Let's not forget that we agree more than we disagree.
(ref.: http://www.astronomycafe.net/vacuum/vactext.html )
QUOTE
The growing opinion now seems to be that, ultimately, only the properties of space such as its geometry or dimensionality can play a fundamental role in defining what matter really is. In a word, matter may be just another form of space. If the essence of matter is to be found in the geometric properties of 'empty' space, our current understanding of space will not be sufficient to describe all of matter's possible aspects.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The growing opinion now seems to be that, ultimately, only the properties of space such as its geometry or dimensionality can play a fundamental role in defining what matter really is. In a word, matter may be just another form of space. If the essence of matter is to be found in the geometric properties of 'empty' space, our current understanding of space will not be sufficient to describe all of matter's possible aspects. |
Good Elf
...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's go back, 1,000 years, ... they did not have the engineering knowledge that we do... yet they were able to build churches etc. that withstood the ravage of earthquakes etc.
All that they used was a "measuring stick". If they used it properly in the execution of the work the building survived. All measurements were proportions of that "length".
Today we use the speed of light as a measuring stick.
It is a Ptolemaic System that gives a lot of right answer.
Like you... I say there has to be more.
Where do we look for clues?
I'd like to have more tech./math knowledge to guide our quest.
Our measuring stick has produced a fantastic technical society.
Yet.... we don't understand/know what is the mechanism that makes a wave.
jal
QUOTE (jal+Dec 2 2006, 03:08 PM)
Yet.... we don't understand/know what is the mechanism that makes a wave.
jal
Ahoy,
Moreover we don't know whatta wave is! .... 5-D speculation suggests it may be a transitional manifestation between singularity states; as for the mechanism of self sustaining transdimensional prop, this crank has his endo event horizon wave duality sh!t.
Bored .... no new delusional material
.... must abuse PHD types and other "heads so far up their backside" brethren. 
Good Elf .... excellent! .... love to read your posts
jal
Ahoy,
Moreover we don't know whatta wave is! .... 5-D speculation suggests it may be a transitional manifestation between singularity states; as for the mechanism of self sustaining transdimensional prop, this crank has his endo event horizon wave duality sh!t.
Bored .... no new delusional material
.... must abuse PHD types and other "heads so far up their backside" brethren. Good Elf .... excellent! .... love to read your posts
Hi C2,
I think you will find that the little number thingy is not a simple real number add and subtraction but a complex vector summation and subtraction (in reality). In Feynman's popular Book on QED it has been simplified for the general audience (including being only spin zero particles... no "eyes" in those Hurricanes!). I suggest you look at the programs I linked you with before (see below) and the accompanying instructions. Some simplification is required and assists when you choose only a two dimensional problems. Even there the little "stopwatch" thingy is a vector not a scaler as you indicate. This is still good but caution is urged in not being "too" simplified.
Quantum Mechanics Software: Edwin F. Taylor
You must be "fair" and explain that Feynman himself admits his explanation is glossing over the details. The section at the end of his book called "loose ends" deals with some of these issues. In chapter 3 he describes on page 120 what he has left out to assist in the quick understanding. Then there is this teaching document...
Teachng Feynman's Sum Over Paths Quantum Theory
Much of recent Optical Theory (called Photonics) cannot be explained with this simple exposition. This is OK as long as readers understand the limitiations.
Cheers
I think you will find that the little number thingy is not a simple real number add and subtraction but a complex vector summation and subtraction (in reality). In Feynman's popular Book on QED it has been simplified for the general audience (including being only spin zero particles... no "eyes" in those Hurricanes!). I suggest you look at the programs I linked you with before (see below) and the accompanying instructions. Some simplification is required and assists when you choose only a two dimensional problems. Even there the little "stopwatch" thingy is a vector not a scaler as you indicate. This is still good but caution is urged in not being "too" simplified.
Quantum Mechanics Software: Edwin F. Taylor
You must be "fair" and explain that Feynman himself admits his explanation is glossing over the details. The section at the end of his book called "loose ends" deals with some of these issues. In chapter 3 he describes on page 120 what he has left out to assist in the quick understanding. Then there is this teaching document...
Teachng Feynman's Sum Over Paths Quantum Theory
Much of recent Optical Theory (called Photonics) cannot be explained with this simple exposition. This is OK as long as readers understand the limitiations.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
I'm not sure it is possible to explain everything at once. I'm trying to get us back to looking at the DSE .. it may be more comprehensible than Elf Theory and the result may shed more light on Elf Theory rather than vice-versa.
I think writing the value of the sine function on the wheel allows us to do the vector addition without pain - it might be a C2 addition to the original - I was doing it from memory as my QED has gone AWOL. Edit .. Maybe my vector addition is not so good .. ADD THE VECTOR when you arrive at your destination - thanks GE.
So far we've just fired our photons and counted them - at the moment that is the thing to be explained. I did suggest looking at e-p-e interaction but I think D/L was against it so I've dropped the idea.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I'm not sure it is possible to explain everything at once. I'm trying to get us back to looking at the DSE .. it may be more comprehensible than Elf Theory and the result may shed more light on Elf Theory rather than vice-versa.
I think writing the value of the sine function on the wheel allows us to do the vector addition without pain - it might be a C2 addition to the original - I was doing it from memory as my QED has gone AWOL. Edit .. Maybe my vector addition is not so good .. ADD THE VECTOR when you arrive at your destination - thanks GE.
So far we've just fired our photons and counted them - at the moment that is the thing to be explained. I did suggest looking at e-p-e interaction but I think D/L was against it so I've dropped the idea.
Best wishes,
-C2.
The main point I would like to establish is that in both the Feynman analysis (sum over paths) and the continuous excitation wavetank analysis .. the wave of whatever it is we're looking at appears to be on all wavefronts (to infinity?) until/unless it is detected. One of the odd consequences of detecting a photon at any particular point would seem to be that you can't (then) detect it anywhere else. All these waves of 'whatever' that were happily heading out of (say) the solar system immediately vanish if/when you detect your photon.
Good Elf might be trying to explain this .. but I'm not sure he has explained WHY he is explaining this. If we are looking at a light bulb .. we find that detecting a photon on one side of the room will immediately reduce the intensity of the light on the other side of the room.
Comments/suggestions most welcome.
-C2.
Good Elf might be trying to explain this .. but I'm not sure he has explained WHY he is explaining this. If we are looking at a light bulb .. we find that detecting a photon on one side of the room will immediately reduce the intensity of the light on the other side of the room.
Comments/suggestions most welcome.
-C2.
C2, jal,
The quantum measurement problem is one of the most fascinating and challenging topics in physics both theoretically and experimentally.
C2, it involves deep questions and the use of very sophisticated and elegant techniques. After analyzing the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. The measurement problem and rigorously reformulates the "collapse of the wave function" by measurement, as a dephasing process quantitatively characterized by an order parameter, what we call the decoherence parameter according to the many-Hilbert-space approach to the problem.
This might be TMI, just hope it sheds some light (now that is funny) on how difficult the experiment really is.
Duality/Lisa
The quantum measurement problem is one of the most fascinating and challenging topics in physics both theoretically and experimentally.
C2, it involves deep questions and the use of very sophisticated and elegant techniques. After analyzing the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. The measurement problem and rigorously reformulates the "collapse of the wave function" by measurement, as a dephasing process quantitatively characterized by an order parameter, what we call the decoherence parameter according to the many-Hilbert-space approach to the problem.
This might be TMI, just hope it sheds some light (now that is funny) on how difficult the experiment really is.
Duality/Lisa
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Duality, fivedoughnut, Jal et al,
Click on small images to enlarge...
OK I am trying to establish higher dimensions (reciprocal dimensions) by physical argument. I will (once again) turn to the de Broglie Matter Wave (DBMW). I can readily associate this with an Electromagnetic Wave of some kind since it is compatible with Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity as shown below and propagates with the velocity of light. In my theory the DBMW emanates from "higher reciprocal dimensions". The relationship for this is:
Wikipedia: De Broglie hypothesis
I hope that all are convinced that the DBMW is no longer a "Hypothesis" and is an established fact regarding all particles recently even regarding macroscopic materials such as the famous Bose-Einstein Condensate, electrons, Buckeyballs etc.
While the electron has no measurable extension into our space the electron can capture a photon (see Feynman's QED). In my theory which is a combination of ideas including some from a paper by Williamson and Van der Mark, the electron is at least one and possibly more photons executing a doubly looping path in an internal toroidal space which also leads to topological wrapping of the EM wave and the existence of "permanent charge". This is one solution in accord with some aspects of String Theory where all particles may be constructed from photons with suitable boosts and spins.
A "Universe Construction Chart" is presented here from a book A First Course in String Theory by B. Zwiebach, which shows all these sub-atomic particles constructed from D6 Branes (6 dimensional) in just such a manner leading to the Standard Model. I admit these particles rely on compact non-reciprocal dimensions but a transformation of all dimensions to their reciprocal changes nothing other than the topological mappings. This "geometry" is exactly equivalent to the Fourier Plane Transforms.
The way in which the electric and magnetic fields are twisted (at least the most simple case) is shown in this illustration from the paper...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
The "topological wrapping" of the electromagnetic stressors of the internal propagating photon of this higher dimensional standing wave results in the appearance of permanent charge on the outer surface held in place by dimensional bounds and causality in its "dimensonally separate" cavity.
Let us try and "model" the "de Broglie particle". Lets say the DBMW is generated from an oscillator which is like those crude devices that are used in wave tanks. Something just "bobbing up and down". Lets say it is moving at 10 mm /sec across the tank. What would we see on a water wave tank. We would see the wave propagating along a streamline shaped like a "vee" the top of the "vee" pointing backwards. If I increase the frequency of this oscillation this will not change the angle between the two arms of the "vee" just shorten the distance between the wavefronts. If I keep the frequency (of bobbing) constant and increase the velocity (lets say double), the distance between successive crests will also double which has the effect of halving the spatial frequency of the oscillation on the water surface in the direction of motion.
We know that the de Broglie particle such as an electron emits waves at the speed of light as shown in the equation shown above. The reality is the faster a particle travels the shorter the wavelength. This is exactly opposite to what is the case of a "bobbing source" where increasing the speed just spreads out the bobbing in space. For a moment ignore the mass dependence and focus on the inverse velocity dependence. Velocity is s/t where s = linear distance and t= time. The dependence of the DBMW wavelength is not proportional to distance and through this relationship is not proportional to time it is actually proportional to inverse distance and to inverse time which are reciprocal linear dimensions and reciprocal time which is frequency.
This establishes a "theory" that provides "mechanism" based on a reciprocal dimensional interpretation and an excellent reason why renormalization will fail since division by zero is such a damaging term. All the theories of physics so far attempt to describe the electron and other particles as a linear extension of the external three dimensional space (even Williamson and Van der Mark's Paper). If our space and energetic processes are defined only within zones where our three dimensional space exists then there is a reason here. I am not saying that a sub-atomic particle does not share our three dimensional space, what I am saying is we share common space with these objects but a separate space (particle by particle) is also "linked" by a weak connection... that of resonance.... a D6 Brane. These two spaces (actually these are three spaces each one composed of three dimensions) together give us a 10 dimensional object without further considerations.
This was the interpretation supplied by earlier experts on this problem and I think still holds today. You cannot explain the electrons matter wave properties other than "tunneling" from the evanescent region of the particle of a wave that cannot be damped by energetic processes in our system, in other word the energy system for this "radiation" quickly dissipates with distance from the particle but nothing seems to absorb this radiation like we can do with a photon. For instance if an electron hits an atom it may be absorbed into an electronic structure but it cannot dissipate. On the contrary a photon may be absorbed into a particle or a shell and the energy may be dissipated through virtual processes which can produce short range forces such as magnetism or electric fields. Some residual photon energy may be lost as kinetic or potential energy.
The de Broglie Matter Wave is a superluminal effect where the internal wave has two components, one of them is the group velocity (which is related the the particle packet velocity) and the other frequency is the phase velocity which is superluminal. de Broglie in his paper in
"Comptes rendus, Vol. 177, 1923, pp. 507-510" Louis de Broglie
I cannot show all the images here with the site restrictions so please look ... but de Broglie stated...
The assumption is that the photon carries almost no "rest mass"... In actual fact it has identically 0 rest mass but this only draws the group and phase velocity to the one number of C. These effects are seen in the near field of radio broadcast masts. We are not unaccustomed to them. But in particle fields they appear to be emanating from a separate space that is not seen and is reciprocal to ours.
The assumption is that the photon carries almost no "rest mass"... In actual fact it has identically 0 rest mass but this only draws the group and phase velocity to the one number of C. These effects are seen in the near field of radio broadcast masts. We are not unaccustomed to them. But in particle fields they appear to be emanating from a separate space that is not seen and is reciprocal to ours.
In his paper "The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
Department of Physics, Gothenburg University, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden, and LightLab Sweden AB, Smedjegatan 6, SE-131 34 Nacka, Sweden
THE POSTULATE
The topological structure of the electron is a closed two-turn helix (a so-called Hubius Helix) that is generated by circulatory motion of a mass-less particle at the speed of light.
and be depicted graphically in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 Graphical representation of the Hubius Helix created from the parameterized
equations (1) using Matlab.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512265 Comments: Accepted for publication in Physics Essays, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2004. www.physicsessays.com Subj-class: General Physics
The main "failing" of this paper is self admitted in that no mechanism has been shown as to why the internal structure of the electron exists such that it has the magnetic dipole moment and the electric fields in an otherwise "featureless" "point source". All EM Theory insists on extended sources for such entities. String Theories do not insist on such restrictions provided added dimensions are used. It appears the quandary is that the fields of the electron emanate from a point in space but whatever it is, that is the source of this "wave" occupies no measurable space in our Universe. This is compatible with my argument that the electron exists in a higher dimensional space from which these features (static electric and magnetic fields) emanate. This is same problems associated with Williamson and Van der Marks Paper (also self admitted). Of course they are all trying to fit this object into a three dimensional space using coventional theory. I do not accept that these properties are adequately accounted for by Quantum Theory either. Logic should be used rather than to argue from a position of "illogic" which has become accepted as part of the "quantum postulates".
It seems to me that scientists that retreat into "magic" to explain this issue and then claim that it is the most logical means of explanation is a kind of "Cowards Castle" safe from debate and immune from the "reason" and "logic" of experiment (present company excepted of course). In the total absence of any other "logical" answer I suggest this would have be accepted other than for an "artifact" of Science History.
This concept is closely aligned with Robert A. Close's view of Special Relativity which can be found here...
The Other Meaning of Special Relativity:Robert A. Close
While "Close's Theory" is very "close to the truth" he once again makes the "slip-up" of being unable to explain the electron in three dimensional space. I have discussed how Special Relativity is a rotation in 4 dimensional spacetime "out of the plane of our Universe"... this is explained away as "length contraction"... if you want we can discuss this too. The opposite end of Special Relativity is de Broglie Matter Waves as V -> 0 for particles such as electrons and a "special case" for photons.
Cheers
Click on small images to enlarge...
OK I am trying to establish higher dimensions (reciprocal dimensions) by physical argument. I will (once again) turn to the de Broglie Matter Wave (DBMW). I can readily associate this with an Electromagnetic Wave of some kind since it is compatible with Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity as shown below and propagates with the velocity of light. In my theory the DBMW emanates from "higher reciprocal dimensions". The relationship for this is:
Wikipedia: De Broglie hypothesis
I hope that all are convinced that the DBMW is no longer a "Hypothesis" and is an established fact regarding all particles recently even regarding macroscopic materials such as the famous Bose-Einstein Condensate, electrons, Buckeyballs etc.
While the electron has no measurable extension into our space the electron can capture a photon (see Feynman's QED). In my theory which is a combination of ideas including some from a paper by Williamson and Van der Mark, the electron is at least one and possibly more photons executing a doubly looping path in an internal toroidal space which also leads to topological wrapping of the EM wave and the existence of "permanent charge". This is one solution in accord with some aspects of String Theory where all particles may be constructed from photons with suitable boosts and spins.
A "Universe Construction Chart" is presented here from a book A First Course in String Theory by B. Zwiebach, which shows all these sub-atomic particles constructed from D6 Branes (6 dimensional) in just such a manner leading to the Standard Model. I admit these particles rely on compact non-reciprocal dimensions but a transformation of all dimensions to their reciprocal changes nothing other than the topological mappings. This "geometry" is exactly equivalent to the Fourier Plane Transforms.
The way in which the electric and magnetic fields are twisted (at least the most simple case) is shown in this illustration from the paper...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
The "topological wrapping" of the electromagnetic stressors of the internal propagating photon of this higher dimensional standing wave results in the appearance of permanent charge on the outer surface held in place by dimensional bounds and causality in its "dimensonally separate" cavity.
Let us try and "model" the "de Broglie particle". Lets say the DBMW is generated from an oscillator which is like those crude devices that are used in wave tanks. Something just "bobbing up and down". Lets say it is moving at 10 mm /sec across the tank. What would we see on a water wave tank. We would see the wave propagating along a streamline shaped like a "vee" the top of the "vee" pointing backwards. If I increase the frequency of this oscillation this will not change the angle between the two arms of the "vee" just shorten the distance between the wavefronts. If I keep the frequency (of bobbing) constant and increase the velocity (lets say double), the distance between successive crests will also double which has the effect of halving the spatial frequency of the oscillation on the water surface in the direction of motion.
We know that the de Broglie particle such as an electron emits waves at the speed of light as shown in the equation shown above. The reality is the faster a particle travels the shorter the wavelength. This is exactly opposite to what is the case of a "bobbing source" where increasing the speed just spreads out the bobbing in space. For a moment ignore the mass dependence and focus on the inverse velocity dependence. Velocity is s/t where s = linear distance and t= time. The dependence of the DBMW wavelength is not proportional to distance and through this relationship is not proportional to time it is actually proportional to inverse distance and to inverse time which are reciprocal linear dimensions and reciprocal time which is frequency.
This establishes a "theory" that provides "mechanism" based on a reciprocal dimensional interpretation and an excellent reason why renormalization will fail since division by zero is such a damaging term. All the theories of physics so far attempt to describe the electron and other particles as a linear extension of the external three dimensional space (even Williamson and Van der Mark's Paper). If our space and energetic processes are defined only within zones where our three dimensional space exists then there is a reason here. I am not saying that a sub-atomic particle does not share our three dimensional space, what I am saying is we share common space with these objects but a separate space (particle by particle) is also "linked" by a weak connection... that of resonance.... a D6 Brane. These two spaces (actually these are three spaces each one composed of three dimensions) together give us a 10 dimensional object without further considerations.
