spacetime with the earth surface I choose simplified arguments to arrive at "good enough" versions of the same problems with tools developed for other physics questions. The physics of three dimensional spaces is always the same be they our three dimensional space or "somewhere else". The only point I would call to your attention to the fact that the Hamiltonian is confined to one three dimensional "space" at a time... Other than the resonant processes which communicate "across" those "gaps", this results in energetically stationary states waiting for a collapse. These waves you are "seeing" (actually not seeing) are not the primary "particle" they are states in which no interchange of energy is occurring with our Universe. The "collapse" is when a "particle" enters into our three dimensional environment after a "sojourn" in energetically separate dimensions of a separate "quantum space" which is presented "on demand" when a "particle" is promoted into that realm... a quasi-stable state at best.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Wave-function collapse+)
In certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, wave-function collapse is one of two processes by which quantum systems apparently evolve according to the laws of quantum mechanics. It is also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet. The reality of wave-function collapse has always been debated, i.e. whether it is a fundamental phenomenon in its own right or just an epiphenomenon of another process (e.g. quantum decoherence). In recent decades the latter view has gained popularity.
My suggestion is a critical reading of this statement says quite a great deal. IMHO quantum decoherence is what we mean when a particle interaction has occurred. After that the wave-function is indeterminate even if the photon still exists as a ballistic (... as in DCQE Experiment). My photon-particle interactions have physical meaning and work on an entirely physical realm such as the realm of Circuit QED. If you read the literature most modern treatments do not use scalar waves of probability when you are trying to describe real Quantum Phenomena... the description is just not good enough. As to equivalence there is no such thing since Quantum Mechanics does not deal with three dimensional space but a mathematical space that has no direct relationship to scale or to place. Also "probability" is not a measurable of our Universe. Electric and magnetic fields are measurables. I do not have to show "equivalence" Quantum Mechanist's will indicate to you in the most strongest terms that these are apples and oranges. I ask you to tell me what distances mean and what you are discussing about those photon particles. Quantum Atomic Processes are an "adjustable membrane" you stretch through "renormalization" over whatever surface you you want. The assumption is that using this ad hoc Conformal Field Theory you must get the right answers I suppose... but I would rather like to check things with a meter.
wink.gif
QUOTE
"[Renormalization is] just a stop-gap procedure. There must be some fundamental change in our ideas, probably a change just as fundamental as the passage from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. When you get a number turning out to be infinite which ought to be finite, you should admit that there is something wrong with your equations, and not hope that you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that number."

- Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate 1933
user posted image


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"[Renormalization is] just a stop-gap procedure. There must be some fundamental change in our ideas, probably a change just as fundamental as the passage from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum mechanics. When you get a number turning out to be infinite which ought to be finite, you should admit that there is something wrong with your equations, and not hope that you can get a good theory just by doctoring up that number."

- Paul Dirac, Nobel laureate 1933
user posted image


"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
- Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate 1965
user posted image


Just because I am not following the "party line" in quantum physics I am entitled to see things the way I do since that way they make more sense to me. Mine is a purely physical theory and it is self consistent. I believe that it offers the same level of information as other less "human understandable" systems of analysis. It is important to have "human understandable" systems for our own peace of mind... my peace of mind. rolleyes.gif

Hope this helps. Try some practical resources such as ....
Center for Quantum Information, and the Rochester Theory Center.
Atomic Gap-Soliton
Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics

Cheers
jal
Good Day all!
Just a few word …
Good Elf
…..on the lower dimensional surfaces of Universes ….meaning … 2D
….. So dealing with waves instead of particles will remove the current inability to Unify Gravity ….???
….. This way you have an "Already Unified Theory" without the ugliness of quantizing the manifold... All part of a AdS/CFT Holographic Universe …..I disagree, it must be a quantizied 2D suface
….. The photons do not "change" the standing wave pattern in space it is already there…. Yes, I agree, see my quantized model
….. The standing waves in cavities already exist there and the photon just moves over the three dimensional surface as an "illumination" of that existing pattern….. yes, , I agree, see my quantized model
….. Therefore I can confidently say that the interference pattern of standing waves "exist" simultaneously everywhere and it is only that the photon "envelope" that propagates around all those places in space "illuminating" the relevant paths of the pattern (seeking all paths)….. ….. yes, I agree, see my quantized model
…. If you are focusing on the "local" events too much then you miss the point of global events where this is not a local phenomenon. ….. yes, I agree, see my quantized model
…. since everything in the Universe is waves even the matter….….. yes, I agree, see my quantized model

…. When I say proofs ... what I mean is strong experimental basis…. I GOT MORE PROOF THAN YOU…., see my quantized model
….Mine is a purely physical theory and it is self consistent…. MINE HAS DETAILS AND IS BETTER

Why Not?
….An expanding universe, like ours, that comes from a big bang does not have such a well-behaved boundary. Consequently, it is not clear how to define a holographic theory for our universe; there is no convenient place to put the hologram…..SOOO… LET’S GET RID OF THE B.B. AND THE CURRENT EXPLANATION FOR THE EXPANSION , see my quantized model AND EXPLANATION

Troc
I’m preparing/making a link… DYNAMIC MODEL …. double tetrahedron structure
Maybe you can make music with this model and someone can adapt this to the 4S model.


Laserlight
I'm still grappling with the theoretical "mechanics" of elements of this experiment
and quantum interactions…., see my quantized model AND EXPLANATION

Duality
The LQ foam people are plodding through their math. Eventually, I am sure, they will get to the SPOT.
jal
smile.gif
ps I'm also reading
Laserlight
Good Elf and All,

I awoke EARLY this morning with an epiphany.

There is a fundamental issue with our inability to comprehend the true nature
of a single photon. Either my interpretation of a photon, or the way the standard
2D models depict a photon as a waveform, is wrong. We are all trained by
the same classical concepts, but some have more extensive and varied
training than others. We have been misled or confused by the water wave,
which is a ripple on a 2D surface, and the simplified EM sine wave diagrams.

A single photon is not a "wave" in the conventional sine wave sense. It is a
pure energy pulse "spike".Don't come unglued yet! Hear me out. Think
of it like the noise shock wave radiating from a firecracker thrown up into the
air. The shock wave radiates 360 degrees from the explosion. In the context
of a "wave" it is actually a radiating pulse, which is the simplest form of a
basic wave. A sine wave is a sequential repeating series of time delayed
energy pulses of equal amplitude and equal duration, it is just divided by a
mean zero signal value. This gives it the cycle values, frequency, amplitude, and
wavelength over a time interval. A sine wave is the mathematical representation
of cyclical spherical EM radiation emissions in 3 dimensions and time at a fixed
reference point in space.

It is my contention that, in its purest form, a single photon is an energy pulse
radiating in a 360 degree sphere from its point source atom of origin.

This somewhat follows the dipole model, but not exactly. A dipole is
concentrated "polarized" matter from which energy radiates in a toroidal
shaped pattern from a centerline axis. A single atom is a point source.

Ok, let's assume a single atom of hydrogen is confined in an evacuated glass sphere
in a lab. Now if it were possible to supply a single energy pulse of sufficient
power (a single high energy photon) to the single hydrogen atom it would
temporarily "absorb" some of the energy pulse being applied. Its electron would
be displaced from its steady state "uncertainty" orbital energy level as it gained
potential energy from the applied pulse. After the applied pulse passes, the
electron drops back into its normal energy orbital and releases a single photon
pulse of kinetic energy. That single photon "light pulse" can be seen (detected)
by all observers from all 360 degree spherical locations, as long as they have
an unobstructed mean free sight path to the radiating atom. This can be verified
by the dual slit and multi-slit experiment where the single photon passes thru
all slits oriented perpendicularly to its arc expansion "path". Water and sound
follow the same mechanics. (There is a null point between slits on the output
side of the blocking wall)


The implications of this seem obvious.

1. A single photon energy pulse is an expanding (radiating) spherical
displacement of energy in 3 physical dimensions along a timeline which is c.

2. Since it is a sphere, the 360 degree mathematical relationship to pi is
consistent.

3. If viewed properly at any point along the advancing wave pulse, the
energy/intensity of the pulse is an arc curvature shaped wavefront of the energy
displacement.

4. The amplitude and power factor of the photon wave arc is determined by the
cross sectional area of the sphere at the measured radian distance from the
center of the sphere. This fits the ISL for power/intensity as a function of distance from the source.

5. Since the pulse energy wavefunction is an increasing sphere, it "fills" all space
equally as it expands thru it. In a crossection of a given volume there is an
expanding z axis arc wavefront energy pulse that traverses perpendicular to the
cross sectional xy axes of the volume.

6. The energy pulse wavefront can be divided, reflected, absorbed, refracted,
or diffused by interacting with matter.

Disagreements, different opinions, alternative perspectives or interpretations
welcome. Let's discuss it and develop it if it warrants further scrutiny.

LL
Duality
To all, thanks Good Elf, yes about YQ,

For what is is worth --> he hopes this is the hottest post on the forum because of no interference from those who invade so many others.

Question? I want to put in some equations, how? & Who post what? I keep getting MY Website...

1. I need to read a summation of your concept in full, do you have a page explaining?
Good Elf, Confused2, Laserlight, jal, THor, and anyone else on this post.

I do not like just to jump into a discussion till I first go over in full, the model that each person presents. I hope this is not asking to much!

Oh, I will not use to much mathematics, Yq, advised not to seem esoteric, I believe that is how he express his concern.

Thanks,
Duality/Lisa wub.gif
Laserlight
Good Elf,

QUOTE
My view is once you believe that you will believe anything at all and I can tell you about the faries at the bottom of the garden and you will say "Really?"


Well, if you can believe in elves, then I can believe in fairies. LOL!

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
My view is once you believe that you will believe anything at all and I can tell you about the faries at the bottom of the garden and you will say "Really?"


Well, if you can believe in elves, then I can believe in fairies. LOL!


We know this through spectroscopic analysis of distant stars and aside from proper motion of the source, the frequency matches exactly the emission or absorption lines of the same elements here on Earth or on our Sun. If the frequency is the same then the energy is the same...


Hmmm, I agree with most of this. I'm talking amplitudes/scaling. You can have
different amplitude sine waves at the same frequency. Same frequency, different
amplitude or power level. Isn't that how attenuation works? Correct me if I
am wrong.

Comments welcome.
LL
Laserlight
Hi Duality/Lisa,

If you click on a members name you can select a listing of all of their
posts. In the case of Good Elf, there are thousands of posts. Perhaps he
has a board of his posts with a compilation of main points/theories and
references.
Jal and Zephir sponsor such boards.

LL
Laserlight
Jal,
I am still reading your board. Pretty interesting. I'm trying to take it all
in, since your theoretical approach is new to me. So far, so good, but I am
still reading and digesting the information.

Off Topic-
I understand your point source, phase rotation relationship across 12 touching
points of the spheres that make up a unity sphere. What about the 12
sub-spheres that fill each of the 12 stacking spheres, ad infinitum? Seems like a
ratio within a ratio. This isn't the correct forum for an answer...just curious.
I'll continue to read. Perhaps you answer that further in.

Regards,
LL
Laserlight
C2-

So is the photon a particle or a wave? Previously you were sticking
with the particle scenario. The results of the DSE speak for themselves and
we are getting our arms around the mechanism of WHY they provide the
result.

I agree that the counts of the DSE are roughly 2x of any single slit alone.
I am still baffled by the total counts and graph given at the end of the experiment,
and the declining alternating mirror amplitudes of the waveform results of the single photon
DSE. These are the only things I am questioning with the results presented.
HOWEVER, correctly explaining the BASE nature of the discrete photon is
my primary goal at this point.

I say EM expanding (radiating) wave "pulse".

Comments welcome.
LL
Duality
jal,

Thanks, I assumed and we know what they say about that, I was lucky it is the same as on other sites, dealing with physics, chemistry, & science on the www.

Got it, and thanks again.

Still reading, you and the others have much, must find the time to peruse!

Duality/Lisa
TRoc
Hi all,


Just some responses to questions for me. I will have to "leave" the conversation for a week or so. I have enjoyed everyones' ideas, and questions. I will "catch up" when I return.


C2
QUOTE
"..we set up another DSE anywhere .. we get another DSE.."


No problem with that, I'm not sure why the question?

C2
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"..we set up another DSE anywhere .. we get another DSE.."


No problem with that, I'm not sure why the question?

C2 "If you generate extra frequencies every time then the analysis of your next DSE .. "


"every time"?, too vague. Again, I'm not sure why you said this.


WN?
QUOTE
"TRoc, QM (particularly QED) reduces to good old Maxwell in the classical limit. "


I agree there.

WN?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
"TRoc, QM (particularly QED) reduces to good old Maxwell in the classical limit. "


I agree there.

WN? "As such, I doubt it would have a difficult time dealing with FM.  "


I hope that I didn't suggest that it would. The point of the post on AM, was to point out that MODULATING the AMPLITUDE downward to give lower "photon" counts, is just SUPERPOSING a "sideband" low frequency over the fundamental frequency of the laser. This "pulse" of "1 photon per second" says nothing about the Energy present in the wave.