This was the interpretation supplied by earlier experts on this problem and I think still holds today. You cannot explain the electrons matter wave properties other than "tunneling" from the evanescent region of the particle of a wave that cannot be damped by energetic processes in our system, in other word the energy system for this "radiation" quickly dissipates with distance from the particle but nothing seems to absorb this radiation like we can do with a photon. For instance if an electron hits an atom it may be absorbed into an electronic structure but it cannot dissipate. On the contrary a photon may be absorbed into a particle or a shell and the energy may be dissipated through virtual processes which can produce short range forces such as magnetism or electric fields. Some residual photon energy may be lost as kinetic or potential energy.
The de Broglie Matter Wave is a superluminal effect where the internal wave has two components, one of them is the group velocity (which is related the the particle packet velocity) and the other frequency is the phase velocity which is superluminal. de Broglie in his paper in
"Comptes rendus, Vol. 177, 1923, pp. 507-510" Louis de Broglie
I cannot show all the images here with the site restrictions so please look ... but de Broglie stated...
QUOTE
The demonstration of this important result rests uniquely on the principle of special relativity and on the correctness of the quantum relationship as much for the fixed observer as for the moving observer.
Let us apply this to an atom of light. I showed elsewhere (2) that the atom of light should be considered as a moving object of a very small mass ( <10^-50g) that moves with a speed very nearly equal to C (although slightly less). We come therefore to the following conclusion: The atom of light, which is equivalent by reason of its total energy to a radiation of frequency ν, is the seat of an internal periodic phenomenon that, seen by the fixed observer, has at each point of space the same phase as a wave of frequency ν propagating in the same direction with a speed very nearly equal (although very slightly greater) to the constant called the speed of light.
Let us apply this to an atom of light. I showed elsewhere (2) that the atom of light should be considered as a moving object of a very small mass ( <10^-50g) that moves with a speed very nearly equal to C (although slightly less). We come therefore to the following conclusion: The atom of light, which is equivalent by reason of its total energy to a radiation of frequency ν, is the seat of an internal periodic phenomenon that, seen by the fixed observer, has at each point of space the same phase as a wave of frequency ν propagating in the same direction with a speed very nearly equal (although very slightly greater) to the constant called the speed of light.
The assumption is that the photon carries almost no "rest mass"... In actual fact it has identically 0 rest mass but this only draws the group and phase velocity to the one number of C. These effects are seen in the near field of radio broadcast masts. We are not unaccustomed to them. But in particle fields they appear to be emanating from a separate space that is not seen and is reciprocal to ours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The demonstration of this important result rests uniquely on the principle of special relativity and on the correctness of the quantum relationship as much for the fixed observer as for the moving observer. Let us apply this to an atom of light. I showed elsewhere (2) that the atom of light should be considered as a moving object of a very small mass ( <10^-50g) that moves with a speed very nearly equal to C (although slightly less). We come therefore to the following conclusion: The atom of light, which is equivalent by reason of its total energy to a radiation of frequency ν, is the seat of an internal periodic phenomenon that, seen by the fixed observer, has at each point of space the same phase as a wave of frequency ν propagating in the same direction with a speed very nearly equal (although very slightly greater) to the constant called the speed of light. |
The assumption is that the photon carries almost no "rest mass"... In actual fact it has identically 0 rest mass but this only draws the group and phase velocity to the one number of C. These effects are seen in the near field of radio broadcast masts. We are not unaccustomed to them. But in particle fields they appear to be emanating from a separate space that is not seen and is reciprocal to ours.
In his paper "The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
Department of Physics, Gothenburg University, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden, and LightLab Sweden AB, Smedjegatan 6, SE-131 34 Nacka, Sweden
THE POSTULATE
The topological structure of the electron is a closed two-turn helix (a so-called Hubius Helix) that is generated by circulatory motion of a mass-less particle at the speed of light.
and be depicted graphically in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 Graphical representation of the Hubius Helix created from the parameterized
equations (1) using Matlab.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512265 Comments: Accepted for publication in Physics Essays, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2004. www.physicsessays.com Subj-class: General Physics
The main "failing" of this paper is self admitted in that no mechanism has been shown as to why the internal structure of the electron exists such that it has the magnetic dipole moment and the electric fields in an otherwise "featureless" "point source". All EM Theory insists on extended sources for such entities. String Theories do not insist on such restrictions provided added dimensions are used. It appears the quandary is that the fields of the electron emanate from a point in space but whatever it is, that is the source of this "wave" occupies no measurable space in our Universe. This is compatible with my argument that the electron exists in a higher dimensional space from which these features (static electric and magnetic fields) emanate. This is same problems associated with Williamson and Van der Marks Paper (also self admitted). Of course they are all trying to fit this object into a three dimensional space using coventional theory. I do not accept that these properties are adequately accounted for by Quantum Theory either. Logic should be used rather than to argue from a position of "illogic" which has become accepted as part of the "quantum postulates".
It seems to me that scientists that retreat into "magic" to explain this issue and then claim that it is the most logical means of explanation is a kind of "Cowards Castle" safe from debate and immune from the "reason" and "logic" of experiment (present company excepted of course). In the total absence of any other "logical" answer I suggest this would have be accepted other than for an "artifact" of Science History.
This concept is closely aligned with Robert A. Close's view of Special Relativity which can be found here...
The Other Meaning of Special Relativity:Robert A. Close
While "Close's Theory" is very "close to the truth" he once again makes the "slip-up" of being unable to explain the electron in three dimensional space. I have discussed how Special Relativity is a rotation in 4 dimensional spacetime "out of the plane of our Universe"... this is explained away as "length contraction"... if you want we can discuss this too. The opposite end of Special Relativity is de Broglie Matter Waves as V -> 0 for particles such as electrons and a "special case" for photons.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
That was a good argument. I'm assuming that the electron's helical wave EM field
"model" that was shown is an "idealized" field representation for a single
"steady state" electron around a single hydrogen atom? It would seem that
the EM field relationship around a more complex atomic structure would have a very
different phasing relationship due to localized "charge dislocations" induced by
the presence of additional electrons and protons and their corresponding
EM phasing and induced field line interactions. Or, is the model depicting the
E and B fields of an electron purely as a function of 1/2 integer spin with no
external influences?
If I understood the intent of your argument correctly, it is because of
harmonic "coupling" between "dimensions" that allows an electron to "phase"
into our space time. The implication is that it is "time sharing" its existence
between dimensions in a reciprocal relationship. If this is the case, then
if it is coupling to the charges of an atom here, it must also be coupling
to "something" in the adjacent dimension to maintain harmonic "balance". In
other words it is "phase balanced" between charges in adjacent dimensions.
Is this what you are implying, or did I misinterpret your discussion?
Regards,
LL
That was a good argument. I'm assuming that the electron's helical wave EM field
"model" that was shown is an "idealized" field representation for a single
"steady state" electron around a single hydrogen atom? It would seem that
the EM field relationship around a more complex atomic structure would have a very
different phasing relationship due to localized "charge dislocations" induced by
the presence of additional electrons and protons and their corresponding
EM phasing and induced field line interactions. Or, is the model depicting the
E and B fields of an electron purely as a function of 1/2 integer spin with no
external influences?
If I understood the intent of your argument correctly, it is because of
harmonic "coupling" between "dimensions" that allows an electron to "phase"
into our space time. The implication is that it is "time sharing" its existence
between dimensions in a reciprocal relationship. If this is the case, then
if it is coupling to the charges of an atom here, it must also be coupling
to "something" in the adjacent dimension to maintain harmonic "balance". In
other words it is "phase balanced" between charges in adjacent dimensions.
Is this what you are implying, or did I misinterpret your discussion?
Regards,
LL
Here is something that just got published.
http://chip-architect.com/physics/Higher_d...M_radiation.pdf
Detecting and analyzing higher dimensions via the EM radiation field.
J.R.G. (Hans) de Vries
(Dated: December 1, 2006)
jal
http://chip-architect.com/physics/Higher_d...M_radiation.pdf
Detecting and analyzing higher dimensions via the EM radiation field.
J.R.G. (Hans) de Vries
(Dated: December 1, 2006)
jal
Hi Jal,
QUOTE (Jal+)
Here is something that just got published.
http://chip-architect.com/physics/Higher_d...M_radiation.pdf
Detecting and analyzing higher dimensions via the EM radiation field.
J.R.G. (Hans) de Vries
(Dated: December 1, 2006)
jal
That is an interesting paper but it does not capture the resonating cavity approach. It is a sort of String Theory with additional dimensions. I think this is an excellent starting point but with its Planck Length and any number of intercommunicating higher linear dimensions it is far too general a solution be useful in my case. As in our Universe it is my conjecture that three dimensions plus time is a "special set" in which physics operates as a closed energetic system. An object might have 10 dimensions , three of which it shares with the rest of us and the other six (plus the internal time/frequency dimension) work in groups of three as well as dynamically separate domains. The other point that reciprocal space embodies is its ability to accept very large external objects into its small structure through reciprocal resonant dimensions. This is like saying if I was a magician... instead of pulling a rabbit out of my hat, I can pull an elephant out of it... he he he! Shades of "Looney Tunes" eh?
I really appreciate that paper though and it is a start. I would say where did you get it and where are his references? It appears not to be sponsored by any Institute and come from "nowhere".
Cheers
http://chip-architect.com/physics/Higher_d...M_radiation.pdf
Detecting and analyzing higher dimensions via the EM radiation field.
J.R.G. (Hans) de Vries
(Dated: December 1, 2006)
jal
That is an interesting paper but it does not capture the resonating cavity approach. It is a sort of String Theory with additional dimensions. I think this is an excellent starting point but with its Planck Length and any number of intercommunicating higher linear dimensions it is far too general a solution be useful in my case. As in our Universe it is my conjecture that three dimensions plus time is a "special set" in which physics operates as a closed energetic system. An object might have 10 dimensions , three of which it shares with the rest of us and the other six (plus the internal time/frequency dimension) work in groups of three as well as dynamically separate domains. The other point that reciprocal space embodies is its ability to accept very large external objects into its small structure through reciprocal resonant dimensions. This is like saying if I was a magician... instead of pulling a rabbit out of my hat, I can pull an elephant out of it... he he he! Shades of "Looney Tunes" eh?
I really appreciate that paper though and it is a start. I would say where did you get it and where are his references? It appears not to be sponsored by any Institute and come from "nowhere".
Cheers
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Hi Good Elf,
That was a good argument. I'm assuming that the electron's helical wave EM field "model" that was shown is an "idealized" field representation for a single "steady state" electron around a single hydrogen atom? It would seem that the EM field relationship around a more complex atomic structure would have a very different phasing relationship due to localized "charge dislocations" induced by the presence of additional electrons and protons and their corresponding EM phasing and induced field line interactions. Or, is the model depicting the E and B fields of an electron purely as a function of 1/2 integer spin with no external influences?
If I understood the intent of your argument correctly, it is because of harmonic "coupling" between "dimensions" that allows an electron to "phase" into our space time. The implication is that it is "time sharing" its existence between dimensions in a reciprocal relationship. If this is the case, then if it is coupling to the charges of an atom here, it must also be coupling to "something" in the adjacent dimension to maintain harmonic "balance". In other words it is "phase balanced" between charges in adjacent dimensions. Is this what you are implying, or did I misinterpret your discussion?
Regards,
That was a good argument. I'm assuming that the electron's helical wave EM field "model" that was shown is an "idealized" field representation for a single "steady state" electron around a single hydrogen atom? It would seem that the EM field relationship around a more complex atomic structure would have a very different phasing relationship due to localized "charge dislocations" induced by the presence of additional electrons and protons and their corresponding EM phasing and induced field line interactions. Or, is the model depicting the E and B fields of an electron purely as a function of 1/2 integer spin with no external influences?
If I understood the intent of your argument correctly, it is because of harmonic "coupling" between "dimensions" that allows an electron to "phase" into our space time. The implication is that it is "time sharing" its existence between dimensions in a reciprocal relationship. If this is the case, then if it is coupling to the charges of an atom here, it must also be coupling to "something" in the adjacent dimension to maintain harmonic "balance". In other words it is "phase balanced" between charges in adjacent dimensions. Is this what you are implying, or did I misinterpret your discussion?
Regards,
It is just an electron. It makes no claims about the external environment of the electron. It is a known fact that photons can be absorbed by the single lone electron. As explained in the previous post to Jal... internal environment is mapped as a reciprocal space (relative to us) inside the roughly spherical external spherical geometry. The Hubius Helix only shows us how the internal flat-space is connected inside the toroidally connected spacetime. For instance our Universe has internally complex connectivity in our flat-space.
A cosmic hall of mirrors Sept:2005
Here we see that the WIMAP Data supports a Poincaré Dodecahedral Toroidally connected internal space for our local Universe. This model is probably only the simplest possibility that will solve the problem. Without further data my statements and those of the other authors are inconclusive at this stage of our understanding. Beyond that I assume that the internal space itself would appear to be a sphere of spheroid with a possible number of interconnected Rindler Connections. As the article says "The geometrical explanation of the power spectrum thus implies that we live in a finite, multiply connected space that is smaller than the observable universe". The external boundary of our space is smaller that the internal boundaries.... probably a whole lot smaller through "contraction" or "rotation" on the light cone wall through Special Relativity.
You recall the electron simulation trapped in an Bohr Orbit around a nucleus...
This is its wave expression in a cavity. A particle cannot be seen with any of our technology it appears as a point source. If the particle exists it is inside another cavity. This "system" of electron plus nuclear proton is a wave picture and the cavity the electron is pictures in here might also possibly contain a photon as well within the cavity. This is aside of photons possibly within the electron as well. Feynman's Book describes the capturing of "internal" photons and their quantum numbers in a similar fashion to the way that Circuit QED captures a single photon within its resonant synthetic "atom". Remember that the source of the quanta are not "there" these are the shadows on our spacetime. They are also states we cannot directly measure.
In the helical model this photon wave "circulates" twice around the circuit with a half twist in the electric and magnetic polarizations each time until it catches its tail. In our Universe a resonant photon will "circulate" through 12 pentagonal regions each one imparting a 36 degree twist to our spacetime.
A cosmic hall of mirrors Sept:2005
Here we see that the WIMAP Data supports a Poincaré Dodecahedral Toroidally connected internal space for our local Universe. This model is probably only the simplest possibility that will solve the problem. Without further data my statements and those of the other authors are inconclusive at this stage of our understanding. Beyond that I assume that the internal space itself would appear to be a sphere of spheroid with a possible number of interconnected Rindler Connections. As the article says "The geometrical explanation of the power spectrum thus implies that we live in a finite, multiply connected space that is smaller than the observable universe". The external boundary of our space is smaller that the internal boundaries.... probably a whole lot smaller through "contraction" or "rotation" on the light cone wall through Special Relativity.
You recall the electron simulation trapped in an Bohr Orbit around a nucleus...
This is its wave expression in a cavity. A particle cannot be seen with any of our technology it appears as a point source. If the particle exists it is inside another cavity. This "system" of electron plus nuclear proton is a wave picture and the cavity the electron is pictures in here might also possibly contain a photon as well within the cavity. This is aside of photons possibly within the electron as well. Feynman's Book describes the capturing of "internal" photons and their quantum numbers in a similar fashion to the way that Circuit QED captures a single photon within its resonant synthetic "atom". Remember that the source of the quanta are not "there" these are the shadows on our spacetime. They are also states we cannot directly measure.
In the helical model this photon wave "circulates" twice around the circuit with a half twist in the electric and magnetic polarizations each time until it catches its tail. In our Universe a resonant photon will "circulate" through 12 pentagonal regions each one imparting a 36 degree twist to our spacetime.
QUOTE (PhysicsWeb Article+)
This space may be represented by a polyhedron with 12 pentagonal faces, with opposite faces being "glued" together after a twist of 36° (figure 3). This is the only consistent way to obtain a spherical (i.e. positively curved) space from a dodecahedron: if the twist was 108°, for example, we would end up with a radically different hyperbolic space. The Poincaré dodecahedral space is essentially a multiply connected variant of a simply connected hypersphere, although its volume is 120 times smaller.
A rocket leaving the dodecahedron through a given face immediately re-enters through the opposite face, and light propagates such that any observer whose line-of-sight intercepts one face has the illusion of seeing a slightly rotated copy of their own dodecahedron. This means that some photons from the cosmic microwave background, for example, would appear twice in the sky.
A rocket leaving the dodecahedron through a given face immediately re-enters through the opposite face, and light propagates such that any observer whose line-of-sight intercepts one face has the illusion of seeing a slightly rotated copy of their own dodecahedron. This means that some photons from the cosmic microwave background, for example, would appear twice in the sky.
I think we can say with some confidence there is plenty of science for future generations yet to tackle.
Actually electrons never "visit" our Universe in the way that the force carriers the photons do. Photons are able to be absorbed and aside from particle - antiparticle annihilation events the electrons influence remains beyond our Universe and we see them as charges and magnetic fields emanating from a "point source". I am willing to listen to other ideas on this but this is what I think it means. Electrons are truly "stuck" in quantum space.
Matter Waves and the electric and magnetic fields from the electron can enter our Universe but the electron itself is mysteriously unable to "reach" us through that reciprocal barrier. Now I do not know just how many dimensions an electron contains once again I am resorting to conjecture about things we just do not know. Is an electron made up of two or three quarks? You used the word phased... indeed it may be that we are dealing with a three phase Universe "a la Nicola Tesla" each of these dimensional phases embody three separate three dimensionally orthogonal spaces sharing one largely inflated space we call our Universe and two other "compact" three dimensional spaces reciprocally related to our Universe at the particle brane level. There is no immediate reason to assume that they are any smaller than our own Universe being "joined at the hip" as it were. However there is no reason to think they are not extremely tiny as well. I really just do not know. In my "String Theory" these Universes are not "absolutely" everywhere they are mostly where there are sub-atomic particles. There are also a few bigger ones related to the branes of our Universe too. There are a lot of particles like "bubbles" scattered in our Universe which are the surface of higher dimensional "rotating" light cones.
These represent "optical systems" like camera obscura's for the concentration and imaging of "Kondo Phantoms" using the matter waves of the external Universe. These are like a "hall of mirrors" as well with their own internal histories due to the different physical positioning relative to the external Universe re-ordering the event sequences that the interior eventscapes are totally unaware of. This is linked through Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. Since the brane walls are a frequency domain compared with the internal time domain the events on its surface are not synchronous to events in the outer Universe due to the advanced and retarded nature the event strings that are written on its surface (like a hologram or like the aperture of our Camera Obscura). These "strings" only code for frequency(reciprocal time) and not explicitly for time so histories internally may be subtlety different due to slightly altered event causality from the external Universe. A many worlds interpretation that allows our Quantum Computers to work. As previously stated all the multiple quantum images are for free only emission and absorptions actually cost anything at all.
The Universe is "Holographic". Check out Leonard Susskind on Holographic Universes
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...nt-horizon.html
http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/geman/am17...%20Universe.htm
... or David Deutsch with his many world (Multiverse) Interpretation...
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0104033
The exact nature of the "clones" is not exactly known... yet! But I am certain they are there simply because quantum computers will actually work.
Cheers
Actually electrons never "visit" our Universe in the way that the force carriers the photons do. Photons are able to be absorbed and aside from particle - antiparticle annihilation events the electrons influence remains beyond our Universe and we see them as charges and magnetic fields emanating from a "point source". I am willing to listen to other ideas on this but this is what I think it means. Electrons are truly "stuck" in quantum space.
Matter Waves and the electric and magnetic fields from the electron can enter our Universe but the electron itself is mysteriously unable to "reach" us through that reciprocal barrier. Now I do not know just how many dimensions an electron contains once again I am resorting to conjecture about things we just do not know. Is an electron made up of two or three quarks? You used the word phased... indeed it may be that we are dealing with a three phase Universe "a la Nicola Tesla" each of these dimensional phases embody three separate three dimensionally orthogonal spaces sharing one largely inflated space we call our Universe and two other "compact" three dimensional spaces reciprocally related to our Universe at the particle brane level. There is no immediate reason to assume that they are any smaller than our own Universe being "joined at the hip" as it were. However there is no reason to think they are not extremely tiny as well. I really just do not know. In my "String Theory" these Universes are not "absolutely" everywhere they are mostly where there are sub-atomic particles. There are also a few bigger ones related to the branes of our Universe too. There are a lot of particles like "bubbles" scattered in our Universe which are the surface of higher dimensional "rotating" light cones.
These represent "optical systems" like camera obscura's for the concentration and imaging of "Kondo Phantoms" using the matter waves of the external Universe. These are like a "hall of mirrors" as well with their own internal histories due to the different physical positioning relative to the external Universe re-ordering the event sequences that the interior eventscapes are totally unaware of. This is linked through Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. Since the brane walls are a frequency domain compared with the internal time domain the events on its surface are not synchronous to events in the outer Universe due to the advanced and retarded nature the event strings that are written on its surface (like a hologram or like the aperture of our Camera Obscura). These "strings" only code for frequency(reciprocal time) and not explicitly for time so histories internally may be subtlety different due to slightly altered event causality from the external Universe. A many worlds interpretation that allows our Quantum Computers to work. As previously stated all the multiple quantum images are for free only emission and absorptions actually cost anything at all.
The Universe is "Holographic". Check out Leonard Susskind on Holographic Universes
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...nt-horizon.html
http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/geman/am17...%20Universe.htm
... or David Deutsch with his many world (Multiverse) Interpretation...
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0104033
The exact nature of the "clones" is not exactly known... yet! But I am certain they are there simply because quantum computers will actually work.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
We seem to keep bringing up the same points without putting them together.
( 1 ) For present purposes my definition of a 'wave' is that it is a representation of the probability of finding a photon .. this probability appears to vary cyclically.
( 2 ) Your definition of a 'wave' remains unclear to me.
( 3 ) We agree that the do Broglie Hypothesis correctly describes the wavelength of both our hypothetical waves.
( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?
( 5 ) The DSE equation 'works' and suggests the photon is not confined to one 'wave'.
( 6 ) The Kennedy Thorndike experiment suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave' over large distances.
( 7 )The ripple tank gives the 'right answer' with continuous excitation at a single frequency (and not otherwise) and suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave'.
( 8 ) Feynman's sum over paths method works and suggests that the photon is not confined to a particular wave.
( 9 ) Can you reconcile 5, 6 , 7 , 8 with the concept of a wavepacket (perhaps clarification might help) which you strongly imply is localized on a particular 'wave' or 'wavefront'.
Best wishes,
-C2.
We seem to keep bringing up the same points without putting them together.
( 1 ) For present purposes my definition of a 'wave' is that it is a representation of the probability of finding a photon .. this probability appears to vary cyclically.
( 2 ) Your definition of a 'wave' remains unclear to me.
( 3 ) We agree that the do Broglie Hypothesis correctly describes the wavelength of both our hypothetical waves.
( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?
( 5 ) The DSE equation 'works' and suggests the photon is not confined to one 'wave'.
( 6 ) The Kennedy Thorndike experiment suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave' over large distances.
( 7 )The ripple tank gives the 'right answer' with continuous excitation at a single frequency (and not otherwise) and suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave'.
( 8 ) Feynman's sum over paths method works and suggests that the photon is not confined to a particular wave.
( 9 ) Can you reconcile 5, 6 , 7 , 8 with the concept of a wavepacket (perhaps clarification might help) which you strongly imply is localized on a particular 'wave' or 'wavefront'.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hi Confused2,
You sure know how to ask a lot of questions!
( 1 ) For present purposes my definition of a 'wave' is that it is a representation of the probability of finding a photon .. this probability appears to vary cyclically.
I understand that you are defining a wave of probability the square of this function normalized per unit volume is supposed to describe "probability". Certainly this is not an electromagnetic wave
( 2 ) Your definition of a 'wave' remains unclear to me.
An electromagnetic wave
( 3 ) We agree that the do Broglie Hypothesis correctly describes the wavelength of both our hypothetical waves.
No... it only describes electromagnetic waves since it is no probability function
( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?
You must ask the question of what you consider what a photon really is. There is a wave aspect and a particle aspect. Its position in a wave theory is not defined since its position cannot be determined without collapsing the state (as a particle)
( 5 ) The DSE equation 'works' and suggests the photon is not confined to one 'wave'.
Ummm... Do not follow you there, you better state what you really mean. The Ptolemaic System works but that does not make it a correct interpretation of the Physics. A photon finds an existing wave pattern in space this is unchanging for that one photon. Coherent photons will all "illuminate" the same pattern as long as the geometry of the system remains constant over time
( 6 ) The Kennedy Thorndike experiment suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave' over large distances.
I have had a "read" of the Kennedy -Thorndyke Experiment and as I see it was a null experiment simply confirming Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity for time dilation and nothing more than that. What do you read in it?
Wikipedia: Kennedy–Thorndike experiment
( 7 )The ripple tank gives the 'right answer' with continuous excitation at a single frequency (and not otherwise) and suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave'.
Your ripple tank gives progressive waves and cannot be considered an exact analogy for light. A single photon with a coherent phase will produce the same result as a continuous excitation of the chamber with CW... this will not happen in a ripple tank... ever!. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment is convincing argument for that to me
( 8 ) Feynman's sum over paths method works and suggests that the photon is not confined to a particular wave.
Once again I have no idea what you are meaning there. I think you mean that a particular photon could be found anywhere. No... it will not. "Statistical" photons will be found "anywhere" from a white noise source but coherent photons are ordered photons of a single frequency (or at least their waves are). Canonical Typicality refutes this point and you will not be able to show evidence against it using a theory derived from pure statistics. You have also forgotten (I think) about the nature of boson states. It is like saying the average Citizen of the US is 50% Male and 50% female and will have 60% Caucasian, 20% afro-American and 20% Hispanic heritage and lives in several large cities 90% of the time. While that is true (or my version of it
) it is not Canonically Typical. Show me a single "coherent" photon that is physically out of place. Do you suggest that a single photon will belong to different waves at the same time? Are you speaking of "electromagnetic waves" or waves of probability? How many probabilities will a photon have at one point at the one time according to your theory? I know what quantum theory predicts but Quantum Theory will fail to predict exact results for any measurement
( 9 ) Can you reconcile 5, 6 , 7 , 8 with the concept of a wave-packet (perhaps clarification might help) which you strongly imply is localized on a particular 'wave' or 'wavefront'.
A wave-packet is similar to the sync function. It is not a sync function but that is the best one to illustrate it since its transform is idealized so that it is an impulse of fixed width in time and a specified height (in magnitude). It is the most general "pulse"
That is the "pulse" and the "packet" form a transform pair. Of course the real pulse will be complex electromagnetic response since this impulse will produce a response which will result in oscillating electric and magnetic fields against the "brane wall of our Universe". This is a complex time and space varying function.
A continuous wave may be constructed from overlapping transformed pulses into a single wave as seen here...
I have made this simple since I cannot really show a true wave packet. The wave packet extends over surfaces as shown by this cross sectional image which is in the plane of the (unseen small) dipole...
Contributed by Zephir.
The wave packet moves like this animation over an existing changeless pre-existing pattern which is able to know the ultimate state of particles in the Universe not by rippling around in the space but by the standing waves in space formed with this "packet" whatever it may be. As I have previously said it is like a shadow on the ground of something removed from our three dimensional world. That is until it is absorbed or scattered as a "particle". Until that happens no energy interchanges occur.
This is also Zephirs Image. It is the best I have seen and probably represents an electron rather than a photon. The shape of the wave-packet is probably not right unless it is a pencil beam but what it shows is very right up to a point.
In the course of this thread I think I have explained these points to you and to others many times but it seems there is something missing. There are those who use particle descriptions get very similar answers to the wave descriptions. Modern theory now extends 19th Century physics and we can understand much more about these phenomena than they were able to in even the 1930's. The particle paradigm gives some fairly good visual ideas and very good mathematical results, but today I am certain that since the particle approach is the inner product of a simplified wave approach... the wave approach will give the same if not better answers with less "magic". Feynman has given the right answers to the problem. Remember that there are two theories here the Wheeler-Feynman Theory is an Electromagnetic Wave Theory not specifically a Quantum Theory and the Quantum Electrodynamics is an easy way to to calculate the same results using a non-classical wave theory which can be shown to be absolutely equivalent. I happen to think "particles" do not give a satisfactory result anymore.
Cheers
You sure know how to ask a lot of questions!
( 1 ) For present purposes my definition of a 'wave' is that it is a representation of the probability of finding a photon .. this probability appears to vary cyclically.
I understand that you are defining a wave of probability the square of this function normalized per unit volume is supposed to describe "probability". Certainly this is not an electromagnetic wave
( 2 ) Your definition of a 'wave' remains unclear to me.
An electromagnetic wave
( 3 ) We agree that the do Broglie Hypothesis correctly describes the wavelength of both our hypothetical waves.
No... it only describes electromagnetic waves since it is no probability function
( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?
You must ask the question of what you consider what a photon really is. There is a wave aspect and a particle aspect. Its position in a wave theory is not defined since its position cannot be determined without collapsing the state (as a particle)
( 5 ) The DSE equation 'works' and suggests the photon is not confined to one 'wave'.
Ummm... Do not follow you there, you better state what you really mean. The Ptolemaic System works but that does not make it a correct interpretation of the Physics. A photon finds an existing wave pattern in space this is unchanging for that one photon. Coherent photons will all "illuminate" the same pattern as long as the geometry of the system remains constant over time
( 6 ) The Kennedy Thorndike experiment suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave' over large distances.
I have had a "read" of the Kennedy -Thorndyke Experiment and as I see it was a null experiment simply confirming Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity for time dilation and nothing more than that. What do you read in it?
Wikipedia: Kennedy–Thorndike experiment
( 7 )The ripple tank gives the 'right answer' with continuous excitation at a single frequency (and not otherwise) and suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave'.
Your ripple tank gives progressive waves and cannot be considered an exact analogy for light. A single photon with a coherent phase will produce the same result as a continuous excitation of the chamber with CW... this will not happen in a ripple tank... ever!. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment is convincing argument for that to me
( 8 ) Feynman's sum over paths method works and suggests that the photon is not confined to a particular wave.
Once again I have no idea what you are meaning there. I think you mean that a particular photon could be found anywhere. No... it will not. "Statistical" photons will be found "anywhere" from a white noise source but coherent photons are ordered photons of a single frequency (or at least their waves are). Canonical Typicality refutes this point and you will not be able to show evidence against it using a theory derived from pure statistics. You have also forgotten (I think) about the nature of boson states. It is like saying the average Citizen of the US is 50% Male and 50% female and will have 60% Caucasian, 20% afro-American and 20% Hispanic heritage and lives in several large cities 90% of the time. While that is true (or my version of it
) it is not Canonically Typical. Show me a single "coherent" photon that is physically out of place. Do you suggest that a single photon will belong to different waves at the same time? Are you speaking of "electromagnetic waves" or waves of probability? How many probabilities will a photon have at one point at the one time according to your theory? I know what quantum theory predicts but Quantum Theory will fail to predict exact results for any measurement( 9 ) Can you reconcile 5, 6 , 7 , 8 with the concept of a wave-packet (perhaps clarification might help) which you strongly imply is localized on a particular 'wave' or 'wavefront'.
A wave-packet is similar to the sync function. It is not a sync function but that is the best one to illustrate it since its transform is idealized so that it is an impulse of fixed width in time and a specified height (in magnitude). It is the most general "pulse"
That is the "pulse" and the "packet" form a transform pair. Of course the real pulse will be complex electromagnetic response since this impulse will produce a response which will result in oscillating electric and magnetic fields against the "brane wall of our Universe". This is a complex time and space varying function.
A continuous wave may be constructed from overlapping transformed pulses into a single wave as seen here...
I have made this simple since I cannot really show a true wave packet. The wave packet extends over surfaces as shown by this cross sectional image which is in the plane of the (unseen small) dipole...
Contributed by Zephir.
The wave packet moves like this animation over an existing changeless pre-existing pattern which is able to know the ultimate state of particles in the Universe not by rippling around in the space but by the standing waves in space formed with this "packet" whatever it may be. As I have previously said it is like a shadow on the ground of something removed from our three dimensional world. That is until it is absorbed or scattered as a "particle". Until that happens no energy interchanges occur.
This is also Zephirs Image. It is the best I have seen and probably represents an electron rather than a photon. The shape of the wave-packet is probably not right unless it is a pencil beam but what it shows is very right up to a point.
In the course of this thread I think I have explained these points to you and to others many times but it seems there is something missing. There are those who use particle descriptions get very similar answers to the wave descriptions. Modern theory now extends 19th Century physics and we can understand much more about these phenomena than they were able to in even the 1930's. The particle paradigm gives some fairly good visual ideas and very good mathematical results, but today I am certain that since the particle approach is the inner product of a simplified wave approach... the wave approach will give the same if not better answers with less "magic". Feynman has given the right answers to the problem. Remember that there are two theories here the Wheeler-Feynman Theory is an Electromagnetic Wave Theory not specifically a Quantum Theory and the Quantum Electrodynamics is an easy way to to calculate the same results using a non-classical wave theory which can be shown to be absolutely equivalent. I happen to think "particles" do not give a satisfactory result anymore.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
I think we may have to cite 'irreconcilable differences'!
I suggest you carry on with Elf theory without interference from me unless I have an obvious positive contribution to make. When you feel 'satisfied' perhaps we can restart from a QM approach and see what the Cookie Fairy brings.
For reference..my comments to your comments
( 1 ) For present purposes my definition of a 'wave' is that it is a representation of the probability of finding a photon .. this probability appears to vary cyclically.
I think we may have to cite 'irreconcilable differences'!
I suggest you carry on with Elf theory without interference from me unless I have an obvious positive contribution to make. When you feel 'satisfied' perhaps we can restart from a QM approach and see what the Cookie Fairy brings.
For reference..my comments to your comments
( 1 ) For present purposes my definition of a 'wave' is that it is a representation of the probability of finding a photon .. this probability appears to vary cyclically.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I understand that you are defining a wave of probability the square of this function normalized per unit volume is supposed to describe "probability". Certainly this is not an electromagnetic wave
My 'normalisation' is over all space and time .. not a unit volume. I suspect you will find you have to do the same with an EM wave since whatever does not come out clearly stays in there until the end of time.
( 2 ) Your definition of a 'wave' remains unclear to me.
My 'normalisation' is over all space and time .. not a unit volume. I suspect you will find you have to do the same with an EM wave since whatever does not come out clearly stays in there until the end of time.
( 2 ) Your definition of a 'wave' remains unclear to me.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
An electromagnetic wave
( 3 ) We agree that the do Broglie Hypothesis correctly describes the wavelength of both our hypothetical waves.
Both our 'waves' are cyclic functions using the same number .. most likely there is a common cause for this. ( ! )
( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?
Both our 'waves' are cyclic functions using the same number .. most likely there is a common cause for this. ( ! )
( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?
You must ask the question of what you consider what a photon really is. There is a wave aspect and a particle aspect. Its position in a wave theory is not defined since its position cannot be determined without collapsing the state (as a particle)
I feel 'collapsing the state' is a mixed metaphor .. in your answer to ( 2 ) you wrote 'electromagnetic wave' .. this is something you can detect without reference to 'collapsing the state' .. from the EM equation you can work out an exact solution.. the photon is not an exact solution .. hence the problem. Electromagnetic wave (from the text book) or 'Elf wave'?
( 5 ) The DSE equation 'works' and suggests the photon is not confined to one 'wave'.
( 3 ) We agree that the do Broglie Hypothesis correctly describes the wavelength of both our hypothetical waves.
QUOTE
No... it only describes electromagnetic waves since it is no probability function
Both our 'waves' are cyclic functions using the same number .. most likely there is a common cause for this. ( ! )
( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No... it only describes electromagnetic waves since it is no probability function |
Both our 'waves' are cyclic functions using the same number .. most likely there is a common cause for this. ( ! )
( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?
You must ask the question of what you consider what a photon really is. There is a wave aspect and a particle aspect. Its position in a wave theory is not defined since its position cannot be determined without collapsing the state (as a particle)
I feel 'collapsing the state' is a mixed metaphor .. in your answer to ( 2 ) you wrote 'electromagnetic wave' .. this is something you can detect without reference to 'collapsing the state' .. from the EM equation you can work out an exact solution.. the photon is not an exact solution .. hence the problem. Electromagnetic wave (from the text book) or 'Elf wave'?
( 5 ) The DSE equation 'works' and suggests the photon is not confined to one 'wave'.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
... A photon finds an existing wave pattern in space this is unchanging for that one photon. Coherent photons will all "illuminate" the same pattern as long as the geometry of the system remains constant over time
Again 'Elf wave'? You suggest space contains waves ready and waiting for all possible combinations of source, photon and destination? My comment .. if you lose your photon 'wrapper' you might recognize something that looks very much like the ripple tank result for a single frequency .. maybe not.
( 6 ) The Kennedy Thorndike experiment suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave' over large distances.
One of the disadvantages of the DSE is that the intensity falls as the number of peaks is increased because you have to make the slits narrower.. the general compromise seems to be five or seven 'peaks'. The Kennedy Thorndike Experiment uses a partially silvered mirror to create the two paths (instead of slits) and the intensity limitation is removed. Single photon interference takes when the path length differs by many metres. There seems to be a problem localising the photon within either an electromagnetic or Elf wave that I'm not sure the mixed metaphor 'collapsing the state' is adequate to cover.
( 7 )The ripple tank gives the 'right answer' with continuous excitation at a single frequency (and not otherwise) and suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave'.