The Energy present, at any time during this experiment, is expressed by E=hf ; the "pulse" Energy is not the frequency that the laser is emitting, so it CAN NOT measure the Energy present. Once again, our way of measuring, both "creates" and IGNORES the "dark Energy". What does E equal when the pulse is NOT present?

Frequency is a RATE. When this rate is COMPARED to the constant RATE of the velocity of an EM wave, you get c / f = wavelength = "clicks" of distance. You can't arbitrarily draw a circle, or envelope, around these FIXED lines and claim to have created a "new distance", to the exclusion of the FIXED lines. On the contrary, the FIXED lines, EXPRESSED as a RATIO, can always be "measured" in side the arbitrary "envelope". The RATE of DISTANCE per SECOND, Velocity, compared to the RATE of DISTANCE per CYCLE gives us THE CYCLES PER SECOND answer. You can "cut up" this RATIO however you would like, but you will not change its FUNDAMENTAL value.

MASS and ENERGY both have a roll in Resonance. As an interaction, both are required.

GE suggests that the resonances are ALWAYS present in any cavity, automatically. That is not false. However, if you are sitting in the amphitheater, waiting to "hear something", we know that you won't. The harmonic set of oscillators MUST be present to detect the CHANGES in equilibrium that we exist in.

Each musician in the symphony has access to roughly the same few octaves of notes (range of frequencies), and they usually have 4 fingers moving, and CREATING CHANGES to their SIGNALS. Lets say we have 100 musicians, making an average of 3 frequencies each. When your mind "interprets" this data (changing frequencies), it sounds beautiful (for arguments sake, lets AGREE on that).

Who here thinks that these SUPERPOSED frequencies, NOT in any random way, do ALL their "work" when they arrive in your ear? That is, the INTERACTION, that we all agree is happening, happens in your ear. What about anyone else in the room?

The fact is this: these 300~400 frequencies superimpose to create an "overall" change in frequency. It is not complicated, because the NUMBER of NOTES are limited. You will "note" here, that SO ARE OUR FUNDAMENTAL OSCILLATORS. We just have electrons, and their orbitals to contend with, and THEIR SPECTRA can be TOTALLY described and understood from around 2 "octaves" above or below the VISIBLE SPECTRUM.

So, the INTERACTIONS of these waves, MUST HAPPEN on the way to your ears. It is also VERY important to note that, our ears are SLIGHTLY out of tune with each other. THIS IS A BEAT FREQUENCY MODULATOR. Our ears take the signal, create a beat, or RATIO scale, and send the beat frequency (NOT any single oscillation from the orchestra) to the brain.

Do the "acoustics" matter? Of course, the size and shape of the cavity set up CONDITIONS for specific interactions. But you still need music to be played, and heard to understand the fundamental event that is happening when Energy MOVES.


WN?, I will do more to explain the photoelectric effect, later, and elsewhere. You can see where I am going, and how I will do it though. tongue.gif

The mathematics of Resonance are simple enough to be applied to basically anything. The atom has an overall frequency, this has certain harmonics, changes to these harmonics can be measured if frequency. SHG is "clickable" Energy, and its' Beat-frequency is the Fundamental: this means if you hit the harmonic with an equal frequency, the INTERACTION of the beats RE-creates the original frequency. That simple musical (and now optical) fact, describes atomic transitions. IT IS THE REASON WHY for Quantum Mechanics, that they have been seeking from the beginning.

At the other end of the scale, you have the "ionization level", where the harmonic (orbital) can NOT exist with the (now too far out of the Zone) Fundamental. Guess what is in the CENTER frequency position? The "work function", which always "hangs out" at the first harmonic of the NEW Fundamental. This is simple, recursive, Scale Function. Exactly the same reason, and rules that apply to a musician scales.

This measure as a "dip" in the count rate (resistance). The real QUESTION (as usual) is not what QM has asked. Did an "electron" interact with a nearby electron, or did a photon exist in between them? Or did the rule for "ionization" level get broken? (it happened prematurely) Keep in mind this is PRIMARILY a "metallic" phenomenon, with their LOOSE outer electrons. You could begin with a THREE part casmir force (describe a center plate by the forces that exist between the other 2 around it) .

The simple Resonant change: at the ENDS of the reach of interactions (RIZ) a "new force" comes into play. The DISSONANCES begin to ATTRACT each other. This is the other side of Resonance. The frequencies FAR from the Fundamental, DISASSOCIATE with the original Fundamental, and JOIN to form a new one.

This DOES NOT work in REVERSE, unless you BREAK up the "standing wave" resonances. This is conservation of Energy, and simple HEAT per MASS unit flow from Hot to Cold. Stability, equilibrium, etc.

[the "answers" you get from "breaking up"/colliding these are not Fundamental]



ciao!

T.Roc



Confused2
Hi LL, All,

I'm sorry if you feel mislead and confused by the ripple tank. I did not intend to suggest that the ripple tank explains how photons travel .. the ripple tank only explains the result of the DSE .. which is another matter altogether. If you keep your eye on the ripple tank (and the DSE equation) you can see where the bright bits are going to be. As soon as you take your eye off the ripple tank you start seeing wave-packets and various wishy washy ways of trying to make a wave packet look like something other than a wave packet.

Since your epiphany I guess you have flipped into a wavepacket/spike/impulse way of thinking and I would guess the DSE looks 'wrong' .. too many peaks .. why THAT equation ... what is the relevence of the ripple tank and its beautiful patterns.. and so on. UNLESS you look at the DSE it is entirely possible that there is absolutely nothing wrong with wavepackets, physics is riddled with them.

Maybe the C2 solution only gives the right answer IF and only if you look at the DSE. The photon instantaneously (or nearly so) solves the continuous single frequency excitation response of the whole DSE .. possibly the Universe. It is (I'm pretty sure) incidentally and not uncoincidentally the same result as Feynman's 'Sum over Paths' but stated differently. Both require belief in magic. I prefer my words to Feynman's .. it is more magical and the right person could explain it using a ripple tank which is also a thing of great beauty and no small amount of magic. I'm sure Good Elf would confirm that I have been pregnant for some time. The baby is still only a few days old and I need time to work out just how powerful it is .. or whether it might have to be .. er... 'sent away'.

I leave it on the table for discussion if anyone wants to discuss it.

For what it's worth - I think a photon is a particle - no more than a particle with an attitude problem.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Confused2
Hi Troc,

QUOTE

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

 
"If you generate extra frequencies every time then the analysis of your next DSE .. "



"every time"?, too vague. Again, I'm not sure why you said this.



You put another DSE in the path of the first what becomes of your beat frequencies? The DSE is itself a frequency analyser.

Best wishes,
-C2.
Laserlight
TRoc,

Good argument. You are talking resonance "keys", like the key of C or G. All
tones of the key note are harmonics of the fundamental? Yes/No
I would imagine that you could easily prove your point by measuring the
bright bands and the dark bands and finding the ratio between their peaks
and widths. The reason that I say this is that, without doing anything else
to the experiment, if you change the gap spacing of the slits the number of
and distance of the bands changes. Kind of like a flautist changing the
hole pattern that he is covering with his fingers. The resonance frequency
of the cavity changes the pitch of the note. Same note, different pitch. Same cavity, different gap spacining.

If all the instruments in an orchestra play the exact same note you will not be able
to descriminate an individual instrument from the harmonic note being played,
they will resonate at the same frequency. We however have 1 frequency of
light. My point being that the only variable is the gap spacing, and the harmonic
tone that it generates.

Arivaderci! rolleyes.gif

LL
Laserlight
Hi C2,

Where do I begin?? To the contrary, the wave tank does not conflict at all. What
is 1 thing about any open area wave energy pulse in nature?
Come on, you know the answer to this! LOL!

They all radiate out from a center emission point and propagate radially
in all directions. Water is 2 dimensional (+time) so waves are "confined" to that 2
dimensional plane of reference and propagate as a circle. Sound
propagates in 3 dimensions+time. A sphere. How about a free standing
non-directional radio antenna it radiates as a circular 3D +time toroidal
wave
.

The fundamental law of nature is that a wave pulse radiates uniformly
in all directions in the media that it is transmitted in. It can be directionalized or
modified by interference with matter, but in a free standing system, it radiates and
propagates in either a circular or spherical pattern depending on the planes it
can interact with.

Take the pattern of a single photon thru a slit. It forms a simple diffraction pattern
as part of the total energy of the original wave passes thru the slit.

Now without changing the setup, add another slit. Energy from the same
photon goes thru both slits and a periodic interference pattern is generated.

Now add a 3rd and 4th slit. The radiating photon goes thru each extra slit
(within the bounds of the arc area of the expanding photon wave. The number of
bars and nulls displayed on the background increases. (The ISL comes into play
as a function of distance from the source, and the angle of incidence to the
arc of the expanding photon, since the single photons in the experiment were
projected thru a couple of polarizing filters which effectively clipped their angle of
arc "projection". The more photons there are, the brighter the intensity of the
bands. The brightness of the bands is a function of intensity only, that is
the number of photons that strike that location over a given time. Whether you
have 1 photon wave "pulse" or a billion photon wave "pulses". The width of the
bands represents the distribution of the individual photon pulses as they
interfere going thru the slits.

My contention is that whether you have individual photons or a million photons radiating
thru 2 fixed postition slits, they will form the same number of bands. Just their
intensities will be different.

If light is a particle, how can it go thru two or more separated slits, and how can
it interfere with itself.

Keep in mind that all waves in free space propagate radially from a center point
of origin. That was even illustrated in the drawing of the DSE by Young, who
could only observe it in 2 dimensions which yielded circles. If you project it in
the z plane also, you get a spherical radiation pattern. If the back board of the
back plane were curved to match the arc of the circle you would get evenly
spaced lines projected in "3D" (I believe this is correct)

I think that even a laser beam divergence is measured in degrees of arc over
distance.

Comments/discussion welcome!

LL
Good Elf
Hi Jal,

QUOTE (Jal+)
on the lower dimensional surfaces of Universes ….meaning … 2D
….. So dealing with waves instead of particles will remove the current inability to Unify Gravity ….???
Yes... because "Already Unified" Electrodynamics does not require manifold quantization, it is perfectly internally consistent without gravity and gravity is perfectly internally consistent without manifold quantization. Disagreement comes with particle theories which want to quantize the manifold to justify their own purpose. Do not be misled by people who wish to peddle theories that have no direct clear method of experimental proof. These theories are just that and are a very long way off from being experimentally proven. When I mean a "very long way off" I really mean millions of years from our present technology... if it can be proven at all. I am not led by any experiment to believe that manifold quantization is in fact occurring. I am also not a popularist... I am not seeking "funding".

IMHO therefore a continuum theory will work very nicely provided that quantization becomes a process in which quanta are generated perfectly naturally. You can explain all quanta using Fourier decomposition and all quantum numbers being the eigen states generated on the surface of harmonic spheres as continuous functions.
QUOTE (Jal+)
I disagree, it must be a quantized 2D surface
Why? Remember my theory is the reciprocal of AdS/CFT. The 'quantization" is on the surface of the particle.
QUOTE (Jal+)
When I say proofs ... what I mean is strong experimental basis…. I GOT MORE PROOF THAN YOU…., see my quantized model
Sorry... this is not simple "product definition", I have nothing to sell here. "More" is not easy to "quantify". For me "less" is "more". One contrary experiment can sink my theory forever. you just need to find it.
QUOTE (Jal+)
Mine is a purely physical theory and it is self consistent…. MINE HAS DETAILS AND IS BETTER
I guess your case like mine rests on "perceptions". Have you convinced Stephen Hawking of your "better" theory? I know I have not but I do not intend to. While you are invited to put forward specific places where you see experiment differing with my "model", I am not easily convinced that it is wrong with the argument you have given here. it is also not a "popularity contest" where people,lawyers or Judge Judy vote on the Physics they would like. I like the fact that the Universe is the ultimate arbiter on all matters through experiment. The level of our Understanding and our Technology will determine just how good we are at solving these problems and ultimately determines 'ranking" relative to other competing but "lesser" theories. A kind of "scientific morality" dependent on true understanding not on "brute" force or numbers.

There is no disagreement here, I see these things differently. I am solving a quite different problem and I use different tools. There is no one answer and there are no "ultimate answers"... that is an axiom of human knowledge. All anyone can hope to do is satisfy all verified experiments and that is what I am aiming for.

Cheers
jal
Good Elf
QUOTE
There is no disagreement here, I see these things differently

I agree... I prefer my detail approach smile.gif
jal
Duality
Good Elf, Jal, & all,

I wanted to find a paper that was a easy read, but this might be a bit much. When you bring in topics like above you must include what has been tested with experiment and data.