Again 'Elf wave'? You suggest space contains waves ready and waiting for all possible combinations of source, photon and destination? My comment .. if you lose your photon 'wrapper' you might recognize something that looks very much like the ripple tank result for a single frequency .. maybe not.
( 6 ) The Kennedy Thorndike experiment suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave' over large distances.
One of the disadvantages of the DSE is that the intensity falls as the number of peaks is increased because you have to make the slits narrower.. the general compromise seems to be five or seven 'peaks'. The Kennedy Thorndike Experiment uses a partially silvered mirror to create the two paths (instead of slits) and the intensity limitation is removed. Single photon interference takes when the path length differs by many metres. There seems to be a problem localising the photon within either an electromagnetic or Elf wave that I'm not sure the mixed metaphor 'collapsing the state' is adequate to cover.
( 7 )The ripple tank gives the 'right answer' with continuous excitation at a single frequency (and not otherwise) and suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave'.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Your ripple tank gives progressive waves and cannot be considered an exact analogy for light. A single photon with a coherent phase will produce the same result as a continuous excitation of the chamber with CW... this will not happen in a ripple tank... ever!.
The essence of the ripple tank IS continuous excitation with a CW .. I don't understand your comment that this will never happen. You seem to understand the importance of wavelength and single frequency excitation .. your continued references to de Broglie wavelength suggest you want one wavelength .. I assume your prepared paths are one wavelength .. (like the ripple tank) .. what am I missing?
The essence of the ripple tank IS continuous excitation with a CW .. I don't understand your comment that this will never happen. You seem to understand the importance of wavelength and single frequency excitation .. your continued references to de Broglie wavelength suggest you want one wavelength .. I assume your prepared paths are one wavelength .. (like the ripple tank) .. what am I missing?
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment is convincing argument for that to me
Please clarify.
( 8 ) Feynman's sum over paths method works and suggests that the photon is not confined to a particular wave.
Please clarify.
( 8 ) Feynman's sum over paths method works and suggests that the photon is not confined to a particular wave.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I think you mean that a particular photon could be found anywhere. No... it will not.
Back to the Kennedy Thorndike result .. the DSE doesn't seem to have given enough evidence..
Is it the same man? Is the work legitemate?...accurate?...you decide.
Hans de Vries?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0606/0606171.pdf
Mass terms to break susy-like degeneration
Alejandro Rivero
EUPT, Univ de Zaragoza, E-44003 Teruel Spain
E-mail: arivero@unizar.es
September 11, 2006
Back to the Kennedy Thorndike result .. the DSE doesn't seem to have given enough evidence..
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Do you suggest that a single photon will belong to different waves at the same time?
Do you see only one wave in the KT experiment?.. what does it show about the speed of an electromagnetic wave?
Best wishes,
-C2.
Do you see only one wave in the KT experiment?.. what does it show about the speed of an electromagnetic wave?
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE
I really appreciate that paper though and it is a start. I would say where did you get it and where are his references? It appears not to be sponsored by any Institute and come from "nowhere".
Is it the same man? Is the work legitemate?...accurate?...you decide.
Hans de Vries?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0606/0606171.pdf
Mass terms to break susy-like degeneration
Alejandro Rivero
EUPT, Univ de Zaragoza, E-44003 Teruel Spain
E-mail: arivero@unizar.es
September 11, 2006
Hi jal,
I suspect this is our Hans de Vries..
http://www.chip-architect.com/
Looks like he plays about with numbers. Nothing wrong with that but probably little or nothing to do with physics except by accident.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hmm..
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2004-07/msg0062084.html
I suspect this is our Hans de Vries..
http://www.chip-architect.com/
Looks like he plays about with numbers. Nothing wrong with that but probably little or nothing to do with physics except by accident.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Hmm..
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2004-07/msg0062084.html
Confused2
That is what I found.
Does it matter where he comes from?
Does his logic and math work?
I come from this forum. Does that make my work and Good Elf less valid?
jal
That is what I found.
Does it matter where he comes from?
Does his logic and math work?
I come from this forum. Does that make my work and Good Elf less valid?
jal
Confused2, jal, Good Elf, all,
First what is going on as far a the dynamics of this post is what you view as healthy physics.
Confused2, do just a little research on David Bohm and understand what Good Elf is trying to achieve. There is views worth consideration and others that seem to be just to hard to except, but still worth the time to get a perspective on all that has been said by many in the camp with realism.
Hope I said this correctly Good Elf?
Jal, I will still stay with the 3D due to the reality we live in, saying that, I do not think that QM lives in the same. Look into quantum leap-jump and dynamics of the electron and you will see how it behaves if you do not already know. Then you have the VP's, that is another subject.
GR, has problems with infinities due to the inside of Black Holes the density of matter and & strength of the gravitational field quickly becomes infinite.
QM, has problems with infinities due to the electric and magnetic fields that have values at every point in space, so you can do the math & see this tells us there is an infinite number of variables.
So, we all see there needs to be a better understanding and what we have, is just not complete as much as I would want to tell you all is well. We all know about the Standard Model problems but it has served us well thus far.
Confused2, & Jal, do not stop with Good Elf because you guys have come along way from my perspective & I hope we all progress in our fields of research.
Just wanted to mention this, it is where we all want to be, searching for answers about very complex micro problem of the weirdness of the QM world.
Duality
First what is going on as far a the dynamics of this post is what you view as healthy physics.
Confused2, do just a little research on David Bohm and understand what Good Elf is trying to achieve. There is views worth consideration and others that seem to be just to hard to except, but still worth the time to get a perspective on all that has been said by many in the camp with realism.
Hope I said this correctly Good Elf?Jal, I will still stay with the 3D due to the reality we live in, saying that, I do not think that QM lives in the same. Look into quantum leap-jump and dynamics of the electron and you will see how it behaves if you do not already know. Then you have the VP's, that is another subject.
GR, has problems with infinities due to the inside of Black Holes the density of matter and & strength of the gravitational field quickly becomes infinite.
QM, has problems with infinities due to the electric and magnetic fields that have values at every point in space, so you can do the math & see this tells us there is an infinite number of variables.
So, we all see there needs to be a better understanding and what we have, is just not complete as much as I would want to tell you all is well. We all know about the Standard Model problems but it has served us well thus far.
Confused2, & Jal, do not stop with Good Elf because you guys have come along way from my perspective & I hope we all progress in our fields of research.
Just wanted to mention this, it is where we all want to be, searching for answers about very complex micro problem of the weirdness of the QM world.
Duality
Hi jal,
You force me into it..
It is my belief that analysing photons as impulses is like holding their little faces under the water until they cease to struggle.
-C2.
This ( http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~parg/mlrg/papers/arfgtw.pdf ) by Mr Valens from mindless.com .. looks well worth bookmarking.
You force me into it..
It is my belief that analysing photons as impulses is like holding their little faces under the water until they cease to struggle.
-C2.
This ( http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~parg/mlrg/papers/arfgtw.pdf ) by Mr Valens from mindless.com .. looks well worth bookmarking.
Good Elf,
Wait a minute...electrons have mass, the energy that they contain
electromagnetically binds atoms together and seek to balance the net charges of
the nucleus. Electrons can be "manipulated" by charge interactions and directed
to follow high level charge paths. IMO, they exist in our space-time. They
may have unique properties that we are still trying to understand, but they are
a physical component of matter and they stay harmonically in tune with their
core atomic structure unless acted upon by external forces with higher or
similarly tuned energy levels with which they can mutually interact.
As for photons, if we consider that all energy action-reactions, and EM type events,
appear to be geometrically "scaled" as a requirement to maintain universal
harmony, energy transfer and "flow", is there room for simpler and more intuitive
interpretions of the mechansims that we are attempting to explain?
The observable universe is all a matter of progressive energy "scaling", why
should we assume that it does not directly translate from the macrocosm of
large scale interstellar interactions back to the microcosm of quantum atomic
interactions? The entire physical universe is nothing more than a collection of
the very small it is just scaled up. Light is pure energy, perhaps there is no
way to assign it a single physical description. How do you easily describe thought
or sound or shock waves? They are pure energy with no physical makeup, they
have similarities in how we quantify how their energy propagates, but they have
no physical "being", other than they do affect how matter responds in their
presence.
How do you explain the inexplicable? How do you precisely explain energy in all
its various forms? Perhaps there is no answer.
LL
QUOTE
Matter Waves and the electric and magnetic fields from the electron can enter our Universe but the electron itself is mysteriously unable to "reach" us through that reciprocal barrier. Now I do not know just how many dimensions an electron contains once again I am resorting to conjecture about things we just do not know. Is an electron made up of two or three quarks?
Wait a minute...electrons have mass, the energy that they contain
electromagnetically binds atoms together and seek to balance the net charges of
the nucleus. Electrons can be "manipulated" by charge interactions and directed
to follow high level charge paths. IMO, they exist in our space-time. They
may have unique properties that we are still trying to understand, but they are
a physical component of matter and they stay harmonically in tune with their
core atomic structure unless acted upon by external forces with higher or
similarly tuned energy levels with which they can mutually interact.
As for photons, if we consider that all energy action-reactions, and EM type events,
appear to be geometrically "scaled" as a requirement to maintain universal
harmony, energy transfer and "flow", is there room for simpler and more intuitive
interpretions of the mechansims that we are attempting to explain?
The observable universe is all a matter of progressive energy "scaling", why
should we assume that it does not directly translate from the macrocosm of
large scale interstellar interactions back to the microcosm of quantum atomic
interactions? The entire physical universe is nothing more than a collection of
the very small it is just scaled up. Light is pure energy, perhaps there is no
way to assign it a single physical description. How do you easily describe thought
or sound or shock waves? They are pure energy with no physical makeup, they
have similarities in how we quantify how their energy propagates, but they have
no physical "being", other than they do affect how matter responds in their
presence.
How do you explain the inexplicable? How do you precisely explain energy in all
its various forms? Perhaps there is no answer.
LL
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Wait a minute...electrons have mass, the energy that they contain electromagnetically binds atoms together and seek to balance the net charges of the nucleus. Electrons can be "manipulated" by charge interactions and directed to follow high level charge paths. IMO, they exist in our space-time.
I understand that this "point source" with charge and with a dipole magnetic Field "is" what you call an electron. But I think you would agree that there are no such things as point sources since anything that has a point as a source must go to "infinity" there. Take for instance the situation with gravity on the surface of the earth. To extrapolate the gravity field to the center of the earth would result in an infinite density mass object there at a point. This is not what happens in actuality the gravitational potential falls off going down through the surface to the core such that the effect of gravity equals only the effect of the sphere inscribed by the radius from the center. IMHO everything in nature "avoids" the infinities (even Black Holes are really only "Grey Holes" by way of "Fuzzballs"). The effect of the "shell" above exactly cancels everywhere through symmetry inside the sphere of "uniform" matter and this is the Faraday's cage effect (alternatively Gauss' Theorem).
This is not what is seen in HEP with electrons since they behave "exactly" like point sources up to very high energies whereas protons for instance behave like three interior particles (quarks). It is my belief that the electron is behaving as if it is permanently locked in quantum space and fields and charges as well as spin and other properties are "leaking" as if from a point source but actually from a distributed object in higher dimensions (you can determine this from the dipole moment of the electron... a dipole by definition has dimensions). Even more than the stability of protons, the electron seems to be either "primary" or is quantum stable far more than any other particle known. It is my "belief" that there is no such thing as "particles" and the electron is no exception. This must be an expression of an EM wave.
As Einstein said about the nature of the Universe..."You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron."
From.. Woolf, H. ed. Some strangeness in the proportion 418 (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1980). I can only agree. I think this is the secret of the Universe and it is still hiding down that "bunny-hole". But I have a stick down there and I am whacking it around a tad to see what comes running out.
Cheers
This is not what is seen in HEP with electrons since they behave "exactly" like point sources up to very high energies whereas protons for instance behave like three interior particles (quarks). It is my belief that the electron is behaving as if it is permanently locked in quantum space and fields and charges as well as spin and other properties are "leaking" as if from a point source but actually from a distributed object in higher dimensions (you can determine this from the dipole moment of the electron... a dipole by definition has dimensions). Even more than the stability of protons, the electron seems to be either "primary" or is quantum stable far more than any other particle known. It is my "belief" that there is no such thing as "particles" and the electron is no exception. This must be an expression of an EM wave.
As Einstein said about the nature of the Universe..."You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron."
From.. Woolf, H. ed. Some strangeness in the proportion 418 (Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1980). I can only agree. I think this is the secret of the Universe and it is still hiding down that "bunny-hole". But I have a stick down there and I am whacking it around a tad to see what comes running out.
Cheers
Hi LL,
ROTFLMAO!
The devil is in the details!
QUOTE (LL+)
is there room for simpler and more intuitive interpretions of the mechansims that we are attempting to explain?
If you look at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif and see more than three humps then it isn't going to be easy.
Best wishes,
C2.
D/L GE .. I have looked at Bohm (not for the first time). If we look at the KT experiment we see beyond reasonable doubt (mine at least) that there is a certain amount of energy ( E = hf ) and a very long path and a very short path and whatever the pilot wave might be, it combines to give us the same interference phenomenon as if the difference in paths had been 0-1 wavelength. Either the waves following the Bohm paths know what is expected of them and the one hangs about waiting for the other to turn up or the whole explanation is ill-founded. I invite a plausible 'Bohmian' explanation of the observed effect. You can stretch 'collapse of the state' to the point where it means nothing.
If you look at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif and see more than three humps then it isn't going to be easy.
Best wishes,
C2.
D/L GE .. I have looked at Bohm (not for the first time). If we look at the KT experiment we see beyond reasonable doubt (mine at least) that there is a certain amount of energy ( E = hf ) and a very long path and a very short path and whatever the pilot wave might be, it combines to give us the same interference phenomenon as if the difference in paths had been 0-1 wavelength. Either the waves following the Bohm paths know what is expected of them and the one hangs about waiting for the other to turn up or the whole explanation is ill-founded. I invite a plausible 'Bohmian' explanation of the observed effect. You can stretch 'collapse of the state' to the point where it means nothing.
Good Elf, Confused2, Jal, Laserlight, all,
Not sure what you mean by the electron ends up mathematically infinite, that only goes with the GR --> EM fields with points in space & there calculation.
Are you dealing with atoms or space, Good Elf. There is not infinities with with the configuration dealing with the atom which which we are made of.
Or, have we now left Kansas again? You even have a tool at the end of the page to run numbers that is if we are still dealing with the electrons, atoms, & elements.
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/ca...0/eleconfg.html
This above is excellent explanation of the periodic table and it success.
Duality
I will go on record that I do not agree with all points of D.Bohms approach, it was just to introduce you if you had not read his work. I think with the technology now, he just might change his view somewhat! But he most likely would still be looking down the rabbit hole with a stick to see what might come out. Confused2
Not sure what you mean by the electron ends up mathematically infinite, that only goes with the GR --> EM fields with points in space & there calculation.
Are you dealing with atoms or space, Good Elf. There is not infinities with with the configuration dealing with the atom which which we are made of.
Or, have we now left Kansas again? You even have a tool at the end of the page to run numbers that is if we are still dealing with the electrons, atoms, & elements.
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/ca...0/eleconfg.html
This above is excellent explanation of the periodic table and it success.
Duality
I will go on record that I do not agree with all points of D.Bohms approach, it was just to introduce you if you had not read his work. I think with the technology now, he just might change his view somewhat! But he most likely would still be looking down the rabbit hole with a stick to see what might come out. Confused2
Hi Duality, Confused2, Laserlight et al,
While Bohmian Mechanics is not a theory of everything it is a three dimensional theory with "hidden variables", these could be "extra dimensions" but it is not definitive. What current theory points to is to take the first step and require current theory to examine hidden variables as an alternative answer to a host of out and out quantum "postulates". If I trade 'dimensions" for "postulates" and add in standard "dynamics", I would win "on a count back" since there are far less dimensions than postulates. In the past the "hidden variables" have been defeated by saying that there are current mathematical objections to them (In recent years this "ruling" has been overthrown... at least mathematically It is the "pot, Quantum Mechanics, calling the kettle, Bohmian Mechanics, black"... what has indeed been the case is that String Theory has shown that progress can be made and a number of difficult problems are being solved using "hidden variables" as "dimensions" and Stephen Hawking, Ed Witten, Leonard Susskind and Juan Martín Maldacena have made great strides contrary to cries of the dissenting "spoilers". I believe these general directions, though not exactly right in my way of thinking, are a better prospect than sitting on our hands and digging in about Quantum Mechanics being the only theory there will ever be.
At least variables can be justified on the grounds of physics but QM makes no apologies for "postulates" and absolutely requires no dissent on the grounds of "common sense" that Confused2 would like to claim. All I am saying is the latter approach is mathematically inconsistent and you can read this in the literature.... no "elf physics here". Even more so... Quantum Mechanics has never been shown to be mathematically complete... Check it out... no matter that 90 years of an attempt to do so have failed. At best we can say is it works... I admit that. It is "naturally" incomplete for very well defined facts if you insist that there may be a so called "Unified Field Theory" or a "Theory of Everything" Theory.... The approach is obviously the one alluded to in Canonical Typicality as being mathematically consistent as are a number of other theories such as String Theories.
There are a number of documents that must have slipped by Confused2's radar screen to prompt what he is saying. If this is all Confused2 is going on about is his personal issue with Quantum Mechanics then we best stop here if Confused2 is just "digging in his heels" and is not as open about it as he claims. I have preferred to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he is genuinely opposed to some of my ideas so that is OK. All Confused2 needs to show is one repeatable demonstration of any of the principles I have spoken of being broken then I am done. Is this too much to ask for or what? Just "spell it out " just what the objection really is in terms that are not vague or evasive? I have provided a number of paradoxes that can be answered using the resonant paradigm and higher dimensions that cannot be answered by conventional particle theories. I am prepared to listen to his arguments right now provided he can answer all the experimental evidence amassed on the subject and I can't pick any holes in it. I think that is eminently fair since it is what I am asking of my own theory. Lets be very frank... My "Stringy Theory" is testable unlike others, surely there is something in all of Science History that it contradicts if it is wrong. Let experiment have the final say on the matter and the one that explains the most experimental tests ... wins! .... stupid... but correct in terms of Science.
Cheers
While Bohmian Mechanics is not a theory of everything it is a three dimensional theory with "hidden variables", these could be "extra dimensions" but it is not definitive. What current theory points to is to take the first step and require current theory to examine hidden variables as an alternative answer to a host of out and out quantum "postulates". If I trade 'dimensions" for "postulates" and add in standard "dynamics", I would win "on a count back" since there are far less dimensions than postulates. In the past the "hidden variables" have been defeated by saying that there are current mathematical objections to them (In recent years this "ruling" has been overthrown... at least mathematically It is the "pot, Quantum Mechanics, calling the kettle, Bohmian Mechanics, black"... what has indeed been the case is that String Theory has shown that progress can be made and a number of difficult problems are being solved using "hidden variables" as "dimensions" and Stephen Hawking, Ed Witten, Leonard Susskind and Juan Martín Maldacena have made great strides contrary to cries of the dissenting "spoilers". I believe these general directions, though not exactly right in my way of thinking, are a better prospect than sitting on our hands and digging in about Quantum Mechanics being the only theory there will ever be.