This is the easiest paper I could find that might give some information that could be of help. Not sure after reading the last few post where this is going. But I have the feeling we are no longer in Kansas, Dorthy? unsure.gif

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...gr-qc%2F0606021

I am not even sure this applies to the discussion? I think I will read later post and then see where you end up. Yq, sure does not ask much of a girl that is for sure.biggrin.gif

Duality/Lisa
Laserlight
Good Elf,

With due respect, I have some philosophical disagreements RE:

QUOTE
the event and its outcome happened in a single instant when the photon was created and absorbed. Quite frankly there is no time for anything to happen to the photon... so nothing "dynamic" can happen to it without any passage of time (think about it!). Everything else is "smoke and mirrors" and a mirage in which this phenomenon may as well not be happening... indeed this is exactly what Quantum Mechanics actually says aboiut it (I do not believe that though)... it says the photon actually does not have any existence at all until its "wave-function" collapses


IMO, this makes no practical or logical sense. A photon exists in OUR spacetime
and in OUR planes of existence. They interact with us and we with them at
a physical level.
Just because we cannot detect a photon as it propagates, and during the process
of detecting it changes its form of energy at that specific detection point, does not mean that it does not exist.
Its speed has been measured, it has properties that we can "control" to some
extent. 200 years ago no one knew what electricity was, or the atom....we are
still exploring and trying to find answers to many natural mysteries. Just don't
tell me that the world is flat because no one has proved that it isn't.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
the event and its outcome happened in a single instant when the photon was created and absorbed. Quite frankly there is no time for anything to happen to the photon... so nothing "dynamic" can happen to it without any passage of time (think about it!). Everything else is "smoke and mirrors" and a mirage in which this phenomenon may as well not be happening... indeed this is exactly what Quantum Mechanics actually says aboiut it (I do not believe that though)... it says the photon actually does not have any existence at all until its "wave-function" collapses


IMO, this makes no practical or logical sense. A photon exists in OUR spacetime
and in OUR planes of existence. They interact with us and we with them at
a physical level.
Just because we cannot detect a photon as it propagates, and during the process
of detecting it changes its form of energy at that specific detection point, does not mean that it does not exist.
Its speed has been measured, it has properties that we can "control" to some
extent. 200 years ago no one knew what electricity was, or the atom....we are
still exploring and trying to find answers to many natural mysteries. Just don't
tell me that the world is flat because no one has proved that it isn't.

Photons cannot be partly scattered. Once the qubit is lost that is the end of the coherent interference game for that one photon. The interactions are "all or nothing". Loss of brightness is due to a loss of photon numbers not due to photons losing energy a little bit at a time. This is nothing more than wave reflections and do not involve any actual energy processes. We know that individual photons can travel millions of light years through space and arrive at Earth with exactly the same original energy they left with. We know this through spectroscopic analysis of distant stars and aside from proper motion of the source, the frequency matches exactly the emission or absorption lines of the same elements here on Earth or on our Sun. If the frequency is the same then the energy is the same...
E = hf ... for all photons regardless of source.


IMO, there are some inconsistencies in the arguments you have made over the
past months that conflict with some of the statements above.

QUOTE
Photons cannot be partly scattered.  Once the qubit is lost that is the end of the coherent interference game for that one photon. The interactions are "all or nothing"

Using your description
of a hologram, where every broken piece of the hologram exactly records the
exact same full scene of the full hologram. Parts of the photon were everywhere
simultaneously as they interacted with matter, and yet the wavefunction did not
collase and register an event at only 1 point. The wavefunction was recorded
at all points in the matrix of the hologram. That implies that the wavefronts of the
photons were at all places in the matter matrix simultaneously. There is no other
way to explain the phenomenon any other way. That interval of time was locked
everywhere in the matrix at the same time by the same wavefront(s).

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Photons cannot be partly scattered.  Once the qubit is lost that is the end of the coherent interference game for that one photon. The interactions are "all or nothing"

Using your description
of a hologram, where every broken piece of the hologram exactly records the
exact same full scene of the full hologram. Parts of the photon were everywhere
simultaneously as they interacted with matter, and yet the wavefunction did not
collase and register an event at only 1 point. The wavefunction was recorded
at all points in the matrix of the hologram. That implies that the wavefronts of the
photons were at all places in the matter matrix simultaneously. There is no other
way to explain the phenomenon any other way. That interval of time was locked
everywhere in the matrix at the same time by the same wavefront(s).

This is nothing more than wave reflections and do not involve any actual energy processes.


This was regarding the issue of the photon wavefront reflecting off the incident
walls of the slit and post while also separating and passing thru both slits
simultaneously. There is some inconsistency here, IMO. The truth is we don't
know what power component was lost due to reflections or absorption of the
wavefront that didn't travel thru the slits. By your definition of how a collapsing
wavefront operates, if walls and center post of the DSE were a blackbody material
then the wavefront would collapse and be absorbed by the blackbody walls and
post and wouldn't travel thru the slits. I don't think this would happen, I think
that the single photon would still go thru the slits.

Do you agree or disagree?





From Wikipedia:

QUOTE
The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. An object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only Ľ the energy (in the same time period). More generally, the irradiance, i.e., the intensity (or power per unit area in the direction of propagation), of a spherical wavefront varies inversely with the square of the distance from the source (assuming there are no losses caused by absorption or scattering). For example, the intensity of radiation from the Sun is 9140 watts per square meter at the distance of Mercury (0.387AU); but only 1370 watts per square meter at the distance of Earth (1AU)—a three-fold increase in distance results in a nine-fold decrease in intensity of radiation.
The law is particularly important in diagnostic radiography and radiotherapy treatment planing
For another example, let the total power radiated from a point source, e.g., an omnidirectional isotropic antenna, be . At large distances from the source (compared to the size of the source), this power is distributed over larger and larger spherical surfaces as the distance from the source increases. Since the surface area of a sphere of radius r  is user posted image, then intensity I of radiation at distance r is
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image

The energy or intensity, decreases by a factor of Ľ as the distance r is doubled, or measured in dB it would decrease by 6.02 dB. This is the fundamental reason why intensity of radiation, whether it is electromagnetic or acoustic radiation, follows the inverse-square behavior, at least in the ideal 3 dimensional context (propagation in 2 dimensions would follow a just an inverse-proportional distance behavior and propagation in 1 dimension, the plane wave, remains constant in amplitude even as distance from the source changes).


Comments discussion welcome.

Regards,
LL
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
[...]the event and its outcome happened in a single instant when the photon was created and absorbed.[...] IMO, this makes no practical or logical sense. A photon exists in OUR spacetime and in OUR planes of existence. They interact with us and we with them at a physical level.
Sorry you feel that way since all experiment does point to the result as I have stated. I really do not have to prove that at all. What makes sense to you does not matter since it is the way the Universe works... and it is how closely you are able to gain instruction from it that ultimately matters. Everything else is hubris. What you say about light is just not true. The quantum state is 'untouchable" and while a photon in that state the photon cannot change and that means there are absolutely no interactions... this is an experimental fact and it is the base nature of the quantum... you cannot measure it or interact with it and not change its state without scattering it or absorbing it. Specifically we are speaking about photons "en route" to the absorption/scattering event. The photon experiences "no dynamic" during this stage of its "existence" (creation followed by state collapse). Any change will tamper with the qubit and then that photon will no longer be capable of "coherent" action through its wave nature. It is no longer part of the set of photons that have that certain interference pattern. That is the nature of the quantum. Sometimes you cannot invoke "common sense" since "common sense" is not so common and "human logic" without science is the root of all human conflict. The "interaction" with a photon is strictly "outside" the limits defined by myself above. The photon travels (if this is what you call travel) in a state that cannot be detected without causing its collapse. That is not a matter you are going to win on. In that "state" it remains unchanged .... as long as it is undetected without change even "forever". No losses no alterations... etc.

With all due respect... You like the rest of us must accept that there are some things that just "are" and not under yours or my philosophical control. Once people accept that there are limits to what can be done in the Universe through the Universe literally telling us its own story with experiment, we can rest in acceptance of our lesser role in the things "seen and unseen". Later on "down the track" of human progress we learn more tricks and ask better questions and then we find "exceptions" and "extensions" to the hard and fast rules. This is happening with Quantum Physics, no broken rules but more exceptions and new applications of ideas. These exceptions and enlarged sets of rules are couched within the total experimental base that has gone before.

I view Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model like the Earth Centered Universe of Claudius Ptolemy.
Wikipedia: Geocentric model
Firstly he stole the idea from the Chaldeans (Ancient Babylonians... you know the guys we have invaded)... the Saros Cycle.
Wikipedia: Saros Cycle
The ancients showed conclusively that the Universe was a hollow shell with "fixed stars". They were fixed since no parallax was seen for these objects in the heavens. This was proof positive of "no extra dimensional space" beyond that shell and all fixed stars were on that shell. Inside that shell were the wandering stars (planets) which moved in "circular epicycles" with the Earth at its center...(The epicycles were "perfect circles" when the planets went back on their own "orbits"). Sort of like those Mechanical geared automaton models (Orrery) of the solar system with its gears. The system could be adjusted with additional "epicycles" of varying periods to correct for deviations from the perfect model. It was found that all observations could be accounted for by such a system. A wonderful theory but totally wrong. But the maths was exceedingly good. To argue from that "end" that the theory is right because it gets the right answer has always been the catch cry of "theorists" for many centuries. My view is do not fit the Universe to a theory fit our theories to the Universe.... the Universe knows best! Today we have a theory that is warm and comfortable but makes no sense but gives excellent answers (Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model)... one day people of the future will laugh at our ignorance. What they will point to is our lack of being able to look at facts objectively and see our world the way it truly is accepting it for face value without the "magic".

Cheers
Confused2
Hi LL,

I liked that bit about intensity. Let's have a point source .. are we happy that they mean something like omnidirectional? We have our source at the centre of a sphere . It does not matter whether we are in the middle of the desert or not .. this is not a trick experiment.

Let's say our source is emitting light at a frequency of about 5 x 10^14 Hz.. From E = hf we can say the energy per photon is about 6.6 x 10^-34 x 5 x 10^14 = 3 x 10^-19 J .

We make our source give an output of 3 x 10^-19 Watts .. that's 1 photon a second.

We make a sphere 1 metre in radius and cover the inside of it with photographic film. .. we put our source at the centre.

After 1 second (that's one photon) we turn our source off .. take the film away and develop it and sure enough we find one spot. Hopefully we agree that this is not exactly 'omnidirectional' .. the whole of the output ended up in one spot.

Maybe that wasn't fair..
We repeat the experiment .. leaving the source on for 7 seconds .. that should be enough to get 7 dots equally spread over our film .. lets wait and see..

We repeat the experiment AGAIN.. leaving the source on for 23 seconds .. that should be enough to get 23 dots eaqually spread over our film.

We can go through the motions of developing the film but hopefully we can already see that the dots for the 7 second run are going to need a different distribution from the dots in our 23 second run. To get the dots in the right places the source would need to know in advance how long the experiment was going to last and it would have had to work out the angle to fire the photon at and it would have had to remember which photons it had fired so it didn't accidentally put two in the same place. Some people will claim this is exactly what happens.

We should notice, while we're here, that if we doubled the radius of our sphere then the amount of photographic film required to cover the inside of the sphere would increase by a factor of four. In every case the same number of photons would have been spread over four times the area .. the inverse square law still applies but not like it used to when we were in Kansas.

-C2.
Confused2
Hi LL,

We've had a little look at intensity .. hopefully it's clear I'm the only one on this thread who doesn't understand what the 'intensity' of electromagnetic wave is.

Let us look at the DSE again. It is a machine for measuring wavelength. We can tell this from the equation given here ( http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ).

When the first photon lands .. can we tell the wavelength? .. clearly not .. we know they turn up all over the place .. two photons? .. the result here ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) shows that we will need to detect a lot of photons to get an accurate measurement of the wavelength. In Kansas you read the wavelength off the side of the source and then you know exactly what will happen. The DSE suggests you don't know exactly what will happen even after you've read the label, maybe you get a different result in Kansas .. I don't know, I've never been there.

I could go on to look at frequency but maybe I've already done too much for one day.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Confused2
Hi LL,

Let us imagine a football gives birth to a ping-pong ball. How symmetrical is that? The only way to make it symmetrical is put the ping-pong ball back inside the football. So can a dipole giving birth to a photon be symmetrical? Even in Kansas?

-C2.
Confused2
Hi LL,

Everybody in Kansas knows that light travels at the speed of light.

We're not supposed to do this but we could briefly look at the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment..
http://www.antidogma.ru/english/node40.html

QUOTE
..lengths of perpendicular arms were made EVIDENTLY DIFFERENT in Kennedy-Thorndike's interferometer. However, for the interferometric pattern [..] the only important thing is the difference of paths of light rays with respect to the wavelength of used light (part of the wavelength).


Sounds like the same equation all over again ( http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ) All you need to know is the path difference. If the path lengths are VERY different (eg Kennedy Thorndike) then what about the inverse square law? Doesn't the wave fall off with the inverse square law so the intensity of the wave on the longer path would be less than that on the shorter path? That would certainly be the case in Kansas... but we're not in Kansas now. In the rest of our universe the 'intensity' of a photon never changes .. you either get one or you don't. See earlier for discussion of Kansas/real intensity.

The part of the wave travelling the longer path will take longer than the part of the wave travelling the shorter path .. and if it's light then it should travel at the speed of light ... everybody in Kansas knows that. So the two waves never meet, there can be no interference .. at least not in Kansas. We're not in Kansas now.

-C2.
Confused2
Hi LL,

I'm mostly writing about the results of experiments. How much of Kansas physics applies outside of Kansas? Please let me know if you spot anything.