At least variables can be justified on the grounds of physics but QM makes no apologies for "postulates" and absolutely requires no dissent on the grounds of "common sense" that Confused2 would like to claim. All I am saying is the latter approach is mathematically inconsistent and you can read this in the literature.... no "elf physics here". Even more so... Quantum Mechanics has never been shown to be mathematically complete... Check it out... no matter that 90 years of an attempt to do so have failed. At best we can say is it works... I admit that. It is "naturally" incomplete for very well defined facts if you insist that there may be a so called "Unified Field Theory" or a "Theory of Everything" Theory.... The approach is obviously the one alluded to in Canonical Typicality as being mathematically consistent as are a number of other theories such as String Theories.
There are a number of documents that must have slipped by Confused2's radar screen to prompt what he is saying. If this is all Confused2 is going on about is his personal issue with Quantum Mechanics then we best stop here if Confused2 is just "digging in his heels" and is not as open about it as he claims. I have preferred to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he is genuinely opposed to some of my ideas so that is OK. All Confused2 needs to show is one repeatable demonstration of any of the principles I have spoken of being broken then I am done. Is this too much to ask for or what? Just "spell it out " just what the objection really is in terms that are not vague or evasive? I have provided a number of paradoxes that can be answered using the resonant paradigm and higher dimensions that cannot be answered by conventional particle theories. I am prepared to listen to his arguments right now provided he can answer all the experimental evidence amassed on the subject and I can't pick any holes in it. I think that is eminently fair since it is what I am asking of my own theory. Lets be very frank... My "Stringy Theory" is testable unlike others, surely there is something in all of Science History that it contradicts if it is wrong. Let experiment have the final say on the matter and the one that explains the most experimental tests ... wins! .... stupid... but correct in terms of Science.
Cheers
Good Elf,
I like yourself might have much work to do right now, but I did a quick read and I need to sit down & give this some thought. I think you are stating something deeper than what I just read.
Confused2, I want you and Good Elf for what ever this might mean, Yquantum speaks well of you and a very selected few on this, "Free for all Forum".
I agree that places like this could be the cradle of new views that could make a difference to those who use the World Wide Web. I know young physicist use this tool because they are looking for new perspectives in there research.
They have run into a barrier of sorts, I just call mine, 'a brain melt down'.
I personally think everyone needs to have a little thicker skin and press on, you just might crack up the so called, Physics in a Nutshell approach.
BEST, to all,
Duality/Lisa
I like yourself might have much work to do right now, but I did a quick read and I need to sit down & give this some thought. I think you are stating something deeper than what I just read.Confused2, I want you and Good Elf for what ever this might mean, Yquantum speaks well of you and a very selected few on this, "Free for all Forum".
I agree that places like this could be the cradle of new views that could make a difference to those who use the World Wide Web. I know young physicist use this tool because they are looking for new perspectives in there research.
They have run into a barrier of sorts, I just call mine, 'a brain melt down'.
I personally think everyone needs to have a little thicker skin and press on, you just might crack up the so called, Physics in a Nutshell approach.
BEST, to all,
Duality/Lisa
Hi Duality,
What I meant was you need to answer all question when we deal with problems... Here is the issue at task. Feynman assigned Quantum States inside electrons in his book QED. It would seem this is 'possible" as is the case of nucleii and particles that are able to absorb photons for a time.
There is experimental justification for this...
http://www.physorg.com/news64842741.html
You need to answer all the questions when you deal with QM. This is one more nail in the QM Coffin. Luckily this 'lid" is not nailed down yet. My theory 'admits" these photons through resonance.
Of course I do not do these experiments and the results may still be "up for grabs"...
Cheers
What I meant was you need to answer all question when we deal with problems... Here is the issue at task. Feynman assigned Quantum States inside electrons in his book QED. It would seem this is 'possible" as is the case of nucleii and particles that are able to absorb photons for a time.
There is experimental justification for this...
http://www.physorg.com/news64842741.html
You need to answer all the questions when you deal with QM. This is one more nail in the QM Coffin. Luckily this 'lid" is not nailed down yet. My theory 'admits" these photons through resonance.
Of course I do not do these experiments and the results may still be "up for grabs"...
Cheers
Loud and Clear.
I have the book, if Confused2 would like to be on the same page, the ISBN 0-691-02417-0 QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by, Richard P. Feynman.
I have had it so long it looks like it has been a prop for one of the instruments around here.
I have to finish up some papers, will get back with you in a few hours or late PM. It gets crazy around here. I do have a question for you based on what you just said.
Everyone take care,
Lisa
I have the book, if Confused2 would like to be on the same page, the ISBN 0-691-02417-0 QED - The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by, Richard P. Feynman.
I have had it so long it looks like it has been a prop for one of the instruments around here.
I have to finish up some papers, will get back with you in a few hours or late PM. It gets crazy around here. I do have a question for you based on what you just said.
Everyone take care,
Lisa
Bohm dialogue.
C2>"Tell me XX, how do you think a car works?"
XX>"You add petrol and it sets up a resonance inside the vehicle which propels it forwards"
C2 dismantles the car engine, we see spark plugs and cylinders and pistons. C2 points at these bits and yells "THAT is what REALLY makes a car go"
XX>"THAT is precisely what I was telling you about but you wouldn't listen"
Some hours later the engine is back together and the car runs perfectly.
XX>"So you really think you know how an engine works?"
C2>"I surely do"
XX points to the little pile of nuts, bolts and washers and a few small springs that are always left over after you put a car engine back together.
XX>"IF you know how a car engine works then tell me what are THESE BITS FOR?"
C2>Weeps.
-C2.
C2>"Tell me XX, how do you think a car works?"
XX>"You add petrol and it sets up a resonance inside the vehicle which propels it forwards"
C2 dismantles the car engine, we see spark plugs and cylinders and pistons. C2 points at these bits and yells "THAT is what REALLY makes a car go"
XX>"THAT is precisely what I was telling you about but you wouldn't listen"
Some hours later the engine is back together and the car runs perfectly.
XX>"So you really think you know how an engine works?"
C2>"I surely do"
XX points to the little pile of nuts, bolts and washers and a few small springs that are always left over after you put a car engine back together.
XX>"IF you know how a car engine works then tell me what are THESE BITS FOR?"
C2>Weeps.
-C2.
Confused2,
May I have [now think about this before you answer, OK] have permission to use your dialog with a realist/physicist above, in my next book as an introduction on a certain chapter.
This will be the only one on this forum I will use. But I will send you a PM with the ISBN and some paper work to be sent to you for official permission if used that is if it is approved by my ?. Thanks...
Please, understand I will only be able to use Confused2, which is perfect for credit to author, but I will print it out as permission if GIVEN!
Best,
Duality
May I have [now think about this before you answer, OK] have permission to use your dialog with a realist/physicist above, in my next book as an introduction on a certain chapter.
This will be the only one on this forum I will use. But I will send you a PM with the ISBN and some paper work to be sent to you for official permission if used that is if it is approved by my ?. Thanks...
Please, understand I will only be able to use Confused2, which is perfect for credit to author, but I will print it out as permission if GIVEN!
Best,
Duality
Hi D/L,
My trivial contributions are offered 'as is' and may be used by anyone in any way they please. I will happily sign form to confirm this.
Best wishes,
-Confused2.
My trivial contributions are offered 'as is' and may be used by anyone in any way they please. I will happily sign form to confirm this.
Best wishes,
-Confused2.
QUOTE
XX>"So you really think you know how an engine works?"
C2>"I surely do"
XX points to the little pile of nuts, bolts and washers and a few small springs that are always left over after you put a car engine back together.
XX>"IF you know how a car engine works then tell me what are THESE BITS FOR?"
C2>Weeps.
C2>"I surely do"
XX points to the little pile of nuts, bolts and washers and a few small springs that are always left over after you put a car engine back together.
XX>"IF you know how a car engine works then tell me what are THESE BITS FOR?"
C2>Weeps.
ROTFLMAO!
The devil is in the details!
Good day everyone!
Duality
Thanks for the positive inputs.
We have been advised ...often... not to be blinded by our own convictions that we are right and that everyone else is wrong.
I therefore presume that the advisors are also following that advise and being on guard.
I will continue my search and consider that info from one source can be extrapolated to other situations/examples/models.
Jal, I will still stay with the 3D due to the reality we live in, saying that, I do not think that QM lives in the same. Look into quantum leap-jump and dynamics of the electron and you will see how it behaves if you do not already know. Then you have the VP's, that is another subject.
I have been looking .... do not ignore all of the references/links that I have been giving....
Here is a recent one that can be extrapolated to the discussion of this thread.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0612/0612005.pdf
From: Daniel Sudarsky
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 01:49:25 GMT (18kb)
Prepared for the proceedings of the conference NEBXII " Recent Developments in Gravity", Napfio Grece June 2006.
The Seeds of Cosmic structure as a door to New Physics
I find that with a math presentation ideas can be analyzed.
jal
Duality
Thanks for the positive inputs.
We have been advised ...often... not to be blinded by our own convictions that we are right and that everyone else is wrong.
I therefore presume that the advisors are also following that advise and being on guard.
I will continue my search and consider that info from one source can be extrapolated to other situations/examples/models.
QUOTE
I personally think everyone needs to have a little thicker skin and press on, you just might crack up the so called, Physics in a Nutshell approach
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I personally think everyone needs to have a little thicker skin and press on, you just might crack up the so called, Physics in a Nutshell approach |
Jal, I will still stay with the 3D due to the reality we live in, saying that, I do not think that QM lives in the same. Look into quantum leap-jump and dynamics of the electron and you will see how it behaves if you do not already know. Then you have the VP's, that is another subject.
I have been looking .... do not ignore all of the references/links that I have been giving....
Here is a recent one that can be extrapolated to the discussion of this thread.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0612/0612005.pdf
From: Daniel Sudarsky
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 01:49:25 GMT (18kb)
Prepared for the proceedings of the conference NEBXII " Recent Developments in Gravity", Napfio Grece June 2006.
The Seeds of Cosmic structure as a door to New Physics
QUOTE
Penrose has for a long time advocated that the collapse of quantum mechanical wave functions might be a dynamical process independent of observation, and that the underlying mechanism might be related to gravitational interaction. More precisely, according to this suggestion, collapse into one of two quantum mechanical alternatives would take place when the gravitational interaction energy between the alternatives exceeds a certain threshold. In fact, much of the initial motivation for the present work came from Penrose’s ideas and his questions regarding the quantum history of the universe.
I find that with a math presentation ideas can be analyzed.
jal
Hi all,
Still very busy, but saw a few things I'd like to comment on.
First, to C2. That was indeed worth quoting! Very funny!
I agree totally, if you "throw around" a term like "resonance", you should be able to give a good definition for the term.
Science, and even Good Elf, have NO details to give. They do NOT understand, or have a "plan" for how this resonance works.
I will stick to my guns here: I have this plan.
I have given a "peek" to you all before. Perhaps it was not enough to "get a hold of", but it was there. Now you just have to wait a little longer for the "full deal".
It looks like NO progress has been made over the last week. Not surprising. Too many vague definitions to work with, and not enough DATA from the front lines.
Really, I have NO reason to continue to SHOW examples of interference and/or interactions of waves. No one has been able to come up with ANY example, citation, etc., to disprove this "argument". (it's not even an argument, just a statement) But, just a few more.
Counting? You think that this is "basic", and being done! Do you realize that Science is WORKING very hard right now, to MEASURE SINGLE MOLECULES? This is "the front line", folks. Do not pretend that we have the ability to MEASURE single photons or electrons!!! (I'm talking about changes in Energy states)
I said already, and here it is again: It is ABSOLUTELY FOOLISH to use statistical methods to TRY to count INDIVIDUAL objects that you can NOT even "resolve" (see).
From “FOM-Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics (AMOLF)
Kruislaan 407, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands” 04/06
http://www.amolf.nl/strategicplan/SelfEvaluReport.pdf
page 33
Page 34
Page 34
“Research highlights 2000-2005
The main themes of our research during the past six years have been coherent control of atomic and molecular properties and the generation, characterization and application of high harmonic radiation, particularly in the time domain, where this technique provides a means to generate attosecond laser pulses. A constant theme throughout this work, which links to many of the projects we have completed, is the response of electrons to strong (time-varying) electric fields. Our main research highlights during the past five years have been:
1. The first observation of field-free molecular alignment following impulsive excitation by an intense laser pulse: we demonstrated that excitation of molecules with an intense, short (compared to the rotational period of the molecule) laser
pulse leads to the excitation of a rotational wave packet that transiently aligns itself along the laser polarization axis after the laser has been turned off. We subsequently embarked on an effort to apply optimal control techniques to this problem and have developed a technique for single-shot characterization of molecular alignment.
2. The first observation of semiclassical interferences in photoelectron imaging near an ionization threshold: we observed how electron wave packets produced during an ionization event interfere constructively or destructively, depending on the quantum mechanical pathlength difference between the associated trajectories. In related work, we observed a nondipolar photoelectron emission that displays a strong asymmetry along the propagation axis of the laser.
3. The first characterization of attosecond laser pulses using angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy: we demonstrated that in a RABBITT (Reconstruction of Attosecond Beats By Interfering Two-photon Transitions) experiment, attosecond
pulses can be characterized on the basis of both the energy spectrum and the angular distribution of the photoelectrons. This is important for the characterization of isolated attosecond pulses.
4. The first application of attosecond pulse trains to studies of atomic and molecular dynamics (with L’Huillier, University of Lund): we have performed a two-colour XUV+IR ionization experiment, that – depending on the time delay between the XUV and the IR pulses – provides information on the laser pulses and the momentum space electronic wavefunction.
5. The first observation of a carrier-envelope phase dependence to control a molecular dissociation (with Krausz, Max-Planck Institut für Quantenoptik in Garching): we demonstrated that the localization of an electron in the dissociative ionization of hydrogen molecules can be controlled using the carrier envelope phase. This is the first demonstration of carrierphase control in molecules. Prior to this measurement, we performed experiments on carrier-phase control in the radiofrequency ionization of high Rydberg states.
6. The first application of optimal control techniques to control the explosion of large clusters irradiated by intense femtosecond laser pulses: we experimentally observed and numerically confirmed that the cluster explosions are optimized by sequences of pulses that exploit the occurrence of enhanced ionization and/or plasma resonances in the cluster.”
Page 35
I suggest you have a look at the picture on page 35 (I couldn’t snip), but here is the caption:
I suggest you have a look at the picture on page 35 (I couldn’t snip), but here is the caption:
“2D velocity map photoelectron image for the ionization of Xe atoms by an intense 6 fs long Ti:Sapphire laser pulse. The image represents a cut through the 3D velocity and angular distribution that is obtained by applying an inverse Abel transform to an experimentally obtained 2D momentum map. The image shows a number of concentric rings, that are indicative of the number of photons involved in the ionization process, as well as interferences that are thought to be due to the way that the laser accelerates the electrons after ionization has taken place.”
The number of photons in the ionization process. Is not always One. This is already explained by the Superposition Principle. Interferences due to electron accelerations. (this would include “quantum jumps”)
I have also said before, and will again: I have the MATH. This means it does NOT matter if you want to imagine the "photons" interacting, or the electrons , or giraffes & zebras. You can "LABEL" things however you'd like, the RESULTS FROM INPUTS are going to be the same. Specifically, MATCH the DATA.
(Again) You have a choice:
EITHER: electrons interact with other electrons at a distance, with no "connective" cause (waves we can't measure).
OR: electrons interact with other electrons via "photons", creating a "cause" with waves we can't measure.
I hope that stating it this way will make the choice a little easier. I don't care which you choose, I have a mathematical model that will take in the input, and match the output; predictions, and understanding are gained.
Original story at www.physorg.com/news84420867.html
www.physorg.com/news84420867.html
That is exactly what I have said.
That is exactly what I have said.
“"This measurement technique is so accurate that we can determine the position of a peak in the pulse of electromagnetic waves from the laser with a precision of a mere 0.05 femtoseconds - in other words, 50 attoseconds. Also, the measurement can be made on individual pulses rather than by looking at the average properties of many pulses, so this is an important step forwards." “
He is telling you that MEASURING AVERAGE properties has been superseded by the NEW ability to MEASURE SINGLE, very small, things.
And, from GE’s recent link:
Original story at www.physorg.com/news64842741.html
www.physorg.com/news64842741.html
There is the “PATTERN” the vibrating electrons take, on the screen, to sum the effects of the break-up of the original wave by the double slit. The “counters” click based on electron movements, THESE VELOCITIES ARE CLASSICAL: they will add to each other, to “represent” a full “photon”. Like the response of a ribbon microphone to the velocity changes in “pressure waves” of sound. (not to the frequency)
I'm off again!
ciao!
T.Roc
Still very busy, but saw a few things I'd like to comment on.
First, to C2. That was indeed worth quoting! Very funny!
I agree totally, if you "throw around" a term like "resonance", you should be able to give a good definition for the term.
Science, and even Good Elf, have NO details to give. They do NOT understand, or have a "plan" for how this resonance works.
I will stick to my guns here: I have this plan.
I have given a "peek" to you all before. Perhaps it was not enough to "get a hold of", but it was there. Now you just have to wait a little longer for the "full deal".
It looks like NO progress has been made over the last week. Not surprising. Too many vague definitions to work with, and not enough DATA from the front lines.
Really, I have NO reason to continue to SHOW examples of interference and/or interactions of waves. No one has been able to come up with ANY example, citation, etc., to disprove this "argument". (it's not even an argument, just a statement) But, just a few more.
Counting? You think that this is "basic", and being done! Do you realize that Science is WORKING very hard right now, to MEASURE SINGLE MOLECULES? This is "the front line", folks. Do not pretend that we have the ability to MEASURE single photons or electrons!!! (I'm talking about changes in Energy states)
I said already, and here it is again: It is ABSOLUTELY FOOLISH to use statistical methods to TRY to count INDIVIDUAL objects that you can NOT even "resolve" (see).
From “FOM-Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics (AMOLF)
Kruislaan 407, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands” 04/06
http://www.amolf.nl/strategicplan/SelfEvaluReport.pdf
page 33
QUOTE
“For the harmonic generation, the research focused on the time structure of the beating between the various harmonics. A method was developed to determine this time structure with sub-femtosecond resolution, through interference of two-photon ionization pathways involving different harmonics. It was possible to show that high harmonics emerging from the strongly nonlinear processes in the laser focus are locked in phase in such a way that their beating produces intensity spikes of a few hundred attoseconds in duration, repeating every halfcycle of the driving laser, with almost no intensity in between.
These bursts of ultraviolet light are the shortest light pulses ever created. Most of the experimental work on this topic was done in in international cooperation, using European laser facilities. The theoretical research concentrated on the development and use of a computer code for efficiently solving the Schrödinger
equation for an atom in a strong laser field. This code made it possible to perform simulations of multiphoton ionization in noble gases that show quantitative agreement with the experimentally observed electron spectra. Qualitative simulation of 2-electron atoms in their full dimensionality also came within reach through the developed techniques, resolving the longstanding mystery of nonsequential double ionization of helium.”
These bursts of ultraviolet light are the shortest light pulses ever created. Most of the experimental work on this topic was done in in international cooperation, using European laser facilities. The theoretical research concentrated on the development and use of a computer code for efficiently solving the Schrödinger
equation for an atom in a strong laser field. This code made it possible to perform simulations of multiphoton ionization in noble gases that show quantitative agreement with the experimentally observed electron spectra. Qualitative simulation of 2-electron atoms in their full dimensionality also came within reach through the developed techniques, resolving the longstanding mystery of nonsequential double ionization of helium.”
Page 34
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “For the harmonic generation, the research focused on the time structure of the beating between the various harmonics. A method was developed to determine this time structure with sub-femtosecond resolution, through interference of two-photon ionization pathways involving different harmonics. It was possible to show that high harmonics emerging from the strongly nonlinear processes in the laser focus are locked in phase in such a way that their beating produces intensity spikes of a few hundred attoseconds in duration, repeating every halfcycle of the driving laser, with almost no intensity in between. These bursts of ultraviolet light are the shortest light pulses ever created. Most of the experimental work on this topic was done in in international cooperation, using European laser facilities. The theoretical research concentrated on the development and use of a computer code for efficiently solving the Schrödinger equation for an atom in a strong laser field. This code made it possible to perform simulations of multiphoton ionization in noble gases that show quantitative agreement with the experimentally observed electron spectra. Qualitative simulation of 2-electron atoms in their full dimensionality also came within reach through the developed techniques, resolving the longstanding mystery of nonsequential double ionization of helium.” |
Page 34
“Research highlights 2000-2005
The main themes of our research during the past six years have been coherent control of atomic and molecular properties and the generation, characterization and application of high harmonic radiation, particularly in the time domain, where this technique provides a means to generate attosecond laser pulses. A constant theme throughout this work, which links to many of the projects we have completed, is the response of electrons to strong (time-varying) electric fields. Our main research highlights during the past five years have been:
1. The first observation of field-free molecular alignment following impulsive excitation by an intense laser pulse: we demonstrated that excitation of molecules with an intense, short (compared to the rotational period of the molecule) laser
pulse leads to the excitation of a rotational wave packet that transiently aligns itself along the laser polarization axis after the laser has been turned off. We subsequently embarked on an effort to apply optimal control techniques to this problem and have developed a technique for single-shot characterization of molecular alignment.
2. The first observation of semiclassical interferences in photoelectron imaging near an ionization threshold: we observed how electron wave packets produced during an ionization event interfere constructively or destructively, depending on the quantum mechanical pathlength difference between the associated trajectories. In related work, we observed a nondipolar photoelectron emission that displays a strong asymmetry along the propagation axis of the laser.
3. The first characterization of attosecond laser pulses using angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy: we demonstrated that in a RABBITT (Reconstruction of Attosecond Beats By Interfering Two-photon Transitions) experiment, attosecond
pulses can be characterized on the basis of both the energy spectrum and the angular distribution of the photoelectrons. This is important for the characterization of isolated attosecond pulses.
4. The first application of attosecond pulse trains to studies of atomic and molecular dynamics (with L’Huillier, University of Lund): we have performed a two-colour XUV+IR ionization experiment, that – depending on the time delay between the XUV and the IR pulses – provides information on the laser pulses and the momentum space electronic wavefunction.
5. The first observation of a carrier-envelope phase dependence to control a molecular dissociation (with Krausz, Max-Planck Institut für Quantenoptik in Garching): we demonstrated that the localization of an electron in the dissociative ionization of hydrogen molecules can be controlled using the carrier envelope phase. This is the first demonstration of carrierphase control in molecules. Prior to this measurement, we performed experiments on carrier-phase control in the radiofrequency ionization of high Rydberg states.
6. The first application of optimal control techniques to control the explosion of large clusters irradiated by intense femtosecond laser pulses: we experimentally observed and numerically confirmed that the cluster explosions are optimized by sequences of pulses that exploit the occurrence of enhanced ionization and/or plasma resonances in the cluster.”
Page 35
QUOTE
“Future directions
In the coming years our research will focus on the study of the motion of electrons in atoms and molecules, using laser pulses with a duration of several hundred attoseconds. In strong laser fields, we will induce electron motion using an intense infrared laser, and investigate the motion of bound electrons (in molecules undergoing dynamic alignment) and continuum electrons (in molecules undergoing ionization). Next, we plan to study photo-absorption processes in weak laser fields, where we will probe how the electronic excitation couples to other degrees
of freedom, i.e., other electrons, and the rotational and vibrational degrees of the nuclei.We plan to study electron transfer and dissociation in large molecules, as well as the excitation and decay of giant plasmon resonances in clusters and large molecules such as C60. As experimental tools, we intend to use techniques for measuring the emission of electrons with both angular and kinetic energy resolution, including fully coincident ion and electron detection schemes. This work will provide a deeper insight into the motions of electrons in molecules and pave the way for the exploitation of attosecond laser pulses in physics, chemistry and photobiology.”
In the coming years our research will focus on the study of the motion of electrons in atoms and molecules, using laser pulses with a duration of several hundred attoseconds. In strong laser fields, we will induce electron motion using an intense infrared laser, and investigate the motion of bound electrons (in molecules undergoing dynamic alignment) and continuum electrons (in molecules undergoing ionization). Next, we plan to study photo-absorption processes in weak laser fields, where we will probe how the electronic excitation couples to other degrees
of freedom, i.e., other electrons, and the rotational and vibrational degrees of the nuclei.We plan to study electron transfer and dissociation in large molecules, as well as the excitation and decay of giant plasmon resonances in clusters and large molecules such as C60. As experimental tools, we intend to use techniques for measuring the emission of electrons with both angular and kinetic energy resolution, including fully coincident ion and electron detection schemes. This work will provide a deeper insight into the motions of electrons in molecules and pave the way for the exploitation of attosecond laser pulses in physics, chemistry and photobiology.”
I suggest you have a look at the picture on page 35 (I couldn’t snip), but here is the caption:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “Future directions In the coming years our research will focus on the study of the motion of electrons in atoms and molecules, using laser pulses with a duration of several hundred attoseconds. In strong laser fields, we will induce electron motion using an intense infrared laser, and investigate the motion of bound electrons (in molecules undergoing dynamic alignment) and continuum electrons (in molecules undergoing ionization). Next, we plan to study photo-absorption processes in weak laser fields, where we will probe how the electronic excitation couples to other degrees of freedom, i.e., other electrons, and the rotational and vibrational degrees of the nuclei.We plan to study electron transfer and dissociation in large molecules, as well as the excitation and decay of giant plasmon resonances in clusters and large molecules such as C60. As experimental tools, we intend to use techniques for measuring the emission of electrons with both angular and kinetic energy resolution, including fully coincident ion and electron detection schemes. This work will provide a deeper insight into the motions of electrons in molecules and pave the way for the exploitation of attosecond laser pulses in physics, chemistry and photobiology.” |
I suggest you have a look at the picture on page 35 (I couldn’t snip), but here is the caption:
“2D velocity map photoelectron image for the ionization of Xe atoms by an intense 6 fs long Ti:Sapphire laser pulse. The image represents a cut through the 3D velocity and angular distribution that is obtained by applying an inverse Abel transform to an experimentally obtained 2D momentum map. The image shows a number of concentric rings, that are indicative of the number of photons involved in the ionization process, as well as interferences that are thought to be due to the way that the laser accelerates the electrons after ionization has taken place.”
The number of photons in the ionization process. Is not always One. This is already explained by the Superposition Principle. Interferences due to electron accelerations. (this would include “quantum jumps”)
I have also said before, and will again: I have the MATH. This means it does NOT matter if you want to imagine the "photons" interacting, or the electrons , or giraffes & zebras. You can "LABEL" things however you'd like, the RESULTS FROM INPUTS are going to be the same. Specifically, MATCH the DATA.
(Again) You have a choice:
EITHER: electrons interact with other electrons at a distance, with no "connective" cause (waves we can't measure).
OR: electrons interact with other electrons via "photons", creating a "cause" with waves we can't measure.
I hope that stating it this way will make the choice a little easier. I don't care which you choose, I have a mathematical model that will take in the input, and match the output; predictions, and understanding are gained.
Original story at www.physorg.com/news84420867.html
www.physorg.com/news84420867.html
QUOTE
“The team of physicists from Imperial College London attained an unprecedented level of accurate measurement .. The researchers found that the spectrum of the x-ray pulse has encoded within it all the information necessary to precisely reconstruct the waveform of the original laser pulse.”
That is exactly what I have said.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “The team of physicists from Imperial College London attained an unprecedented level of accurate measurement .. The researchers found that the spectrum of the x-ray pulse has encoded within it all the information necessary to precisely reconstruct the waveform of the original laser pulse.” |
That is exactly what I have said.
“"This measurement technique is so accurate that we can determine the position of a peak in the pulse of electromagnetic waves from the laser with a precision of a mere 0.05 femtoseconds - in other words, 50 attoseconds. Also, the measurement can be made on individual pulses rather than by looking at the average properties of many pulses, so this is an important step forwards." “
He is telling you that MEASURING AVERAGE properties has been superseded by the NEW ability to MEASURE SINGLE, very small, things.
And, from GE’s recent link:
Original story at www.physorg.com/news64842741.html
www.physorg.com/news64842741.html
QUOTE
“These electrons ended up in a state that scientists have only imagined, never thought to be really possible.”
“Scientists try to determine where electrons are located in these substances - or, as the scientists might put it, with which energy the electrons whip around atomic
nuclei - and how to give these electrons an energetic "kick". “
“There are still many secrets hidden even in well-known metals like copper, and much beyond the simple theory of photoelectric effect developed by Einstein. “
“But the electrons lassoed in a number of photons at the same time, collecting together the energy necessary to escape the metal lattice. In the theory, Einstein proposed that only the colour (the energy) of the light, and not its intensity, determines whether electrons can be ejected from a metal. But Einstein never knew what a laser was. Lasers deliver light pulses so intense, that they can induce phenomena which physicists label "higher order" or "non-linear". Scientist have been using lasers in this way for some time already, but Max-Planck-Physicists, for the first time, have now carried this procedure to the fourth grade of non-inearity. “
“Kirschner calls it "a curious thought: non-linear quantum effects make phenomena possible which classical physics would call linear - and which we have thought, since the time of Einstein and Planck, is a physical impossibility."
“They did not just gather all electrons emitted from the copper plate. Rather, they only collected electrons that were emitted at particular angles from the surface. In these conditions they could see electrons that were not just moving away from the metal’s surface, but mostly parallel to it. The electrons moved around quite a bit - but only on a single plane above the copper plate.”
“Scientists try to determine where electrons are located in these substances - or, as the scientists might put it, with which energy the electrons whip around atomic
nuclei - and how to give these electrons an energetic "kick". “
“There are still many secrets hidden even in well-known metals like copper, and much beyond the simple theory of photoelectric effect developed by Einstein. “
“But the electrons lassoed in a number of photons at the same time, collecting together the energy necessary to escape the metal lattice. In the theory, Einstein proposed that only the colour (the energy) of the light, and not its intensity, determines whether electrons can be ejected from a metal. But Einstein never knew what a laser was. Lasers deliver light pulses so intense, that they can induce phenomena which physicists label "higher order" or "non-linear". Scientist have been using lasers in this way for some time already, but Max-Planck-Physicists, for the first time, have now carried this procedure to the fourth grade of non-inearity. “
“Kirschner calls it "a curious thought: non-linear quantum effects make phenomena possible which classical physics would call linear - and which we have thought, since the time of Einstein and Planck, is a physical impossibility."
“They did not just gather all electrons emitted from the copper plate. Rather, they only collected electrons that were emitted at particular angles from the surface. In these conditions they could see electrons that were not just moving away from the metal’s surface, but mostly parallel to it. The electrons moved around quite a bit - but only on a single plane above the copper plate.”
There is the “PATTERN” the vibrating electrons take, on the screen, to sum the effects of the break-up of the original wave by the double slit. The “counters” click based on electron movements, THESE VELOCITIES ARE CLASSICAL: they will add to each other, to “represent” a full “photon”. Like the response of a ribbon microphone to the velocity changes in “pressure waves” of sound. (not to the frequency)
I'm off again!
ciao!
T.Roc
Good Elf,
I meant to mention, or ask this before, about a comment I've seen in your posts:
Is the idea of Electrons having quarks part of "elf-theory", or some new zoo-ology that I haven't heard of?
regards,
T.Roc
I meant to mention, or ask this before, about a comment I've seen in your posts:
QUOTE
"Is an electron made up of two or three quarks?"
Is the idea of Electrons having quarks part of "elf-theory", or some new zoo-ology that I haven't heard of?
regards,
T.Roc
Confused2, Thank you. If excepted must deal with the legalistic issues, etc. will get with you.
TRoc, I am not Good Elf, but maybe this will help and be little more advanced in information, so it will not insult.
http://www.essex1.com/people/speer/quark.html
Jal, When I can, will read your site.
Duality/Lisa
TRoc, I am not Good Elf, but maybe this will help and be little more advanced in information, so it will not insult.
http://www.essex1.com/people/speer/quark.html
Jal, When I can, will read your site.
Duality/Lisa
Hi TRoc, Duality, Confused2 st al.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Science, and even Good Elf, have NO details to give. They do NOT understand, or have a "plan" for how this resonance works.[...]There is the “PATTERN” the vibrating electrons take, on the screen, to sum the effects of the break-up of the original wave by the double slit. The “counters” click based on electron movements, THESE VELOCITIES ARE CLASSICAL: they will add to each other, to “represent” a full “photon”. Like the response of a ribbon microphone to the velocity changes in “pressure waves” of sound. (not to the frequency)
The velocity is the velocity of the electrons not photons, they are not "additive" in any conventional sense. They are all "full photons". The photons are not necessarily "combining" in any real sense "to form a full photon" other than the way multiple coherent photons might combine into a boson wave (see below) ... I do not see why you are saying that. The quantum states are "above the vacuum" state of the Copper Image Plane (I think!), there should be no bound states there. These electrons conventionally have the energy to escape. Anyway the captured coherent photons are all the same resonant frequency and have been apparently "absorbed by the electron". As far as I can see these photons have not entered into the structure of the metal atom shells. A single quantum state can absorb any number of single frequency photons simultaneously but this is not inside a copper atom. This is because they are bosons and any number of them can exist in that one state. The additional photons are not appreciably increasing the kinetic energy of the electron. Why? The electron should be "free" and separate but the additional photons are "bound". Where? Just do the sums, the photons share cavities with their associated electrons not with the atoms... "above the vacuum state".
I am currently discussing extra dimensions not resonance at this point TRoc. You need to explain why several coherent photons can be associated/absorbed by an apparently "substantially free" electron apparently cumulatively increasing the "Intensity"...
What are the alternative answers here?
Cheers
I am currently discussing extra dimensions not resonance at this point TRoc. You need to explain why several coherent photons can be associated/absorbed by an apparently "substantially free" electron apparently cumulatively increasing the "Intensity"...
What are the alternative answers here?
Cheers
Hi TRoc,
Single photon detection..
I'm not sure of your background so please forgive me if anything is trivial.
Cloud chambers
http://bizarrelabs.com/cloud.htm
Once you've seen one in action it is very difficult to deny that you're looking at an individual 'something' (see alpha, beta amd gamma radiation for what those 'somethings' are.)
Millikan .. individual electrons
http://www68.pair.com/willisb/millikan/experiment.html
Photomultipliers .. single photon detectors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomultiplier
As a bit of a surprise ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger-M%C3%BCller_tube
Why the GM tbe .. only because the output is often fed to an audio amplifier so you hear the clicks as individual particles are detected.
The point is .. if we did the same thing with a photomultiplier tube it would sound the same.
To make the point .. http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/cricket/index.shtml
While we can't 'see' a single photon or electron there are trails that lead between the equipment that we can use and the pretty much undeniable personal experience of dealing with one 'something' at a time. There aren't any tricks .. there is no need for any tricks - it is bad enough without them.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Single photon detection..
I'm not sure of your background so please forgive me if anything is trivial.
Cloud chambers
http://bizarrelabs.com/cloud.htm
Once you've seen one in action it is very difficult to deny that you're looking at an individual 'something' (see alpha, beta amd gamma radiation for what those 'somethings' are.)
Millikan .. individual electrons
http://www68.pair.com/willisb/millikan/experiment.html
Photomultipliers .. single photon detectors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomultiplier
As a bit of a surprise ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger-M%C3%BCller_tube
Why the GM tbe .. only because the output is often fed to an audio amplifier so you hear the clicks as individual particles are detected.
The point is .. if we did the same thing with a photomultiplier tube it would sound the same.
To make the point .. http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/cricket/index.shtml
While we can't 'see' a single photon or electron there are trails that lead between the equipment that we can use and the pretty much undeniable personal experience of dealing with one 'something' at a time. There aren't any tricks .. there is no need for any tricks - it is bad enough without them.
Best wishes,
-C2.
TRoc
You must be well rested.... very informative links.
There is no doubt that the "experimenters" are finding out more than they are publishing.
From the same group I found an old (Thursday 2 March 2006) link.
http://www.ic.ac.uk/P7535.htm
Scientists capture the speediest ever motion in a molecule
All of their info will surely be of interest to the development of this thread.
jal
edit: insert
from http://www.amolf.nl/strategicplan/SelfEvaluReport.pdf
p. 78
All of their info will surely be of interest to the development of this thread.
jal
edit: insert
from http://www.amolf.nl/strategicplan/SelfEvaluReport.pdf
p. 78
We will study the propagation and dispersion of long-range SPPS and explore them to enhance the infrared response of silicon solar cells (with Kuipers). At high frequency, near the SPP resonance, we will try to answer the question: ‘How small can a photon be shrunk?’,
by measuring SPP wavelength, field concentration and plasmon group velocity as the frequency is tuned up towards resonance.