Best wishes,

C2.
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight et al,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
This is nothing more than wave reflections and do not involve any actual energy processes.
This was regarding the issue of the photon wavefront reflecting off the incident walls of the slit and post while also separating and passing thru both slits simultaneously. There is some inconsistency here, IMO. The truth is we don't know what power component was lost due to reflections or absorption of the wavefront that didn't travel thru the slits. By your definition of how a collapsing wavefront operates, if walls and center post of the DSE were a blackbody material then the wavefront would collapse and be absorbed by the blackbody walls and post and wouldn't travel thru the slits. I don't think this would happen, I think that the single photon would still go thru the slits.

Do you agree or disagree?
I disagree. Remember everything is really waves, no better way to demonstrate this than with this illustration. Black Body or not absorption also depends on other factors. Clearly these are the topics which are dividing us. Intensity is a scalar. This is produced by an inner product. Some comments you have made suggest that light is "only" a single spike of energy. You read this as "intensity". This is equivalent to psi squared. We have discussed before what "stresses on the membrane" of the Universe might mean. What every theory must explain is not your scalar wave but the two conjugate electric and magnetic fields. In Wheeler-Feynman Theory you would not ever be able to separate these two, since fields extend to infinity in both directions of time and throughout all space. Even a "permanent" bar magnet will have an associated electric field and that depends on the rate of change of the magnetic field over time (...of course this is an evanescent field and so it cannot radiate away). The exception is try striking the magnet with a hammer and see what the virtual photons will do to the permanent field (electric and magnetic). We have discussed "indirectly" the intensity through spreading. Each individual photon flash contributes to the intensity and our "optical" sensors only see a flash they do not measure the field strengths in various complex directions. Sometimes these fields add and sometimes they subtract. Always they are Complex (with a capital C).

The photon has that central "eye" which we agree unable to predict. It is distributed for all photons uniformly over that spherical expanding surface... but wait... what happens when instead of anti-nodes we have nodes where the photon virtually cannot be detected. what if the "eye" is in that region when it is passing barriers. Regardless of the pattern the "eye" will pass through a wall or apparently pass through a wall through quantum tunneling. Now the "eye" could be considered as a "nothing" since it is a "still point" in the photon or it can be considered as the real essence of the photon... where the photon is located according to particle theorists. Please note I could make that photon pass through a mile of matter if I force the matter into some harmonic resonance with a carrier wave ... then our coherent photons will slip through the node created there (forbidden band gap). This is Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT)... a simplified version of it anyway.

I prefer to think of it in a protected space even if that space is within a brick wall and this harmonic function allows the photon to travel up to a wavelength inside pure solid matter (or as solid as matter actually gets) as if the wall was not there. The kind of phenomena when "ball lightning" can pass through the conducting metal walls of an aircraft in flight. Alternatively for that short distance you can consider that nodal space "dimensionally above" the space of the solid matter (a superimposed space distinguishable from that occupied by matter as long as it remains a node). The rest of the wave will still have the same pattern as every other photon in the one boson state. It is that "unseen eye" that will determine where the tiny flash is going to end up. Regardless of the boundaries it will pass best if it goes straight through the slits. Or it would be wise for it to pick a thin spot where it can tunnel right through using the "nodal space" within the boundary. When it finally "flashes" in an anti-nodal region it will have all the energy of any photon of that frequency, it is just numerically distributed over the surface according to the "intensity" which is the sum of all the inner products of all the wave packets in every region of the screen. There are many places on the screen where the inner product is "zero"... they are "interesting places" and represent "holes" in our dimensional fences" (or cavities as previously noted). The individual flashes are not "weakened" or "spread" since the collapse of the wavefront signals the arrival of the actual photon (finally) which has that "fixed" parcel of energy.

Cheers
Duality
Hi guys,

There seems to me a 'en passant', on reality and QM weirdness dealing with the photon or electron. I am just not sure who has captured the essence or has the best explanation on this post thus far for this experiment.

Think on this, and see what you might think, By now everyone seems to agree on, the wave nature, now let us use the molecule as large as buckyballs (carbon-60) has been demonstrated. For composite objects, the de Broglie wave-length depends fundamentally on the object’s internal structure. For an ensemble of photons taken collectively, the de Broglie wavelength is lambda/N, the wavelength of an individual photon divided by the number of photons. This was verified in 1999 for a two-photon wavepacket in a double-slit experiment.

Physicists at Osaka University in Japan have now demonstrated that the relation still holds for spatially separated, entangled photons.

Through parametric down-conversion, they transformed a photon of wavelength lambda into an entangled pair of photons (a biphoton) of wavelength 2 xs lambda. Those photons were then sent along different paths through an interferometer. When the single-photon interference for either member of the pair was measured, it showed a wavelength of 2 lambda.

However, the measurement that preserved the entanglement yielded lambda. The physicists also showed that the coherence length of the biphoton was much longer than for the 2 lambda single-photon case. They say that the concept remains valid for more than two entangled photons.

Eventually, it may be possible to generate entangled photons from nonentangled photons of the same wavelength, a process called hyperparametric scattering.

You can find this in the paper below.

(K. Edamatsu, R. Shimizu, T.Itoh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8989, 213601, 200

Duality/Lisa wub.gif
Laserlight
Good Elf.

QUOTE
Specifically we are speaking about photons "en route" to the absorption/scattering event. The photon experiences "no dynamic" during this stage of its "existence" (creation followed by state collapse). Any change will tamper with the qubit and then that photon will no longer be capable of "coherent" action through its wave nature. It is no longer part of the set of photons that have that certain interference pattern


I agree about photon's en route. Now I am going to present you with a
counter argument about the qubit.... Let me set the scenario. When one
looks into a mirror, we are seeing the image caused by scattering and absorption
of photons from our physical being. The qubit(s) information that it was carrying
was chaged by interacting with matter. It wasn't destroyed, it was just
"reprogrammed", it is still photonic qubit energy. Now if you are in a room
with multiple cross reflecting mirrors sequentially aligned, you are able to see the
same image cubits in all of them in sequence as they reflect the same
original image with the same reflected/scattered cubit information that
was scattered off of the original target mirror. The same information has been
serially transmitted from mirror to mirror to mirror. Each mirror does 2 things
with the same original qubits of information, it reflects the photons toward the
next mirror in sequence and it also scatters the same original image back toward
the observer. The observer sees multiple images of the same information
that was reflected from the original mirror, in every other mirror. The information
contained stayed the same, yet it is seqentially reduced in size due to the
losses incurred in the multiple mirror interactions.

I agree with the rest of your discussion about how science tries to fit the
solution of reality to their interpretation of reality. Your point being that we
all do that it is human nature. Logic without facts to back it up is merely
conjecture. Math and statistics can prove anything, they can be manipulated
to provide the answer you seek. The mathematical answer may be right but it
only fits the model that you designed it to fit.

I'm going back to Hamlet on this one, eh Horatio?

Comments welcome.
LL
Confused2
Hi Duality, Good Elf, LL et al,

My last flock of posts have been an attempt to get some understanding of the nature of 'everything' as it applies to a photon. Wavelength is clearly something with great physical significance .. but does it have the same significance as (say) the wavelength of a wave on water?

Reality check..(rhetorically) am I wrong here..???
Looking at the peaks in the DSE we see the photon count is squared compared to the 'expected' classical result. This is 'sort of' predictable because a conventional wave has a power proportional to the square of it's amplitude .. a photon of carries a fixed amount of energy so if you have twice the amplitude you need four times the number of photons. And sure enough the photons sneak around to give the right answer ...I'd be interested to see how wave/particle duality predicts this.

One can attempt to thrust wave/particle duality onto a photon .. a sample of the frequency is probably as good as anything .. does it fit the result of the DSE? I suggest it does not, it has no predictive power whatsoever. Certainly you can say .. "we draw part of the sample here and add/subtract it to that part of the sample which has also arrived here for a reason we can't begin to explain .. **wave hands** maybe something to do with not the speed of light".

It is likely that a particle with mass will be more amenable to hand-wave-particle analysis .. not necessarily for the right reason but clearly we only have the time and ability to examine these things to a certain depth.


Best wishes,

-C2.
Laserlight
Hi C2,

QUOTE
We've had a little look at intensity .. hopefully it's clear I'm the only one on this thread who doesn't understand what the  'intensity' of electromagnetic wave is.


Intensity vs density vs amplitude vs power. Hmmm....

Intensity is photon count as in lumens. The more photons per unit area, the more
dense (intense) the signal that can be descriminated/measured and the higher the
power density per unit area. Density = intensity.

As you know, EM wave amplitude is signal power level. We can take a specific frequency at a microwatt power level and amplify it to high wattage levels and still retain the same frequency. We do it with radios and electronics all the time.
More electrons means more complementary EM fields, more EM field density,
more power per unit area.


LL
Laserlight
C2 and All,

QUOTE
When the first photon lands .. can we tell the wavelength? .. clearly not .. we know they turn up all over the place .. two photons? .. the result here ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) shows that we will need to detect a lot of photons to get an accurate measurement of the wavelength. In Kansas you read the wavelength off the side of the source and then you know exactly what will happen. The DSE suggests you don't know exactly what will happen even after you've read the label, maybe you get a different result in Kansas .. I don't know, I've never been there.


Hmmm, now you are citing wavelength as the reference but still maintaining
a particle interaction. Slit gap spacing, focal length, angle of incidence, and specific photon wavelength enters into this solution set. If you set up the
experiment in exactly the same way, you will get exactly the same pattern result.

A lot of photons provides us with a statistical average over time which is the bright
bars. That is the uncertainty aspect of the experiment which is a function of the
exact location of the electron that generated the photon event.

Here is an argument for the wave theory of a photon. A radar system that I
worked on had a klystron tube that generated high power RF as the output.
The klystron was in an enclosed drawer to contain the RF energy that it was
radiating. Klystron tubes are made of ceramic because of the high heat generated
along with the RF it is generating. It was necessary to flow cooling air over the
klystron to keep its temperature "stable". This was accomplished by having
a relatively wide grid of holes about 1/2" square on the the front of the drawer
so air could flow thru the drawer from a cooling fan in the back of the cabinet.

The open exposure area in the face of the drawer was probably 4/5 of the surface
area of the front face of the drawer. It was extremely easy to look into this
drawer and see the radiating RF klystron tube. The design of the cross hatches
that made up hole pattern in the face of the drawer effectively blocked the
radiating RF (photon) waves from escaping. The RF radiation was blocked
because the E and B fields of the RF waves (photons) were larger than the
size of the holes.

My point being that no "particles" escaped thru the holes. EM waves were
blocked from escaping. There were no particles.

Is a 10 meter radio wave a particle?

So now we must make a choice, particles or waves?

Comments?
LL
Confused2
Hi LL,

I agree .. we measure happily down to a microwatt level

at say 10Ghz .. photon energy = 6.6 x 10^-34 x 10^10 = 6.6 x 10-24 Js

we'd be looking at 10^-6/ (6.6 x 10-24)

So 1 uW at 10Ghz would be approx 10^18 photons per second.

I am suggesting that the analysis appropriate to 10^18 photons would be Maxwell's equations

If we look at the DSE .. and the 7 peaks that grow from the photon count (ie biggest where there is the greatest probability of finding a photon) .. if you had 10^18 photons you would never notice HOW they happenned .. only that they were there 'immediately'. Because photons are not precisely located within the EM wave you wouldn't notice that photons only interfere with themselves. Once you see this (or not) .. it gets more interesting.

Best wishes,

-C2.
Confused2
Hi LL,

Sorry I missed your last post..

QUOTE (LL+)

The RF radiation was blocked because the E and B fields of the RF waves (photons) were larger than the size of the holes.


I'm only claiming to have answers to to try to get everyone to look at what is really happening in the DSE .. I know it's 'worse' than we have found so far. A little bird told me so... something like that, anyway.
Classical analysis where classical analysis is appropriate. The photon is the Standard Model particle which transmits the electromagnetic force. Almost by definition it can't have any property that electromagnetism doesn't have.

The DSE shows high probabilities of detection in regions that cannot be predicted using 'c' .. could this be an indication that photons don't build EM waves in the obvious way ? Each photon cruising along on a wavefront or whatever we have so far.

Best wishes,
-C2.
Laserlight
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 30 2006, 01:35 PM)
Hi LL,

Let us imagine a football gives birth to a ping-pong ball. How symmetrical is that? The only way to make it symmetrical is put the ping-pong ball back inside the football. So can a dipole giving birth to a photon be symmetrical? Even in Kansas?

-C2.

C2-

QUOTE
Let us imagine a football gives birth to a ping-pong ball. How symmetrical is that? The only way to make it symmetrical is put the ping-pong ball back inside the football. So can a dipole giving  birth to a photon be symmetrical?  Even in Kansas?


Now you've done it....you've upset Dorothy and the wizard is going to
take away your heart. LOL!!

Back to the idea of a dipole antenna. It is a fixed, physical object that radiates
a "uniform" toroidal field in all directions perpendicular to its linear centerline
axis and its polarity. The key concepts here are uniform radiation pattern,
toroidal shaped radiation topology, and fixed reference polarized axis.