Using our cathodoluminescence plasmon microscope, we will investigate local modes in SPP planar and metallic nanostructures with the aim of achieving confinement of light at mode volumes as small as 10-6 (/n)3, thus enabling ultrasensitive (bio-)sensing, non-linear switching, spontaneous emission enhancement and many other functionalities on a Si chip.
You must be well rested.... very informative links.
There is no doubt that the "experimenters" are finding out more than they are publishing.
From the same group I found an old (Thursday 2 March 2006)
link.http://www.ic.ac.uk/P7535.htm
Scientists capture the speediest ever motion in a molecule
QUOTE
This process causes the electrons to carry a large amount of energy, which they release as an x-ray photon before returning to their original state. How bright this x-ray is depends on how far the protons move in the time between the electrons' removal and return. The further the proton moves, the lower the intensity of the x-ray, allowing the team to measure how far a proton has moved during the electron oscillation period.
All of their info will surely be of interest to the development of this thread.
jal
edit: insert
from http://www.amolf.nl/strategicplan/SelfEvaluReport.pdf
p. 78
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This process causes the electrons to carry a large amount of energy, which they release as an x-ray photon before returning to their original state. How bright this x-ray is depends on how far the protons move in the time between the electrons' removal and return. The further the proton moves, the lower the intensity of the x-ray, allowing the team to measure how far a proton has moved during the electron oscillation period. |
All of their info will surely be of interest to the development of this thread.
jal
edit: insert
from http://www.amolf.nl/strategicplan/SelfEvaluReport.pdf
p. 78
We will study the propagation and dispersion of long-range SPPS and explore them to enhance the infrared response of silicon solar cells (with Kuipers). At high frequency, near the SPP resonance, we will try to answer the question: ‘How small can a photon be shrunk?’,
by measuring SPP wavelength, field concentration and plasmon group velocity as the frequency is tuned up towards resonance.
Using our cathodoluminescence plasmon microscope, we will investigate local modes in SPP planar and metallic nanostructures with the aim of achieving confinement of light at mode volumes as small as 10-6 (/n)3, thus enabling ultrasensitive (bio-)sensing, non-linear switching, spontaneous emission enhancement and many other functionalities on a Si chip.
TRoc,
You've got new mail.
LL
You've got new mail.
LL
Hi all,
GE
Correct, I am talking about electron velocity. In the Photoelectric Effect, Energy in EXCESS of the work function ADDS to the VELOCITY (kinetic Energy) of the ejected electron. This is totally conventional, GE.
* In the “counter”, a photomultiplier or photodiode, of “photons”, at SOME point, the EM waves are converted to electrons in the photocathode via the photoelectric effect. I am saying that the Superposition Principle dictates that many photons can be in the same place at the same time, and that, at the photocathode, there are SPECIFIC superpositions that will create a type of Second Harmonic Generation that will CREATE a new photon of equal wavelength, and be added the the cascade process. A small addition at the beginning of this, BEFORE voltage controls are able to “clip” excess (from expectations) electron velocities. This is what LL had questioned me about earlier. The voltage controls, TMK, have NO effect on the initial ejection of electrons at the photocathode.
I mentioned your name in my reply to C2’s post :
Correct, I am talking about electron velocity. In the Photoelectric Effect, Energy in EXCESS of the work function ADDS to the VELOCITY (kinetic Energy) of the ejected electron. This is totally conventional, GE.
* In the “counter”, a photomultiplier or photodiode, of “photons”, at SOME point, the EM waves are converted to electrons in the photocathode via the photoelectric effect. I am saying that the Superposition Principle dictates that many photons can be in the same place at the same time, and that, at the photocathode, there are SPECIFIC superpositions that will create a type of Second Harmonic Generation that will CREATE a new photon of equal wavelength, and be added the the cascade process. A small addition at the beginning of this, BEFORE voltage controls are able to “clip” excess (from expectations) electron velocities. This is what LL had questioned me about earlier. The voltage controls, TMK, have NO effect on the initial ejection of electrons at the photocathode.
I mentioned your name in my reply to C2’s post :
C2>"Tell me XX, how do you think a car works?"
XX>"You add petrol and it sets up a resonance inside the vehicle which propels it forwards"
and, from your saying:
GE
I just want to get everyone’s version of “resonance” straight.
C2,
As to “cloud chambers”, and Miliken’s oil drops, BOTH of these are counting ELECTRONS. (you said “Single photon detection.. “, which is also what I am talking about)
What we are talking about here is the interaction of light and matter, or more specifically: PHOTONS interacting with bound ELECTRONS (those electrons that are PART of the atomic structure of the entire experiment: walls, slits, screen, etc.) The equipment used translates this transaction into data. See above “*”.
As to “the Photomultipliers .. single photon detectors”, see above “*”. They can be fooled very easily.
Geiger Counters?
I just want to get everyone’s version of “resonance” straight.
C2,
As to “cloud chambers”, and Miliken’s oil drops, BOTH of these are counting ELECTRONS. (you said “Single photon detection.. “, which is also what I am talking about)
What we are talking about here is the interaction of light and matter, or more specifically: PHOTONS interacting with bound ELECTRONS (those electrons that are PART of the atomic structure of the entire experiment: walls, slits, screen, etc.) The equipment used translates this transaction into data. See above “*”.
As to “the Photomultipliers .. single photon detectors”, see above “*”. They can be fooled very easily.
Geiger Counters? “When ionizing radiation passes through the tube, it ionizes some of the gas molecules, creating positively charged ions, and electrons. The strong electric field created by the tube's electrodes accelerate the ions towards the cathode and the electrons towards the anode. The ion pairs gain sufficient energy to ionize further gas molecules through collisions on the way, creating an avalanche of charged particles.”
No individual “photon” counting there, sorry.
The link to “Teachspin” Two Slit Interference, One Photon at a Time, like all of these experiments, has the weakness of counting photons through a photoelectric exchange, which the principle of superposition, and interactions erode the accuracy of the system. See above “*”.
More reading (besides what I have already given):
Optical Filters for Multiphoton Microscopy
by Dr. Craig Hodgson and Dr. Turan Erdogan, Semrock Inc.
Advances in filter technology enable improved multiphoton microscopy performance.
BioPhotonics, November 2006 , page 32
And, in a related imaging technique,
And, in a related imaging technique,
“Called second-harmonic-generation microscopy, it involves a nonabsorptive conversion of 2 long-wavelength photons into 1 short-wavelength photon of the same total energy. The emitted photon results from a nonlinear optical interaction and is distinct from a fluorescence photon, which always has a lower energy than that of the excitation photon or photons.”
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 15 SEPTEMBER 2006
Laser-Assisted Photoelectric Effect from Surfaces
http://jilawww.colorado.edu/kmgroup/papers/LMA_PRL_0906.pdf
Eberly College of Science
Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms
http://www.physorg.com/news74272106.html
Single-mode heat conduction by photons
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0605/0605678.pdf
from photonics.com - 11/30/2006
Electron Study Could Lead to Better Lighting, Electronics
http://www.photonics.com//content/news/200...r/30/85193.aspx
(emphasis added)
Nanoparticles Viewed in 3-D
DAVIS, Calif., Nov. 28, 2006 -- A new x-ray microscope has been devised that can, for the first time, examine nanoparticles -- materials smaller in scale than one billionth of a meter -- in three dimensions. The device could be used to make better materials for electronics, optics and biotechnology applications.
Subhash Risbud, professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at the University of California, Davis; John Miao of UCLA and colleagues from Japan and Taiwan published a paper in Physical Review Letters on Nov. 21 describing the new microscope and technique.
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) has traditionally been used to study nanomaterials, but because electrons do not penetrate far into materials, the sample preparation procedure is usually complicated and destructive. Another disadvantage is that TEM only provides two-dimensional images.
The new method shines a powerful x-ray source onto a nanoparticle and collects the x-rays scattered from the sample. Then computers construct a three-dimensional image from that data. The microscope can resolve details down to 17 nm, or a few atoms across.
Using the new microscope, Risbud and colleagues were able to take detailed 3-D pictures of a quantum dot of gallium nitride, and also to study the structure inside it at a nanometer scale. Quantum dots are tiny particles that change their optical and electronic properties, depending on the particle size. Gallium nitride quantum dots could be used in blue-green lasers or flat-panel displays.
"The present work hence opens the door for comprehensive, nondestructive and quantitative 3-D imaging of a wide range of samples including porous materials, semiconductors, quantum dots and wires, inorganic nanostructures, granular materials, biomaterials, and cellular structure," they wrote in the article.
from photonics.com - 11/28/2006
http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2006...r/28/85149.aspx
(emphasis added)
regards,
T.Roc
GE
QUOTE
“The velocity is the velocity of the electrons not photons, they are not "additive" in any conventional sense.”
Correct, I am talking about electron velocity. In the Photoelectric Effect, Energy in EXCESS of the work function ADDS to the VELOCITY (kinetic Energy) of the ejected electron. This is totally conventional, GE.
* In the “counter”, a photomultiplier or photodiode, of “photons”, at SOME point, the EM waves are converted to electrons in the photocathode via the photoelectric effect. I am saying that the Superposition Principle dictates that many photons can be in the same place at the same time, and that, at the photocathode, there are SPECIFIC superpositions that will create a type of Second Harmonic Generation that will CREATE a new photon of equal wavelength, and be added the the cascade process. A small addition at the beginning of this, BEFORE voltage controls are able to “clip” excess (from expectations) electron velocities. This is what LL had questioned me about earlier. The voltage controls, TMK, have NO effect on the initial ejection of electrons at the photocathode.
I mentioned your name in my reply to C2’s post :
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “The velocity is the velocity of the electrons not photons, they are not "additive" in any conventional sense.” |
Correct, I am talking about electron velocity. In the Photoelectric Effect, Energy in EXCESS of the work function ADDS to the VELOCITY (kinetic Energy) of the ejected electron. This is totally conventional, GE.
* In the “counter”, a photomultiplier or photodiode, of “photons”, at SOME point, the EM waves are converted to electrons in the photocathode via the photoelectric effect. I am saying that the Superposition Principle dictates that many photons can be in the same place at the same time, and that, at the photocathode, there are SPECIFIC superpositions that will create a type of Second Harmonic Generation that will CREATE a new photon of equal wavelength, and be added the the cascade process. A small addition at the beginning of this, BEFORE voltage controls are able to “clip” excess (from expectations) electron velocities. This is what LL had questioned me about earlier. The voltage controls, TMK, have NO effect on the initial ejection of electrons at the photocathode.
I mentioned your name in my reply to C2’s post :
C2>"Tell me XX, how do you think a car works?"
XX>"You add petrol and it sets up a resonance inside the vehicle which propels it forwards"
and, from your saying:
GE
QUOTE
“I have provided a number of paradoxes that can be answered using the resonant paradigm and higher dimensions that cannot be answered by conventional particle theories.”
I just want to get everyone’s version of “resonance” straight.
C2,
As to “cloud chambers”, and Miliken’s oil drops, BOTH of these are counting ELECTRONS. (you said “Single photon detection.. “, which is also what I am talking about)
What we are talking about here is the interaction of light and matter, or more specifically: PHOTONS interacting with bound ELECTRONS (those electrons that are PART of the atomic structure of the entire experiment: walls, slits, screen, etc.) The equipment used translates this transaction into data. See above “*”.
As to “the Photomultipliers .. single photon detectors”, see above “*”. They can be fooled very easily.
Geiger Counters?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “I have provided a number of paradoxes that can be answered using the resonant paradigm and higher dimensions that cannot be answered by conventional particle theories.” |
I just want to get everyone’s version of “resonance” straight.
C2,
As to “cloud chambers”, and Miliken’s oil drops, BOTH of these are counting ELECTRONS. (you said “Single photon detection.. “, which is also what I am talking about)
What we are talking about here is the interaction of light and matter, or more specifically: PHOTONS interacting with bound ELECTRONS (those electrons that are PART of the atomic structure of the entire experiment: walls, slits, screen, etc.) The equipment used translates this transaction into data. See above “*”.
As to “the Photomultipliers .. single photon detectors”, see above “*”. They can be fooled very easily.
Geiger Counters? “When ionizing radiation passes through the tube, it ionizes some of the gas molecules, creating positively charged ions, and electrons. The strong electric field created by the tube's electrodes accelerate the ions towards the cathode and the electrons towards the anode. The ion pairs gain sufficient energy to ionize further gas molecules through collisions on the way, creating an avalanche of charged particles.”
No individual “photon” counting there, sorry.
The link to “Teachspin” Two Slit Interference, One Photon at a Time, like all of these experiments, has the weakness of counting photons through a photoelectric exchange, which the principle of superposition, and interactions erode the accuracy of the system. See above “*”.
More reading (besides what I have already given):
Optical Filters for Multiphoton Microscopy
by Dr. Craig Hodgson and Dr. Turan Erdogan, Semrock Inc.
Advances in filter technology enable improved multiphoton microscopy performance.
BioPhotonics, November 2006 , page 32
QUOTE
“.. in a 2 photon microscope, each fluorescent photon results not from a single excitation photon, but from 2 photons absorbed simultaneously – each with twice the wavelength and half the energy of the equivalent single excitation photon.”
“It also is possible to do 3 photon fluorescence, where 3 photons, each with 1/3 the energy, are absorbed simultaneously to excite the molecule, replacing the original 1 photon excitation.”
“.. a mode locked, tunable Ti:sapphire laser, is used because the 2 photons must arrive at the fluorescent molecule at exactly the same instant to excite it.”
“It also is possible to do 3 photon fluorescence, where 3 photons, each with 1/3 the energy, are absorbed simultaneously to excite the molecule, replacing the original 1 photon excitation.”
“.. a mode locked, tunable Ti:sapphire laser, is used because the 2 photons must arrive at the fluorescent molecule at exactly the same instant to excite it.”
And, in a related imaging technique,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “.. in a 2 photon microscope, each fluorescent photon results not from a single excitation photon, but from 2 photons absorbed simultaneously – each with twice the wavelength and half the energy of the equivalent single excitation photon.” “It also is possible to do 3 photon fluorescence, where 3 photons, each with 1/3 the energy, are absorbed simultaneously to excite the molecule, replacing the original 1 photon excitation.” “.. a mode locked, tunable Ti:sapphire laser, is used because the 2 photons must arrive at the fluorescent molecule at exactly the same instant to excite it.” |
And, in a related imaging technique,
“Called second-harmonic-generation microscopy, it involves a nonabsorptive conversion of 2 long-wavelength photons into 1 short-wavelength photon of the same total energy. The emitted photon results from a nonlinear optical interaction and is distinct from a fluorescence photon, which always has a lower energy than that of the excitation photon or photons.”
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 15 SEPTEMBER 2006
Laser-Assisted Photoelectric Effect from Surfaces
http://jilawww.colorado.edu/kmgroup/papers/LMA_PRL_0906.pdf
Eberly College of Science
Research Paper Illuminates How Light Pushes Atoms
http://www.physorg.com/news74272106.html
Single-mode heat conduction by photons
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0605/0605678.pdf
from photonics.com - 11/30/2006
Electron Study Could Lead to Better Lighting, Electronics
http://www.photonics.com//content/news/200...r/30/85193.aspx
QUOTE
“MIT assistant chemistry professor Troy Van Voorhis and his team are developing methods and computer software that can simulate what happens when a dot in an LED of a computer display turns on. In the case of an optical LED, positive and negative charges are strongly attracted to one another and become trapped. The unusual rules of quantum physics dictate that the charges can only recombine to emit light if they are spinning in opposite directions. As a result, typically only 25 percent of the trapped charges produce light; the other 75 percent of the charges spin in the same direction and are essentially wasted.
Van Voorhis is one of 20 researchers recently awarded the 2006 David and Lucile Packard Foundation fellowship. He will receive an unrestricted research grant of $625,000 over five years to continue his electron research.
"This frees me long term to develop methods to make reliable predictions about the transfer of electrons, which is the most basic chemical reaction," said Van Voorhis. "It is difficult to simulate the changes in electronic structure that accompany electron transfer, because a reaction pushes the electrons out of equilibrium, and current techniques for describing this are not adequate."
Van Voorhis and his team have developed a computer program that simulates how these coupled spinning charges are nudged to react and thus emit light. The simulations indicate that the emission will increase if some of the charges spinning in one direction can be turned into charges spinning in the opposite direction and then form stable pairs.”
Van Voorhis is one of 20 researchers recently awarded the 2006 David and Lucile Packard Foundation fellowship. He will receive an unrestricted research grant of $625,000 over five years to continue his electron research.
"This frees me long term to develop methods to make reliable predictions about the transfer of electrons, which is the most basic chemical reaction," said Van Voorhis. "It is difficult to simulate the changes in electronic structure that accompany electron transfer, because a reaction pushes the electrons out of equilibrium, and current techniques for describing this are not adequate."
Van Voorhis and his team have developed a computer program that simulates how these coupled spinning charges are nudged to react and thus emit light. The simulations indicate that the emission will increase if some of the charges spinning in one direction can be turned into charges spinning in the opposite direction and then form stable pairs.”
(emphasis added)
Nanoparticles Viewed in 3-D
DAVIS, Calif., Nov. 28, 2006 -- A new x-ray microscope has been devised that can, for the first time, examine nanoparticles -- materials smaller in scale than one billionth of a meter -- in three dimensions. The device could be used to make better materials for electronics, optics and biotechnology applications.
Subhash Risbud, professor of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at the University of California, Davis; John Miao of UCLA and colleagues from Japan and Taiwan published a paper in Physical Review Letters on Nov. 21 describing the new microscope and technique.
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) has traditionally been used to study nanomaterials, but because electrons do not penetrate far into materials, the sample preparation procedure is usually complicated and destructive. Another disadvantage is that TEM only provides two-dimensional images.
The new method shines a powerful x-ray source onto a nanoparticle and collects the x-rays scattered from the sample. Then computers construct a three-dimensional image from that data. The microscope can resolve details down to 17 nm, or a few atoms across.
Using the new microscope, Risbud and colleagues were able to take detailed 3-D pictures of a quantum dot of gallium nitride, and also to study the structure inside it at a nanometer scale. Quantum dots are tiny particles that change their optical and electronic properties, depending on the particle size. Gallium nitride quantum dots could be used in blue-green lasers or flat-panel displays.
"The present work hence opens the door for comprehensive, nondestructive and quantitative 3-D imaging of a wide range of samples including porous materials, semiconductors, quantum dots and wires, inorganic nanostructures, granular materials, biomaterials, and cellular structure," they wrote in the article.
from photonics.com - 11/28/2006
http://www.photonics.com/content/news/2006...r/28/85149.aspx
(emphasis added)
regards,
T.Roc
Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Duality, Jal, TRoc et al,
If people want to discuss my ideas seriously I take some slight at calling them "elf theory". When I quote others work it is not "elf theory", it is simply a reference and it is up to you to interpret. I give you my ideas freely and I expect sensible answers otherwise what am I here for other than your amusement?