Now, take an individual atom in free space (the key being free space). It is not
stationary or fixed in position, it is constant motion in numerous planes of
orientation in 3D. Everything is spinning and the electron(s) is orbiting at nearly the speed of light. Would you agree that this is an extremely dynamic
environment at the atomic level? Now, throw in some destabilizing externally
applied energy. The electron changes energy levels (its instantaneous
trajectory "arcs" it into a higher orbital). It is still moving around the nucleus at
near light speed, and once the external energy source is removed the electron
"arcs" back back into its orbital. This displacement and reparking of the electron
takes some interval of time to accomplish, it doesn't happen instantaneously
relative to the time of the atom. That infers that the electron could have made
numerous orbits of the nucleus during this orbital energy phase transition. Was the
photon generated at exactly 1 precise instantaneous "location" of the orbit of the
electron, or was it generated as the decending electron cut across numerous
atomic charge fields during its decaying orbits?

If, in this scenario, numerous orbits occured, might not the photon "wave" been
generated as a sphere of radiating energy, or would the photons EM fields
have "organized" and restricted its EM charge dimensions? It would still
maintain a regenerative field polarity relationship, but it would be dimensionless,
since the interacting EM fields are balanced and net neutral in charge. As you
know, dynamic EM fields moving perpendicular to each other generate an energy
component and momentum perpendicular to their planes of orientaion.

Comments?
LL




Laserlight
QUOTE (Confused2+Nov 30 2006, 02:07 PM)
Hi LL,

Everybody in Kansas knows that light travels at the speed of light.

We're not supposed to do this but we could briefly look at the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment..
http://www.antidogma.ru/english/node40.html



Sounds like the same equation all over again ( http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html ) All you need to know is the path difference. If the path lengths are VERY different (eg Kennedy Thorndike) then what about the inverse square law? Doesn't the wave fall off with the inverse square law so the intensity of the wave on the longer path would be less than that on the shorter path? That would certainly be the case in Kansas... but we're not in Kansas now. In the rest of our universe the 'intensity' of a photon never changes .. you either get one or you don't. See earlier for discussion of Kansas/real intensity.

The part of the wave travelling the longer path will take longer than the part of the wave travelling the shorter path .. and if it's light then it should travel at the speed of light ... everybody in Kansas knows that. So the two waves never meet, there can be no interference .. at least not in Kansas. We're not in Kansas now.

-C2.

C2-

QUOTE
In the rest of our universe the 'intensity' of a photon never changes


The only way a photon's relative intensity can change is if it changes
freqency, ala red or blue shift.

I'm missing the point of your post. If you are responding to a comment that I
made please paste the original comment so I can get in "phase" with you. Which
post are you referring to?


Regards,
LL
Confused2
Hi LL,

Sorry I'm falling behind .. partly because my PC crashed and I lost my carefully prepared confession of ignorance.

The short answers

To: How an atom emits a photon .. I am not qualified to say.. I don't think it's a handwaving job.

To: Electromagnetic waves .. we need these guys to come down to our level..

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=148484

Now ready for your last post

-C2.

Edit .. overlapped .. see my next post
Confused2
Hi LL,
QUOTE (LL+)
The only way a photon's relative intensity can change is if it changes freqency, ala red or blue shift.
I'm missing the point of your post. If you are responding to a comment that I made please paste the original comment so I can get in "phase" with you. Which post are you referring to?

My response about photons was the result of your quote from Wiki here:-
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=148223
I was trying to draw some comparison between the meaning of 'Fields' and 'counts'
-C2.
Duality
User posted image

Duality/Lisa wink.gif

Let you think on this a little, nice to know we are still in Kansas. laugh.gif
Laserlight
Hi C2,

QUOTE
Classical analysis where classical analysis is appropriate. The photon is the Standard Model particle which transmits the electromagnetic force. Almost by definition it can't have any property that electromagnetism doesn't have.

The DSE shows high probabilities of detection in regions that cannot be predicted using 'c' .. could this be an indication that photons don't build EM waves in the obvious way ? Each photon cruising along on a wavefront or whatever we have so far.


Energy is not an "entity".

Perhaps we should revise our "description" of a photon.

A photon is a wave "process" of quantum energy transfer from 1 location to
another location.

When the EM fields of a photon collapse, the full dispersed EM energy of the
photon is concentrated and transferred to matter, and displacement of an
electron takes place. cool.gif

Ok, maybe not a full definition, but the Readers Digest version.

LL
Laserlight
Hi Duality/Lisa,

Your post on entanglement was interesting but I'm not sure of the point it
was suppose to convey.

Can you explain to us what the experiment means or its implications?
If I understood it correctly, entagling similar photons caused a wavelength
shift by 2x. Was this measured as a red color shift from the fundamental
frequency.

Tia, smile.gif
LL
Duality
blink.gif When you work around these events in labs in one form or another, it will make one. blink.gif

QUOTE
Perhaps we should revise our "description" of a photon.


Laserlight, Confused2, Good Elf, all,

I think Laser has found the bridge that you must choose, if you want to cross over to your destination dealing with the DSE, the problem is for me where do you want it to take you.

I want to make sure I am on the same page, so correct me if I am out of, cool.gif Kansas.

You want to put some logic to this QM weirdness using classical interpretation or maybe somewhere in between.

I will stop until you let me know. I do not have any appointments on my agenda for the next few.

Duality/Lisa or just D/L [much easer].
Confused2
All,

QUOTE (LL+)

Energy is not an "entity".


I am unsure.

I would greatly appreciate some discussion on this point.

-C2.
Duality
My concern is that I am interfering here on this post, if so please let me know because I am a very late comer.

Confused2, Energy, could be defined as a moving object that possesses kinetic energy. easy version.

Hi guys,

My perspective is different on all that has been said, but I will go with what has or hinted on this post, but I was advised to be very open minded because how else will there be progress in science and understanding.

My memory goes back some years ago, well seems like a long time but that is not the point. Richard Feynman stated in, -The Character of Physical Law-, “...any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, “You remember the case of the experiment with two holes?”

There are many bridges that one can take, and I think in many ways on this post these theories have been mentioned directly or indirectly.

1. Probability wave.
2. Copenhagen interpretation. [Not crazy about this one personally.]
3. Transactional interpretation.
4. Or, the strangest is the, ‘delayed choice experiment’.

This is what I have to deal with and I do not want to intrude please believe this. Each single quantum entity seems to know about the whole experimental set-up, including when and where the observer is choosing to monitor it, and here is the ‘Out of Kansas’ problem, it knows about the past and future of the experiment. #4. ‘Delayed choice experiment’. I know that Good Elf and maybe the rest will not like this one. Just a comment, guys.

Now you see my dilemma.

D/L wub.gif
Confused2
D/L

I think it would be good to look at a possible revision of our description of a photon.

If you have time.

Best wishes(as always),

-C2.
Confused2
D/L

I offerred an 'instantaneous solution' alternative .. slicing it the other way .. is this your 'transactional interpretation' ? or 'not an option'?

-C2.
Confused2
D/L,

No, it wasn't an option .. I can't see that it is any more or less crazy than the alternatives though.

-C2.
Duality
Confused2, all,

I will never put myself in a corner, but if pressed I would go with the 'Feynman diagrams', that tells us that #4 is a possibility.

That is the best I can do until I hear what the rest say, I was asked to stay around and now I do understand why, after reading some of these post.

You guys, rock, just not sure if you will top over! laugh.gif biggrin.gif

Duality/Lisa wink.gif
Laserlight
Duality,

QUOTE
My concern is that I am interfering here on this post, if so please let me know because I am a very late comer.


Please don't feel like an outsider. Your opinions and discussion are welcome.

We seek the truth, but would we know it if it bit us on the butt?

Sharing of ideas and exploriing of different perspectives, makes
us think out of the "box" of conventional "wisdom" that many are trapped in.
Someone may say something scientifically wrong but with the right
conceptualization, or may provide a tidbit of information that sparks a totally
new and innovative answer to a problem.

Jump right in! We look forward to your contributions.

Regards,
LL
Confused2
D/L,LL,Good Elf et al,
Personally I think we should go with Feynman.
a) Because he's probably right
B) He adds a sparkle to everything.. possibly confirming a)
Best wishes,
-C2.
Laserlight
Duality,

QUOTE
This is what I have to deal with and I do not want to intrude please believe this. Each single quantum entity seems to know about the whole experimental set-up, including when and where the observer is choosing to monitor it, and here is the ‘Out of Kansas’ problem, it knows about the past and future of the experiment. #4. ‘Delayed choice experiment’. I know that Good Elf and maybe the rest will not like this one.


Here is my 2c on that.
Time that is past is gone, time that is yet to be is unknown. It is all relative! ohmy.gif
(sorry Alfred)

We can only affect things that we can directly interact with in our space-time.
Energy knows no time, it is purely cause and effect, but it can be controlled within
the limited constraints that we have in our abilities.

Call it an existentialist view of reality. We can think in abstractions, but proving
them is another thing altogether. Trying to quantify something with no physical
existence by using physical mechanisms to explain it seems futile somehow.
Explaining it mathematically may only yield part of the solution, but may not
work in all circumstances.

We don't even know what the question is, how are we suppose to provide the
answer.

Regards,
LL

jal
Good Day!
I'm probably confusing the issue. Therefore, the link will need interpretation.
http://ej.iop.org/links/rO_bJS5oJ/EI5n_dCA...onf6_30_002.pdf
Geometric Aspects of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Entanglement
QUOTE
the space of quantum states is endowed with rich and beautiful
geometric structures.

jal
Duality
Laserlight, jal, Confused2, good elf, all,

Laserlight, Just let me ask a question on this point.

{Just adding this, that is why I wanted to bring in spacetime guys!}

QUOTE
We can only affect things that we can directly interact with in our space-time.


From my perspective this is very profound if you are willing to go down the the --> Quantumland tunnel? I can assure you will not be in Kansas anymore but that is the paradox or mystery you are dealing with.

quoted by Laserlight:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
We can only affect things that we can directly interact with in our space-time.


From my perspective this is very profound if you are willing to go down the the --> Quantumland tunnel? I can assure you will not be in Kansas anymore but that is the paradox or mystery you are dealing with.

quoted by Laserlight:
Energy knows no time, it is purely cause and effect, but it can be controlled within the limited constraints that we have in our abilities.


From your frame of reference, (SR) but what is going on and you must deal with this, from the photons perspective and the reality that you think is, sorry I must say it, REAL. It could be everywhere at the very same time, guys I will not go there right now but if there ever was a play on a word I just made one.

I personally think this is were the root of the problem dealing with measurement issue. We cannot make the rules, they have already been set, just think on this for a moment.

jal, let me read you site and then will see what it has to say. Must go now, I need some nourishment, guys....

Duality/Lisa
Why Not?
Hey TRoc, D/L, LL, C2, GE, jal, yq, etc.

TRoc,
QUOTE
WN?, I will do more to explain the photoelectric effect, later, and elsewhere. You can see where I am going, and how I will do it though.
I look forward to this upon your return. biggrin.gif I do think I see where you are going and it makes (in my mind anyway) a very good case for the quantization of photons (or "possible energy values" of light, if you prefer). In a nut shell, an electron emit a photon of a specific energy when it jumps to a lower energy state/orbital. Since there are specific orbitals, representing specific energy levels there should only be photons of specific energy created. You can't emit half a photon by jumping halfway between orbitals. Within the same reference frame, this should preclude the possibility of a "continuum" of photon energy.

D/L, Thank you for the "biphoton" recommendation. Here is the link if anyone else is interested... Measurement of the photonic de Broglie wavelength of biphotons generated by spontaneous parametric down-conversion. Since the de Broglie wavelength of biphotons remains valid, even when spatially separated, then it seems to me that non-locality should be added to the list (or maybe added to number 4)?

Thanks,
WN?


Duality
Why Not?, Laserlight, Confused2, jal, Good Elf, TRoc, all,

I am hoping to take everyone to the many paths of the paradoxes dealing with DSE, & that is before you, not to convince or persuade in one thought process, as it has been said by someone smarter than myself, you need to stay out of the box somewhat in order to improve your understanding .

Those who have spend many hours on different aspects of SR, GR, QM, string theory --> which will be a great blunder in our time, or a tremendous success, SM, QED, LQG, etc.

http://www.npl.co.uk/formulation/quantum/d...ntanglement.pdf

My goal is to expose you to points that might not be on the surface of this experiment.

Read my signature and that should explain my view when it come to the strangeness of quantum mechanics.

Duality/Lisa wub.gif
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight,

I see that the Wizard of Oz appears to be the "in" joke here. I am from "Oz" so that means I am not from Kansas. Perhaps that is why some things make more sense to me. Luckily none of us reads the Wizard of Id... do they? That would make people from Id .... Idiots? Alternatively we may be all denizens of a World ruled by Zardoz where someone is playing games with our lives on a grand scale, at least that is what Sean Connery found. Zardoz comes from the "The Wizard of Oz", the last four letters of Wizard and the last two letters... "Zard-Oz".
Wikipedia: Zardoz
In the end of the movie the intelligentsia of Earth are all slaughtered by Communist Barbarians wiping clean all human history. I sometimes think this is the Nihilistic Society we live in craving for some kind of Apocalypse... Where does Dorothy fit in all these happenings...It would appear she is some kind of 1930's version of a Vampire Slayer. Everyones so cute and cuddly but in the end the baddies must die. wink.gif
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Now I am going to present you with a counter argument about the qubit.... Let me set the scenario. When one looks into a mirror, we are seeing the image caused by scattering and absorption of photons from our physical being. The qubit(s) information that it was carrying was changed by interacting with matter. It wasn't destroyed, it was just "reprogrammed", it is still photonic qubit energy. Now if you are in a room with multiple cross reflecting mirrors sequentially aligned, you are able to see the same image cubits in all of them in sequence as they reflect the same original image with the same reflected/scattered cubit information that was scattered off of the original target mirror. The same information has been serially transmitted from mirror to mirror to mirror. Each mirror does 2 things with the same original qubits of information, it reflects the photons toward the next mirror in sequence and it also scatters the same original image back toward the observer. The observer sees multiple images of the same information that was reflected from the original mirror, in every other mirror. The information contained stayed the same, yet it is sequentially reduced in size due to the losses incurred in the multiple mirror interactions.
This discussion I had with StevenA a little while ago. It can be found here...
Perpetual motion?, Cyclic photon reflections: StevenA
First point is the qubit is not "energy" it is "information". A photon cannot do "two things" such as be reflected "perfectly" and be scattered toward you. The photon will either be absorbed or scattered (no qubit) or reflected or diffracted (qubit intact). It can't do both... that is change it's qubit and keep its qubit at the same time. The loss of the qubit is the loss of source information. I think we can understand that mirrors do not "scatter" the information. The information is preserved. If I look into a hall of mirrors what you "see" are the photons that enter your eye and "impact" on your retina. The phase information is "destroyed" in the process and this is because our eyes are very primitive organs... primarily photosensitive cells. In the same way that a Camera Obscura shows an image on the screen that passes the single pinhole in its chamber, so do our eyes record a relatively crude image of the outer world on its "little screen" as well. The quality of this image in its raw state is about that of the quality of a plastic lens in a disposable camera. The real "magic" of that outer scene is the way our brain processes this "crude" image and allows us to imagine the outer world as we think it is. Actually we use two eyes to gain a stereoscopic view of the world which really is only a crude means of "depth perception". This is the only way we "see" more than two dimensions. This is probably one of the very reasons why we are unable to appreciate higher dimensions... the flawed nature of our visual system to record only the most simple and elementary information. Technically our electronic sensors are far more capable of "analysis" as primary instruments than our eyes. This is because many of our modern civilian and millitary systems are actually highly tuned phased arrays. Using the source phase, that you and I cannot see, a feeble signal can be extracted and processed that picks out details that normal antenna cannot "image". Our eyes do not detect phase... one of the great failings of our species.

Also our system of rods and cones have limited range of frequency sensitivity. The rods for "black and white" night vision and the cones for strong light "color vision". We owe our sight to the excretion of a chemical called "retinaldehyde". Here is the technical info on this process.
Wikipedia: Retinal
In the end when light falls on this molecule ultimately an electrical "pulse" is sent to the brain. That is all it is.

I am not trying to belittle us as a species but I am trying to point out just how little information is actually used in the imaging process, our Physics is like our eyes in that they are not attempting to show all the information available but only an "inner product" of the total information. A simple semiconductor chip can be used to provide the same impulses to the brain and we know this is has no mystery "inbuilt" since we make these things ourselves and these chips have been used to provide crude (but improving) vision to the blind on an experimental basis.

So "coherent" photons which carry information from the "sources out there" impact on the retina and cause this molecule to "change shape"... there are only two forms of this molecule... the excited molecule and the unexcited molecule. One gives a pulse and the other does not.

Now lets discuss "signal amplification" and detection. One photon = one qubit. You say above "you are able to see the same image cubits in all of them in sequence as they reflect the same original image with the same reflected/scattered cubit information that was scattered off of the original target mirror" Not really ... no scattering ... only "perfectly" reflecting. Every qubit is unique since they come from individual atoms. Two qubits from adjacent atoms might be correlated but differ in phase and the "eyes" of their respective Hurricanes reflect the spatial separation of the two distinct sources. This is something our eyes cannot distinguish but we try.

There are a number of photons that are being truly scattered and absorbed as well, as you have put it this gives the information from that new source... wood looks brown, glass looks transparent, steel looks "bright" etc. But since there are so many photons you can "lose" 99.999% of them and still be almost blinded by the remainder. Polished steel for instance reflects a large number of photons and absorbs a few too. The absorbed ones make the steel look like steel and it has become a new "source". The reflected photons have no character of the steel since their positioning and phase relates to some other source ... such as the Sun and represent images of that source and have no character of the steel other than the direction has been severely deviated by the conductive surface. The "bright metallic" look of steel comes by having photons reflected that owe their source to the Sun and some have been absorbed and "scattered" and impart some other source in the steel. Bit from Column A and a bit from Column B. In the end all photons you see in your eye have been "removed" permanently from all correlated photons and reflect the last "source". Otherwise they have not been tampered with in between. Remember all other photons you cannot see. As to multiple "perfect" reflections, as long as reflection is occurring this can happen a million times and what you see in your eyes is not a photon that has been reflected only once or twice but a million times. This is simply because of what I have been saying about this interference pattern being "already there" and simply being "illuminated" by propagation. You will see the result of every photon traversing the cavity seeking all paths and nothing less. Some photons will fall by the wayside and get absorbed ... these will be either re-emitted or scattered and will reflect the "new source". Every photon you see will reflect the source and nothing else. No individual photon will remain correlated after an absorption event. The qubit has "been rewritten" as you put it (I would say correlated with a new source... it may not even be the same frequency after it has been re-emitted). All reflected or refracted photons will remain intact until you see them and they will represent the sources they had immediately been emitted from. They can be "reflected and refracted" a large number of times without them being altered or changed in energy at all... This is just the nature of quanta and their qubits.

This does not mean you can't transfer qubits using entanglement.... this is possible but in the World of events this is a "minor ballgame" used mainly by physicists. For instance I have seen the concept of "diphoton"... well this is not a special single photon... it is two photons that are correlated each one carrying 1/2 the energy of the origonal unsplit photon (and thus twice the wavelength of the original single photon) through the process of parametric downconversion.

Cheers
Duality
All,

Maybe everyone is becoming frustrated, I do not want this because it is counterproductive. So here is a site that is less changeling in thought, and I hope will give some entertainment, we around here have to step back in order to rethink or process the information given us on a daily diet.

Enjoy. biggrin.gif

http://www.livephysics.com/physics-videos/...experiment.html

Duality/Lisa wub.gif

Oh, Good Elf I think I truly understand your point of view, it has the true feeling of David Bohm, never met the man but I think he was one of a kind, and wish he was alive now.

jal
Good Day All!
I did a search, with the picture option, of electron photon. I gathered so much info that my computer crashed. biggrin.gif
I found a lot of explanations/theories for what everyone agrees to what is being experimentallly observed. ( Sorry, Good Elf I found some that I like more than your explanations/theory ).
In particular, I found a lot of technical applications that uses the electron and the photon. Their explanation of their technology is along the standard approach... wave/particle.
However, I suspect that there is a lot of smoke screen in their explanation of how they have applied the "science" to their hardware. Nobody wants to give away a "secret" to any possible competitor. biggrin.gif
I reduce my search to a question from http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...6lr%3D%26sa%3DN
He stated
QUOTE
One of the most significant misunderstandings concerns the shape of the wavefunction of either the photon or the electron. Almost all scientists think that the undulation of the wavefunction is about the energy the virtual entity carries. Not so. The wavefunction is strictly the probability distribution (or "density") of the entity. In and of itself, the shape of the wavefunction is not indicative of the particle's energy. The experimenter must know the interacting geometry before he or she can make energy assessment. (Photon or electron wavefunction can be changed dramatically from one geometry to another while the energy remains the same. The wavefunction, in and of itself, does not reveal the energy component even if subjected to Fourier analysis.) The wavefunction is about the spatial reach of the photon or the electron. The electron can be spatial in up to 3D while the photon takes but 2D -- although the photon's 2D wavefunction can rotate (circular polarization). The energy content is another component of matter {pod}, which is also wave based. As you may well imagine these components are interconnected but the difficult part is in figuring out the interconnection geometry and the computing mechanism (Quantum Pythagoreans book treats this in some detail since energy is the only parameter that can form a continuum).

My question:
Is there anything wrong with what he said?
jal
Duality
jal, all,

I did read and I am not sure, but all is open for discussion. I think what you posted above will one day be explained from a totally different perspective because of technology.

I would think it will be decades before we truly understand.

Because of the speed of the particle or particles, SPACE TIME has much to do with this experiment and that is why we cannot explain due to the fact we are in slow motion and our cognitive ability is just unable to comprehend the dynamics of this DSE.

Duality/Lisa

But, I hope we do not discontinue searching for answers dealing with this very difficult complex unintuitive experiment. wink.gif

By the way [BTW], I am very aware that my background could effect my perspective, so I am doing the best I can not to let it keep me trapped into some frame of reference that will cause problems. sad.gif
Confused2
Hi jal, All,

There is a symmetrical way to make a football give way to a ping-pong ball .. but it's rather unintuitive. With hindsight this might be what Good Elf has been describing .. I'm not sure.

Might the electron - photon - electron process give us a simpler start?

Best wishes,

-C2.
Duality
C2, all,


I am afraid this dodges the paradoxical dynamics of the DSE. It is much deeper than this from my 'point of view'.

I just do not believe it is possible for us to use a 3D + t to describe the phenomena that is taking place. But that does not mean we cannot try,

I have reach a point in my career that it is not acceptable to just regurgitate information we have learned in the institution's that is palatable to the cognitive abilities given.

Duality/Lisa smile.gif
jal
Hi!
Everybody has to put food on the table. biggrin.gif
Very few people can get an income from doing "pure science". Almost everyone has a "side income".
QUOTE
However, I suspect that there is a lot of smoke screen in their explanation of how they have applied the "science" to their hardware. Nobody wants to give away a "secret" to any possible competitor.  biggrin.gif

ACCIDENTAL?? ... the answers will probably come from finer resolution of some kind of technological application.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
However, I suspect that there is a lot of smoke screen in their explanation of how they have applied the "science" to their hardware. Nobody wants to give away a "secret" to any possible competitor.  biggrin.gif

ACCIDENTAL?? ... the answers will probably come from finer resolution of some kind of technological application.
... the difficult part is in figuring out the interconnection geometry and the computing mechanism

I would look/search the web, if I had the technical background, for the new and better tools that are being developed. biggrin.gif
QUOTE
Duality
I just do not believe it is possible for us to use a 3D + t to describe the phenomena that is taking place. But that does not mean we cannot try,

tutututut ... you did a booboob.... you presumed that 2D+t won't work. biggrin.gif
I think that a version of my model could work.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Duality
I just do not believe it is possible for us to use a 3D + t to describe the phenomena that is taking place. But that does not mean we cannot try,

tutututut ... you did a booboob.... you presumed that 2D+t won't work. biggrin.gif
I think that a version of my model could work.
If the dancers would only slow down, we might be able to catch the pretty girl as she goes by.

jal
Laserlight
Good Elf and All,

I think all of us are fairly familiar with human physiology of the eye, etc. I
had previously read the Wiki that you referenced to reinforce some of the
"old" info learned in college. But thanks for giving us a "review" anyway.

QUOTE
Every photon you see will reflect the source and nothing else. No individual photon will remain correlated after an absorption event. The qubit has "been rewritten" as you put it (I would say correlated with a new source... it may not even be the same frequency after it has been re-emitted). All reflected or refracted photons will remain intact until you see them and they will represent the sources they had immediately been emitted from. They can be "reflected and refracted" a large number of times without them being altered or changed in energy at all... This is just the nature of quanta and their qubits.


I think that you got part of my point in my original post, but not the full
meaning I was trying to convey. I agree that once a qubit is received and
"detected" (absorbed) by the eye they are converted from electrical to chemical back to
electrical impulses. Those particular qubits are "gone", agreed.

The point I was trying to make was that, there are multiple images being
transfered (reflected and refracted) in 2 directions. 1 direction reflecting
forward to the next mirror, and 1 reflecting back toward the observer from
multiple planes of orientation. To me this represented some unique paradoxes about
the nature of light regarding photons and the qubit info they are "transmitting".

After further contemplation and comparison of a silvered mirror to a plain sheet of glass
(with 2 polished surfaces), this may be purely a phasing issue of some photons but
not the entire incident photon "set". My deduction being that the silvered backing
has "crystal or lattice dislocations" that are reflecting properly phased photons
back toward the source, these would be the portion of the atomic crystals that are
perpendicular to the incidence of the incoming photons.

The rest of the photons not in the proper phase relationship to the atomic
or "crystal lattice" orientations of the silvered backing are reflected onward
toward the next mirror and the same "lattice" orientation phasing effect is
replicated, etc. The ISL comes into play also as a function of the distance
between mirrors.

So I withdraw my example from the previous post. It was just WRONG.

Regards,
LL
Laserlight
Lisa,

QUOTE
I have reach a point in my career that it is not acceptable to just regurgitate information we have learned in the institution's that is palatable to the cognitive abilities given.


What you said is profound". There are deeper explanations about the phenomena
of the DSE that are still mysteries. That is the level of truth we are all seeking.

IMO, we have a "hand waving" magic trick for the current scientific explanation.
This is not the only instance of this happening, but if a true "in depth" explanation
of the DSE can be discovered, it will show that the emporer has no clothes.

Having an open mind and exploring all possibilites until the right one is
exposed and verified, is crucial. Just repeating the same rhetoric that has
been repeated for years makes us no more insightful than a parrot. Hopefully,
we can collectively formulate the right model, by asking the right questions and
doing some retroactive forensic investigation and analysis of the clues provided.
Will we succeed, or just be relegated to sitting upon our perch?

Nothing up my sleeve!
LL
Good Elf
Hi Jal, Duality et al,

QUOTE (Jal+)
Sorry, Good Elf I found some that I like more than your explanations/theory [...] One of the most significant misunderstandings concerns the shape of the wavefunction of either the photon or the electron. Almost all scientists think that the undulation of the wavefunction is about the energy the virtual entity carries.[...]My question:
Is there anything wrong with what he said?
jal
Yes there is... a wavefunction cannot be measured... Electric and magnetic fields can. The statement is not relevant since it speaks nothing about wave theory (of which for all I know this individual may be totally ignorant). Wavefunctions do not predict electric and magnetic fields they are quantum mechanical entities and cannot relate to actual measurables. I am not persuaded by any simplistic treatments.
Wikipedia: Wavefunction
As I have said Jal... I sure you would say the same about your theory as mine here... It is not what you like that matters it is what is able to be proven and also where the inconsistency lies in experiment. You must show what is inconsistent in this theory to have any arguement at all. Up to now I have provided all the arguement, now you must provide the scientific evidence where it is wrong. I have substituted higher dimensions for a theory that has been plagued by quantum postulates that have no justification "other than they work". What I present here is a theory without any quantum postulates (admittedly of a very Bhomian "texture" but it is not David Bohm's Theory since his theory is only a theory in three dimansions and time as is Quantum Mechanics). This is a kind of String Theory in 10 plus dimensions. For instance the stationary states in an atom are simply interference as previously discussed and is a resonance from higher "compact" dimensions. The other quantum numbers are derived from the Bessel Functions of the harmonics on a spherical cavity. The QN's are simply the eigen states (the transitions between standing waves). It is a damn shame that in the early 1900's some scientists did not have sufficient understanding of the Physics to provide us with a theory so they rushed on with "discovery" and did not revisit the the basics.

For instance these solutions to Schrodinger's Wave Equation in free space are not predicted by "wavefunctions". They were measured on a Bench-top with an adapted STM.
User posted image
This simply because they solve separate equations...
User posted image
as opposed to this...
User posted image
... click on it if you wish to enlarge.

The reason I stand my ground is simple... it is the Scientific Method not a "Beauty Contest". The supporting Maths is available, you show that your scalar wavefunction give the same answers and need less predictions... Or at least a defining experiment where what is predicted by wave theory (in this extended form) is wrong.

The payoff for doing it "difficult" is insight into higher dimensions and an integrated theory that is free of "forces" such as Gravitation. Everything is then electromagnetic. rolleyes.gif You might say that I am actually doing you a great service in telling you (and others) something nobody on this planet so far has told you and I have provided "physical" justification for all of it without the "shock and awe" of "magic".

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE
My deduction being that the silvered backing has "crystal or lattice dislocations" that are reflecting properly phased photons back toward the source, these would be the portion of the atomic crystals that are perpendicular to the incidence of the incoming photons.[...] So I withdraw my example from the previous post. It was just WRONG. 
Wrong again wink.gif ... You are dead right... He he he! The wavefronts are directed directly back to the source... one of the possibilities of "searching all paths"... that special direction is a shortcut back to the source "along" the brane wall except this is a reciprocal dimension and the photon is isolated from the Hamiltonian of our ordinary three dimensional space plus time. To return to our "flat-space" a photon must tunnel "down" to our spacetime. That "state" leads to a zero energy sum "standing waves" that are already in place due to the shortness of that "reciprocal" dimension as the "photon" shadow then progresses along the other dimensions (our three dimensions) of "our cavity Universe" at the speed of light (like the analogy I give about a shadow cast on the street by one lonely person walking in the distance from a single incandescent light behind him. A "shadow" covering the landscape. Soon he enters the doorway of his apartment and the "shadow" vanishes (collapses... if you will). We can only see "shadows" in our flatspace and photons have a very short path to travel in space in reality to "go home".

Remember this:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
My deduction being that the silvered backing has "crystal or lattice dislocations" that are reflecting properly phased photons back toward the source, these would be the portion of the atomic crystals that are perpendicular to the incidence of the incoming photons.[...] So I withdraw my example from the previous post. It was just WRONG. 
Wrong again wink.gif ... You are dead right... He he he! The wavefronts are directed directly back to the source... one of the possibilities of "searching all paths"... that special direction is a shortcut back to the source "along" the brane wall except this is a reciprocal dimension and the photon is isolated from the Hamiltonian of our ordinary three dimensional space plus time. To return to our "flat-space" a photon must tunnel "down" to our spacetime. That "state" leads to a zero energy sum "standing waves" that are already in place due to the shortness of that "reciprocal" dimension as the "photon" shadow then progresses along the other dimensions (our three dimensions) of "our cavity Universe" at the speed of light (like the analogy I give about a shadow cast on the street by one lonely person walking in the distance from a single incandescent light behind him. A "shadow" covering the landscape. Soon he enters the doorway of his apartment and the "shadow" vanishes (collapses... if you will). We can only see "shadows" in our flatspace and photons have a very short path to travel in space in reality to "go home".

Remember this:
Observation of Backward Pulse Propagation Through a Medium with a Negative Group Velocity
George M. Gehring,1* Aaron Schweinsberg,1 Christopher Barsi,3 Natalie Kostinski,1,4 Robert W. Boyd1,2
The nature of pulse propagation through a material with a negative value of the group velocity has been mysterious, as simple models seem to predict that pulses will propagate ‘‘backward’’ through such a material. Using an erbium-doped optical fiber and measuring the time evolution of the pulse intensity at many points within the fiber, we demonstrate that the peak of the pulse does propagate backward inside the fiber, even though the energy flow is always in the forward direction.

... or this...
Researchers use metamaterials to alter light's path, speed

When the photon is absorbed it simply "drops" through quantum demolition from that "elevated" space into the next resonant system.... This is usually an electron shell in an atom in most cases... of course it could be your favorite radio station "pumping coherent photons your way and it would then be a ferrite core or whip antenna that is sensing the standing waves and converting them to electrical "impulses"... these are our first attempts to engineer in higher dimensions and Tesla did it over a hundred years ago. biggrin.gif In that direction the source is less than a wavelength away from "everything" in the Universe... that is the additional "walls" of the confining "box" of the Universe. This is what leads to the apparently "instantaneous standing waves in all cavities. The photon does not "bounce back and forth" around the universe it resonates along that short axis of the higher dimensional cavity.
Laserlight
Hi GE and All,


Good Elf, I am keeping an open mind about the possibility of multiple "dimensions"
other than the 4 that we exist in. From my perspective, herein lies the problem...
how do you quantitatively measure and PROVE the existence of
extra-dimensional reality? You can't! Conceptually, theoretically, mathematically,
you can conjecture the existence of higher and lower dimensions, but YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THEY "EXIST"!
It is human nature to try to explain
the wonders of nature and the universe because of the impact they have on
our imagination and curiosity to answer the fundamental question... WHY?

Early man attributed natural occurances to higher forces they called...gods. The
gods were responsible for everything. Science has replaced the "qods" with
extra dimensions, because we cannot explain naturally occuring phenomena
in terms of reality that we can comprehend and prove. IMO, all we have done
is replaced the gods with extra-dimensional and unprovable theories. They sound
good and "satisfy" the logic of those with exceptional vivid imaginations, but
so did the shamans and priests of early man. Unfortunately, in that regard,
we haven't really progressed that much. We still want an explanation that makes
logical sense to our need to know and understand, and we are ready to accept
anything that offers an easy answer, no matter how archaic, intangible,
or unproveable that it is.

This is just unsatisfactory, IMO.

Unsatisfied!
LL
"THEY"
Hello everyone. I have been home two days now trying to sleep off a virus that "they"2 so lovingly gave me wink.gif but all I can think about is this thread.

But in all the reading over the last few days it seems like you have all come to a stand still... and I am suddenly thinking of the childs game "pin the tail on the donkey". Are you playing this game?

We are all blindfolded in a small room (10 ft x 12 ft), with a poster (measuring 2 ft x 3 ft) hanging on the south wall. These are the facts we know. We also know we each have a donkey tail with a push pin in our hand, and we BELIEVE there is a donkey on that poster on the wall, but we cannot see it. So we have to guess which direction the donkey is facing. Is it a body profile and he is facing left? Facing Right? Standing on his rear feet dancing? Or as I see it, is he facing away from us with his rear facing towards us - he has an evil grin on his face - oh dear, I think he is contemplating passing gas... I digress... We can feel that the tail in our hand is approximately six inches long, but is it even proportional relative to the donkey? How do we know if the donkey is big, or is it very very tiny? Or is there 100 tiny donkeys on the poster in the shape of one big donkey? And lifting your blindfold to peek doesn't matter, because we are all completely blind.

We can all argue all day long about who wins the game, but if we can't see the donkey at all, is it WORTH arguing over? Can we toss out the dirty water but keep the baby? Can we play by the rules inside the box, but step out of the box and look around? And stay in Kansas? Can I come up with any more analogies? Lets not and say I did... dry.gif

Now, before my soup gets cold, can we continue on with the experiment without the agreement of what a photon is? We know the rules and the expected outcome of the DSE, can we get around the problem that we can't see the donkey (photon)?

And in the famous words of Monty Python "GET ON WITH IT!"

ACHOO
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE
Conceptually, theoretically, mathematically, you can conjecture the existence of higher and lower dimensions, but YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THEY "EXIST"!
It is human nature to try to explain the wonders of nature and the universe because of the impact they have on our imagination and curiosity to answer the fundamental question... WHY? [...] Early man attributed natural occurances to higher forces they called...gods. The gods were responsible for everything. Science has replaced the "qods" with extra dimensions, because we cannot explain naturally occuring phenomena in terms of reality that we can comprehend and prove. IMO, all we have done is replaced the gods with extra-dimensional and unprovable theories.
I dunno... I think we are doing quite "well" so far! ohmy.gif OK... If you do not accept that experiment is showing us higher dimensions then I can't "prove" that to you. I do not know how many more times I have to show where conventional theory comes up "blank" without an explanation and I am supplying the reason why. If you can forgive the analogy... This is like trying to convince Adolf Hitler through argument that Communism is "right"... He he he... I am not even going to try. Without the Scientific Method I cannot prove anything. I "bow to the mob", who am I to pit one voice against millions of "true believers". IMHO the way this issue was resolved in the past was the minority dissenters were burned at the stake. The Scientific Method is the only bolt I have left in my quiver and I face a "sea of opposition". If this is unsatisfactory, then like many others, it will not be possible to prove anything to anybody and we can stop right now... Shake hands and agree to differ. As the "elf" on this site I respond only to questions since I am not about defending the "indefensible". I still say it is up to you to show where experiment fails with my theory and the maths and predictions I am proposing is not about to oppose your "god". I can tell you right now I do not accept a "god", man made or otherwise, that is in conflict with its own creation.

No hard feelings... eh?

PS: You should refresh your browser about the last post since you missed the updates.

Cheers
Good Elf
Hi "THEY",

QUOTE ("THEY"+)
We can all argue all day long about who wins the game, but if we can't see the donkey at all, is it WORTH arguing over? Can we toss out the dirty water but keep the baby? Can we play by the rules inside the box, but step out of the box and look around? And stay in Kansas? Can I come up with any more analogies? Lets not and say I did...

Now, before my soup gets cold, can we continue on with the experiment without the agreement of what a photon is? We know the rules and the expected outcome of the DSE, can we get around the problem that we can't see the donkey (photon)?
The "mechanics" of the DSE and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment are well known and proven. The subheading of this thread is "... observing later", clearly a reference to the DCQE Exp. I realize that I often come to this point in a discussion and those who hold fixed ideas will go no further. I will back down now and leave the discussion. I have more profitable things to do.

Cheers
jal
QUOTE
how do you quantitatively measure and PROVE the existence of
extra-dimensional reality? You can't! Conceptually, theoretically, mathematically,
you can conjecture the existence of higher and lower dimensions, but YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT THEY "EXIST"!
.... This is just unsatisfactory, IMO.

I had a whole thread asking the question ... HOW???
I'm left with waiting to see what they will find at CERN.
I'm sure that the "boys" at CERN have discussed and layed out plans.
Right now, I think that k-k and Lisa Randall with her exp. curve are the leading candidates.
Hey! They could all be wrong... right Good Elf!
I'd like to have more tech./math knowledge to guide our quest.wacko.gif

jal
Laserlight
Hello "THEY",

QUOTE
We know the rules and the expected outcome of the DSE, can we get around the problem that we can't see the donkey (photon)?


Where do I begin???

NO!

The experiment has been done thousands of times, the results are always
the same, but the reason WHY remains unanswered. The definitive
description of what a photon really is, is the riddle/conundrum of the experimental
results.

There is no sense repeating the experiment ad nauseam, the results will always
be a derivative of the original. What good is that? The answer to the riddle
lies in the very nature of the existance and topology/anatomy of the photon itself.
If we can quantify and explicity define what a photon truly "is", then the answers
to most of quantum physics will have a solid foundation that everything else can
be constructed from.

We may never be successful, but the exploration of the various concepts,
theories, and even "out of the box" ideas may provide the spark for deeper
understanding......perhaps even an answer!

Bear with us, and contribute. Who knows, you may provide that essential
spark that ultimately answers one of the many riddles that requires a true
solution.

Regards and get well soon,
LL
Laserlight
Good Elf, dear friend,

LOL!... I am not proposing that some higher mystical entity is responsible for
anything. Quite the contrary. I was merely pointing out the fact that,
that which we cannot easily explain by proof is easily explained by the
unprovable. I am a philosophical agnostic that relys on HARD DATA
to convince me, though I am prone to "project" abstractions if they have
a basis in available data/informatiion. Extra dimensions are also abstractions.
I think that we both agree on this idea. I have, of late, read several different
theories on this PhysOrgfourm. All are proposing a theoretical solution to
the mysteries of the universe, and all have some interesting and compelling
arguments and "proofs" but, how do you prove the unprovable? That is my
point.

Personally, I have been "enlightened" by many different posters who offer
different perspectives, opinions, and "solutions" to the mysteries to which we
have no definitive answers. I reserve the "right" to filter and accept or reject
the various hypotheses and proofs offered by so many. That is the essence of
dialog. We exchange ideas, thoughts, information, perceptions, and concepts,
while hopefully communicating in both directions.

There are many sparks. Which one will ignite the flame of truth?

I want to believe, but show me irrefutable proof!

Until then, agnostically yours,

LL
"THEY"
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 1 2006, 04:58 PM)
I will back down now and leave the discussion. I have more profitable things to do.

Cheers

Please NOOOOO! I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone. But I know Santa keeps you busy at this time of year, so if you are just busy I understand, but don't back down you are a major contributor!

I just think all of you folks have become stuck on who won the game instead of describing/finding the donkey together. Just seems that the great constructive arguments that had been going on have just turned unconstructive the last few days. Lets get back to the where how why things work and don't work. Break each theory into bite size pieces, toss the pieces that don't work and keep what does. Stop take a breath, shovel some coal and get this train rolling again!

If I sounded like I was pointing fingers, sorry. I was just trying to use some light hearted humor to get things going in the right direction again. But I guess light hearted humor on the internet is a brick huh? wink.gif

ps LL- I am here to listen and learn, not contribute. But you guys taught my daughter "they"2 something about the DSE a few days ago! This is the best thread, lets keep it that way.
Laserlight
Good Elf,

QUOTE
... I am not even going to try. Without the Scientific Method I cannot prove anything. I "bow to the mob", who am I to pit one voice against millions of "true believers". IMHO the way this issue was resolved in the past was the minority dissenters were burned at the stake. The Scientific Method is the only bolt I have left in my quiver and I face a "sea of opposition". If this is unsatisfactory, then like many others, it will not be possible to prove anything to anybody and we can stop right now


I am not a true believer....as stated previously, I am an agnostic. Why are
you so ready to climb upon a stake of your own making, while holding a
can of gasoline and a box of matches?

You are beacon for ships foundering in the storm. There is no need for
you to douse yourself in gasoline and light the match. I am listening to your
theoretical proposals, they pique my curiosity and offer some logical concepts that
other theories don't. Yes, there are abstractions, but I am not disregarding
your hard efforts, experience, and thoughtful explanations. Some are
difficult to accept, but like I said, I am keeping an open mind.

We are listening to your message, but may challenge some of your concepts
because they are "foreign" to us and our prior educational "brainwashing",
and preconceptions. Don't be so easily exasperated.

Are you up to the challenge?

LL
Laserlight
Hello THEY, and THEY2!

Please do not be discouraged by our recent "squabbling"! We have been
discussing and arguing this experiment and what it means for quite a while
now. There will always be different points of view about what this experiment
is showing. This experiment was originally conducted a LLOOoonnnggg
time ago, and it has "baffled" scientists as to what it means is since then.
Is a photon a particle or a wave, or both? That is why we are "arguing".

Hopefully, you have started from the beginning of this board. Much of what
we are rehashing, or fine tuning now, has deep roots back to the beginning of
the discussion of the DSE. We have only been analyzing it for a few months,
science has been analyzing it for over 200 years and still does not have a
final answer, only clues, but the technology and innovations that have been
developed from the concepts of this simple experiment have brought us to
a better understanding about the nature of matter and light. Science progresses
1 step at a time and often stumbles along the way.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngs_double-slit_experiment

Regards,
LL
Good Elf
Hi Laserlight,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)
LOL!... I am not proposing that some higher mystical entity is responsible for anything. Quite the contrary. I was merely pointing out the fact that,
that which we cannot easily explain by proof is easily explained by the unprovable. I am a philosophical agnostic that relies on HARD DATA to convince me, though I am prone to "project" abstractions if they have a basis in available data/information. Extra dimensions are also abstractions.
I think that we both agree on this idea. I have, of late, read several different theories on this PhysOrgfourm. All are proposing a theoretical solution to the mysteries of the universe, and all have some interesting and compelling arguments and "proofs" but, how do you prove the unprovable? That is my point.

biggrin.gif You certainly won me back. That is a very good point. I would say that we have all the data we need already. Nothing about Quantum Mechanics gives any physical explanation at all for the results it derives. It escapes all scrutiny claiming "a priori" (being first) rights. My view is wave theory was there before Quantum Theory but it was a truly primitive "exceedingly classical" view of "Optics". Being "first" is not a reason for acceptance IMHO. I know a lot of people would say that it is but do you accept the Ptolemaic System just because it gives good results and because it was there first? No... the Ptolemaic System does not answer ALL the questions. Quantum Theory gives excellent answers to maths problems, not because it embodies excellent physics, but because it was "first" with any answers at all.

Let me say any theory that contains only three dimensions plus time "cannot", almost by definition, discover higher dimensions. No fault of a theory but it is a very strong limitation. A theory in higher dimensions such as mine relies on strong existing principles based on "Optics" which has been known for much more than a century. What I am saying is Quantum Electrodynamics works "brilliantly" in three dimensional space plus time but owes much more than "passing" similarity to theories of Optics. If you assume that three dimensional space plus time defines the boundaries in which you can determine the Lagrangian then it comes as no surprise that aside from quantum processes nothing can escape this "box" as an energetic process. We know this is the exception since quantum processes can penetrate any boundary so we have certain processes which by definition define the Heisenberg Limits in which functions outside this box can exist.

That is ΔpΔx => h/2Π

These processes do not surprise us one bit that they can violate the impenetrable barrier of the "box" or cavity that three dimensional space and time define. Yet these are the very processes that define "harmonic"resonant boundary conditions and are exceptions to our physics because they represent "quantum leaps".

Therefore it comes as no difficulty that every three dimensional space plus time we are familiar with, the integration from +∞ to -∞ with closed boundary conditions will admit transient quantum events that energetically violate this boundary. In fact the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics absolutely require that this is indeed the case otherwise it would bot be possible to quantize this space. The interesting thing about formal treatments of Quantum Electrodynamics is that it is entirely possible to recover the Electromagnetic Classical Theory from the Quantum Theory with the introduction of these wavelets with the appropriate phase but in treatments where this is done the claim is these extra components are not physically significant. I disagree.

Let us "pretend" that there are an extra three dimensions (actually it is six) to our Universe which are compact about some point in space "like a particle". That these boundaries on the particle represent the limits of our spacetime (it is just a surface) as we know it and that this little three dimensional sphere "connects" with out universe across an impenetrable energy boundary... the speed of light. This would mean that all the power that CERN has at its disposal will ultimately be defeated because we are attempting to push particles by brute force across that boundary.... the light cone. Sure that deforming that "layer" results in the creation of charges on the membrane and with sufficient energy particle creation will occur. Even if you up the energy scale all you can achieve is the creation of even "heavier" particles but you will not "push" any particle across that threshold. It comes as no surprise that all energetic processes sum within that boundary using the Lagrangian and what is found is that the laws of conservation of energy are conserved. Now if this boundary is impenetrable to brute force I have indicated that it may be penetrable to resonant excitation. I can "push" a photon beyond that boundary into a space that as far as our Lagrangian's are concerned does not exist. While there the particles (including photons) will not partake in reactions (interactions) energetically with our Universe "protected" by the light cone wall. However they might react via non-energetic processes as waves of information. As long as interactions such as absorption or particle scattering do not occur a subtle influence is exerted in our Universe via the "spooky" force. These waves cannot be directly measured without destruction of the quantum state but it is OK if lots of photons are available to "sample" space to see what is going on there with coherent radiation. The reason I use coherent radiation is that provided the system is not time dependent the resonances in free space are standing waves and throughout the system a stable resonant condition leads to a succession of identical stationary events as seen in zephir's animation.
user posted image
How do I explain this "pre-existing" situation? It is a resonance inside a cavity with a source that is distant from all points in the cavity along a "short axis" by a wavelength of the exciting wavelength. This leads to standing waves. The photons or their spreading shells are forced to spread along the other three dimensions in that space at the limiting speed of light. This gives rise to the picture we are seeing above.

We do not need atomic particles to create these cavities since we already build devices that create standing waves in space and we have radio transmitters and other cleaver devices. The wavelength of radio transmitters is far greater than the wavelengths emitted by atoms and is a "synthetic atom" built to the scale of man, yet we notice these cavities are purpose built and the compact spaces they create do not connect with our three dimensional space directly. The way we know they connect is through resonance and connect through reciprocal space or 1/R length and reciprocal time 1/T = f (frequency).

This is clearly dealt with by Fourier theory and with our existing understanding of sources and the way cavities work using the analogy of the Camera Obscura. All this merged with the simple idea of a packet based around the Sync function. Now how do I prove that this is what really is the case. I would say how do we prove that an electron exists or what a photon actually is? These are all taken on "faith". You have an internal idea of what this means but it certainly does not relate to the way Quantum Theory relates these objects to our space and time. You have them "internalized" as objects not the waves of "uncollapsed" probability that they are supposed to be... as Yquantum says "waves of nothing". I prefer to think of them my way to provide the real understanding of the nature of the events based on measurables. There is so much more to deal with than just simple non-classical electrodynamics.

There are mathematical proofs in place that prove that no theory of everything can exist in less than 10 dimensions. Now this is not my call but there are "possibilities"... you choose. One are parametric dimensions (added parameters... such as in our theory of particles where there are 24 parameters added "ad hoc" as it was added in the Ptolemaic System) that are simply mathematical artifice's to give results. There are added physical linear dimensions leading to Standard String Theory. These are not seen in nature so what has happened is they have been "pushed" down to the Planck Length where the Manifold must be Quantized for the theory to work. There is my theory which uses the additional extra dimensions "decoupled" to our dimensional space by being "reciprocal" forming closed three dimensional "bubbles" with light cone walls and traversable only though "resonance". Then there is the only other possibility .... there are no Unified Theory at all. There is really nothing else at all... you choose which one is right. Less dimensions is "incomplete" and will not Unify the forces of nature.

Cheers
Confused2
Sum over Paths. .. C2 style.

For real 'sum over paths' see QED by Feynman .. hopefully my version is reasonably OK and avoids copying chunks of text from the book.

The basic idea is that a photon can take any path and any path is equally likely .. it might sound useless but in reality the majority of the weird paths tend to cancel out to leave a 'probable path' which looks just like the classical result.

The construction method is to have a vector which varies sinusoidally with the wavelength of the photon. At any point the probabability of detecting the photon is given by the square of the sum of all the paths leading to that point. To make the process more graphic Feynman proposes having a little wheel with a circumference chosen to be the wavelength of the photon. On the outside of the wheel you write the values that a sinewave would have if you spread it out over the circumference of the wheel .. starting at 0 .. going up to one, back down to zero and minus one and then back to zero ready to go round again.

This little wheel thing can travel along any path from the source (doesn't have to be straight) and when you arrive at the destination you're interested in you read off the number on the little wheel and add it, bearing in mind it could be a negative number you are adding (that would be a subtraction really) to the rest of the numbers you've got so far. Too much wandering would stretch my patience to write and your patience to read so I'm just going to say the 'most probable path' between points ends up being pretty much of a straight line (Read the book for a fuller/better description)

So now we look at the DSE. So far I've tried to restrict the analysis of it to two dimensions.. partly because I like ripple tanks and partly because (hopefully) we can see that for any number of paths below the 2D surface there will be an equal number above it and so worrying about them won't get us any further forward. Hopefully we still get a 'reasonable' answer by looking at the paths in two dimensions.

Looking here.. http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html .. we see we get the bright bits where the path lengths add up and the dark bits where they don't. .. as predicted by wave theory for a continuous source of a single frequency or by Feynman's 'sum over paths' method for a single photon. If two methods predict the same result there is a reasonable chance that they are in some way equivalent.

Best wishes,

-C2.
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.