TRoc... are you suggesting that in the experiment cited that there is "parametric up-conversion" going on within the "free" electron? I realize that certain crystals do in fact perform this trick but a single "free" electron does not seem to be the place where this may occur. Up-conversion is a very rare condensed matter process involving "virtual photons" within lattice structures of crystals (a place that elves simply trust others with). The extensive references you give are not applicable to the problem we are discussing here. I can't see where you are coming from. You must help me with more direct statements please. As to my version of resonance?... It is clearly standing waves induced in systems (mostly cavities). I hope this is the only version of resonance being used? I am not in any way discussing the so called "resonances" of Quantum Field Theory of particle production and subsequent decay ... These are "particle interactions".
Are people familiar with the fact that the electron is considered "primary" and not technically "composite" and that it has no actual size that has been able to be determined thus far? HEP has determined that it is an apparent point source of charge not a distributed object like a proton or neutron with internal structure (quarks).
Diameter, Radius of an Electron
All dimensions shown are "upper bounds" on electron size since it behaves like a point source. Technically a point source could not have any "inner" quantum states yet this object can apparently absorb electrons into an inner quantum structure. TRoc... these points regarding quark compositions have always been available for you to look up and, yes, the possibility of electrons having quarks in some otherwise unavailable space is a possibility that others have commented on not just "elves".
This "point source" is contradicted by the fact that a point source of charge is not logically possible (no apparent binding forces) nor is the magnetic dipole moment that it exhibits is logically possible either from a real point charge. Magnetic Fields require dipolar sources of charges or at least dipolar fields, no magnetic monopoles known so where is the electric dipole of the electron? I have often shown this "Mud Map of electron and positron" which is "higher dimensional" which shows the source of an inner dipole electric field and the resultant external magnetic field.
This is effectively the EM wrapping "dumbed down" into a picture that can be illustrative of some kind of inner structure that can trap particles. This embodies the Williamson and Van der Mark Theory but in higher dimensions. You can see in the illustration just conceptually how the negative field intensities cumulate on or just beyond the boundary of our three dimensional space. The dynamic "dipole" is perpendicular to our spacetime. Magnetic dipole wull be orthogonal to the electric dipole of course and can be made to match the idea that it is equivalent to the electrons actual measured magnetic dipole. Field likes flow as before "between dimensions" looping" dimensional cavities.
Please have a read of this article and pick up on the finer points about the fact that "classical" electron radius just does not exist and it behaves like a point source even at high energies without any structure.
Wikipedia: Classical electron radius
Would anyone like to make a few comments about this anomaly or am I the only one able to make this observation? Free electrons or electrons far far away from atoms are not able to utilize atomic quantum states within copper atoms that are just not there "in the vacuum". Clearly a photon could not enter a featureless external object and "bind" in some quantum state unless there was some "inner quantum structure" inside an "undefined space"?
If people want to discuss my ideas seriously I take some slight at calling them "elf theory". When I quote others work it is not "elf theory", it is simply a reference and it is up to you to interpret. I give you my ideas freely and I expect sensible answers otherwise what am I here for other than your amusement?
TRoc... are you suggesting that in the experiment cited that there is "parametric up-conversion" going on within the "free" electron? I realize that certain crystals do in fact perform this trick but a single "free" electron does not seem to be the place where this may occur. Up-conversion is a very rare condensed matter process involving "virtual photons" within lattice structures of crystals (a place that elves simply trust others with). The extensive references you give are not applicable to the problem we are discussing here. I can't see where you are coming from. You must help me with more direct statements please. As to my version of resonance?... It is clearly standing waves induced in systems (mostly cavities). I hope this is the only version of resonance being used? I am not in any way discussing the so called "resonances" of Quantum Field Theory of particle production and subsequent decay ... These are "particle interactions".
Are people familiar with the fact that the electron is considered "primary" and not technically "composite" and that it has no actual size that has been able to be determined thus far? HEP has determined that it is an apparent point source of charge not a distributed object like a proton or neutron with internal structure (quarks).
Diameter, Radius of an Electron
All dimensions shown are "upper bounds" on electron size since it behaves like a point source. Technically a point source could not have any "inner" quantum states yet this object can apparently absorb electrons into an inner quantum structure. TRoc... these points regarding quark compositions have always been available for you to look up and, yes, the possibility of electrons having quarks in some otherwise unavailable space is a possibility that others have commented on not just "elves".
This "point source" is contradicted by the fact that a point source of charge is not logically possible (no apparent binding forces) nor is the magnetic dipole moment that it exhibits is logically possible either from a real point charge. Magnetic Fields require dipolar sources of charges or at least dipolar fields, no magnetic monopoles known so where is the electric dipole of the electron? I have often shown this "Mud Map of electron and positron" which is "higher dimensional" which shows the source of an inner dipole electric field and the resultant external magnetic field.
This is effectively the EM wrapping "dumbed down" into a picture that can be illustrative of some kind of inner structure that can trap particles. This embodies the Williamson and Van der Mark Theory but in higher dimensions. You can see in the illustration just conceptually how the negative field intensities cumulate on or just beyond the boundary of our three dimensional space. The dynamic "dipole" is perpendicular to our spacetime. Magnetic dipole wull be orthogonal to the electric dipole of course and can be made to match the idea that it is equivalent to the electrons actual measured magnetic dipole. Field likes flow as before "between dimensions" looping" dimensional cavities.
Please have a read of this article and pick up on the finer points about the fact that "classical" electron radius just does not exist and it behaves like a point source even at high energies without any structure.
Wikipedia: Classical electron radius
Would anyone like to make a few comments about this anomaly or am I the only one able to make this observation? Free electrons or electrons far far away from atoms are not able to utilize atomic quantum states within copper atoms that are just not there "in the vacuum". Clearly a photon could not enter a featureless external object and "bind" in some quantum state unless there was some "inner quantum structure" inside an "undefined space"?
QUOTE (Duality+)
Not sure what you mean by the electron ends up mathematically infinite, that only goes with the GR --> EM fields with points in space & there calculation.
Are you dealing with atoms or space, Good Elf. There is not infinities with with the configuration dealing with the atom which which we are made of.
Or, have we now left Kansas again? You even have a tool at the end of the page to run numbers that is if we are still dealing with the electrons, atoms, & elements.
Are you dealing with atoms or space, Good Elf. There is not infinities with with the configuration dealing with the atom which which we are made of.
Or, have we now left Kansas again? You even have a tool at the end of the page to run numbers that is if we are still dealing with the electrons, atoms, & elements.
A point source is a singularity of sorts and that is what HEP finds in scattering experiments with electrons. Since a "classical" electron as indicated above is experimentally incorrect then the "mystery" is still not understood.
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Classical electron radius+)
In simple terms, the classical electron radius is roughly the size the electron would need to have for its mass to be completely due to its electrostatic potential energy - not taking quantum mechanics into account. We now know that quantum mechanics, indeed quantum field theory, is needed to understand the behavior of electrons at such short distance scales, thus the classical electron radius is no longer regarded as the actual size of an electron.
So there is still a question to answer there I think. QM simply shifts the problem
All attempts to measure the radius of the electron have failed! All we know is that the radius is less than 10^-18 m; that is, its radius is one hundred million times smaller than that of the atom. The electron carries a charge and significant magnetic dipole field which appears to have no measurable spatial distribution. This indicates "structure" even though it cannot be seen.
Alternatively this subject has lost interest for people and we can call it quits.... I doubt if anyone is following me on this matter anyway.
Cheers
All attempts to measure the radius of the electron have failed! All we know is that the radius is less than 10^-18 m; that is, its radius is one hundred million times smaller than that of the atom. The electron carries a charge and significant magnetic dipole field which appears to have no measurable spatial distribution. This indicates "structure" even though it cannot be seen.
Alternatively this subject has lost interest for people and we can call it quits.... I doubt if anyone is following me on this matter anyway.
Cheers
Hi TRoc,All,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
The link to “Teachspin” Two Slit Interference, One Photon at a Time, like all of these experiments, has the weakness of counting photons through a photoelectric exchange, which the principle of superposition, and interactions erode the accuracy of the system. See above “*”.
If we assume these aren't single photon counts .. what difference would you expect?
The point of introducing the Geiger counter was that we are used to hearing the random clicks (are we?) from a Geiger Counter .. would it be a surprise if a photomultiplier (connected to an audio ampifier) made exactly the same random 'clicky' noise, photons being (of course) 'radiation' ?
Resonance (C2 style) ..
In general: any state or set of states that have a significantly higher probability of occurring than other (loosely comparable) states.
1 + 1 = 2 is probable but I wouldn't (myself) call it a 'resonance'. In the context of the DSE we see the most probable paths are where the difference between the path lengths is an integral number of wavelengths. It is difficult for me to put my finger on the problem but I have to admit I can't see how or why anyone would want to describe (A - B) = N as a 'resonance'.
-C2.
If we assume these aren't single photon counts .. what difference would you expect?
The point of introducing the Geiger counter was that we are used to hearing the random clicks (are we?) from a Geiger Counter .. would it be a surprise if a photomultiplier (connected to an audio ampifier) made exactly the same random 'clicky' noise, photons being (of course) 'radiation' ?
Resonance (C2 style) ..
In general: any state or set of states that have a significantly higher probability of occurring than other (loosely comparable) states.
1 + 1 = 2 is probable but I wouldn't (myself) call it a 'resonance'. In the context of the DSE we see the most probable paths are where the difference between the path lengths is an integral number of wavelengths. It is difficult for me to put my finger on the problem but I have to admit I can't see how or why anyone would want to describe (A - B) = N as a 'resonance'.
-C2.
Hi Good Elf and All,
Actually, the theoretical aspects of your discussion are quite fascinating. IMO.
We have beat the DSE "analysis" to death and can still not reach a concensus
on the fine details as to the "mechanics" that cause the results. I feel that the
only way to garner a deeper understanding of WHY, or what, the DSE is
giving us as clues, we must look toward the SOURCE of the photons and try
to apply conceptual "physics" to the entire photon generation cycle, which
includes the structure of the atom and its components.
Once we have a conceptually feasible "mental picture" of the possible mechanism
that generates photons the rest of the DSE should become self explanatory.
If you feel that this forum is not the correct "venue" for such discussions perhaps
you will start a new theoretical thread to explore the intricacies and possible
mechanisms at play. Let me know, I would like to discuss this whole topic in
a forum where ideas can be mutually explored and conceptually developed,
OR, we could continue the discussion here. Either way is fine by me.
Regards,
LL
QUOTE
Alternatively this subject has lost interest for people and we can call it quits.... I doubt if anyone is following me on this matter anyway
Actually, the theoretical aspects of your discussion are quite fascinating. IMO.
We have beat the DSE "analysis" to death and can still not reach a concensus
on the fine details as to the "mechanics" that cause the results. I feel that the
only way to garner a deeper understanding of WHY, or what, the DSE is
giving us as clues, we must look toward the SOURCE of the photons and try
to apply conceptual "physics" to the entire photon generation cycle, which
includes the structure of the atom and its components.
Once we have a conceptually feasible "mental picture" of the possible mechanism
that generates photons the rest of the DSE should become self explanatory.
If you feel that this forum is not the correct "venue" for such discussions perhaps
you will start a new theoretical thread to explore the intricacies and possible
mechanisms at play. Let me know, I would like to discuss this whole topic in
a forum where ideas can be mutually explored and conceptually developed,
OR, we could continue the discussion here. Either way is fine by me.
Regards,
LL
Good day All!
"particle interactions" photon.... electrons
Applications/new tech tools
They work .... they don't work .... economic sucess or failure
I recall reading the story of how they tried to send a signal across the atlantic though a wire.
They thought that an electron was being pushed from one end of the wire to the other. As the signal weakened they increased the number of electrons that they wer putting in the wire so that there would be some reaching the other side of the ocean.
The result was that the wire failed. They lost their investments.
It was only years later that they worked out what was happening/explanation.
We now have all kinds of electric "appliances".
Only by looking at the "new appliances" that work will we be able to "see" if somebody ACCIDENTALLY got the right "explanation" of what could be happening at the quantum level.
More tech and math???
jal
"particle interactions" photon.... electrons
Applications/new tech tools
They work .... they don't work .... economic sucess or failure
I recall reading the story of how they tried to send a signal across the atlantic though a wire.
They thought that an electron was being pushed from one end of the wire to the other. As the signal weakened they increased the number of electrons that they wer putting in the wire so that there would be some reaching the other side of the ocean.
The result was that the wire failed. They lost their investments.
It was only years later that they worked out what was happening/explanation.
We now have all kinds of electric "appliances".
Only by looking at the "new appliances" that work will we be able to "see" if somebody ACCIDENTALLY got the right "explanation" of what could be happening at the quantum level.
More tech and math???
jal
Hi All,
What I see in the DSE is no more and no less than a few cycles of EM radiation laid bare before us. The photons have been tricked into showing where they live in an EM wave. In the absence of any tame theory that says an EM wave looks like that we have no alternative but to ignore what we see. Once we have discarded the evidence, I agree, we might as well move on.
Best wishes,
-C2.
What I see in the DSE is no more and no less than a few cycles of EM radiation laid bare before us. The photons have been tricked into showing where they live in an EM wave. In the absence of any tame theory that says an EM wave looks like that we have no alternative but to ignore what we see. Once we have discarded the evidence, I agree, we might as well move on.
Best wishes,
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Dec 5 2006, 09:54 PM)
.....I see in the DSE is no more and no less than a few cycles of EM radiation laid bare before us...
The DSE would work even with strong and weak nuclear forces and supposedly even with the gravity waves.
Don't forget the mechanical analogymechanical analogy of DSE, discovered recently
.jpg)
.jpg)
It's evident, your "explanation" of DSE should be "slightly" more general and not restricted just to the electromagnetic waves. Such requirement leads to the recursive foam concept of AWT naturally, where the same phenomena can appear at different dimensional scales.
The DSE would work even with strong and weak nuclear forces and supposedly even with the gravity waves.
Don't forget the mechanical analogymechanical analogy of DSE, discovered recently
It's evident, your "explanation" of DSE should be "slightly" more general and not restricted just to the electromagnetic waves. Such requirement leads to the recursive foam concept of AWT naturally, where the same phenomena can appear at different dimensional scales.
Hi all,
GE,
Don't take offense to my questions, please. I agree that "elf-theory" can have negative context; I will refer to it as GET (pronounced JET, mate?) unless otherwise instructed by you.
I have said many times, that our theories are remarkably similar. The main differences being dimensions, and some fully re-interpretive version of QM. We both are "cherry picking" from QM (as it should be), and replacing things we don't agree with. The hard part is explaining things that A. agree with what NEEDS to be agreed with (LAWS), while B. demonstrating that MODEL (descriptions) changes can lead to errors in METHODS.
Your question:
No, not with the electron. Let me try a little of your "descriptions" to make this point.
The incoming photons CAN be superimposed in an area ON the detector. This is ONE side (dimension?) of the "brane". On the other side, due to the photoelectric effect, electrons are ejected from the photocathode. So, there are TWO parameters that need to be explained.
Everything is SET to measure a CONSTANT response: when the energy level (work function) is MET, ONE electron, with PREDICTABLE velocity (from ANY excess energy of the photon). These are the EXPECTATIONS of the experiment (assumptions).
I have shown that, due to the superposition of PHOTONS on one side of the "brane" (detector, and TRANSITION MEDIUM, dimension) an amount of energy NOT PREDICTED by standard means CAN EXIST THERE. (IE by constructive/destructive interference)
IF this happens, THE COUNTS ARE NOT VALID.
The LASER is NEVER turned OFF. Pulses are NOT separated by NOTHING, they are CONNECTED by a FLOW of ENERGY. THIS energy, existing in what I term Beat-frequencies, can SUM when superimposed, to make the "counting" FALSE. All the machine can do is count PULSES with high accuracy. When you ask it to "count" individual WAVES, you ask for UNCERTAINTY, because the photocathode is FIXED in place. Momentum and position problems due to HUP.
Yes, I am familiar with the quark models, and the "individuality" of the electron (not having quarks). This is why I asked the question. I wondered if you had different ideas there?
I can give a short example of the SIMPLICITY of Resonance, Geometry, and Beats. (and answer C2 at the same time)
1+1=2 is not Resonance for C2. OK, not directly. It does mathematically describe Second Harmonic Generation though, and I am including that in a new "family" of interactions, that all fall under the heading of Resonance.
1-1=0 is not the whole story either, although it IS BEAT FREE. That is "pure" Resonance. The 1+1=2 is due to 2-1=1 (a Beat). When the Beat = the Fundamental, this is also Resonance, AT the OTHER end of the SCALE.
My Resonance Scale exists as ratios that fall between these 2 phenomena.
Adding a third party changes the DIMENSIONALITY of the interaction.
A moving Vibration REQUIRES 3 points to describe the cycle. Very similar to the sine wave analysis. But Physics failed to FULLY study the phenomena that they BORROWED principles from: Music. NO ONE has ever mathematically proven the INTERACTIONS required by the existence of CHORDS. This is what I have done.
If you take Pythagorean studies to their logical conclusion, you find that Triangles can geometrically represent Triads of Vibrations.
The "perfect" case is the PROTON, with its' 3 indivisible quark make-up.
This is an Isosceles Triangle, with FUNDAMENTAL lengths. If each side has a length of ONE, then NO BEATS can exist inside this AREA. This strictly means that, with VIBRATIONAL MEASURING TECHNIQUES, you CAN NOT "penetrate" this "chord". (and end up with a "Beat", or something DIFFERENT to measure)
I have had some conversations about this with the Heim theorists. His protosimplex is nothing more than a "chord" of frequencies (energy) that CAN be divided, or MEASURED to produce a Beat (difference). They are (not surprisingly) not aware of this Method.
At the other "end" of the scale, we have the right angled triangle, where a^2 + b^2 = c^2 , the 3-4-5. This form is DOMINANT in our sine wave based math, and models. With this analogy, the 4 is the "amplitude", which is symmetric to the start point 3 , and the end point 5 .
The BEATS of this triangle SUM to 4 [ (a-b ) + (b-c) + (a-c) = b ] (delta, not subtraction). This is the "connection" from energy = amplitude, which is misleading. ALL quantum effects are translated through this model. The problem then arises when "intensity" (quantity) does NOT equal "amplitude", or "energy".
So, continue the "turn" of the circular model: at the next basic integer triangle, 4-5-6 , we have >90 degrees. Now the differences in path lengths (legs) create a NEW geometry for the same ratios (plus an additional ratio).
The Beats of the 4-5-6 triangle also SUM to 4 , but now, this value is THE STARTING POINT, or Fundamental. A TOTALLY different outcome, from a "continuous" "plus-one integer" measurement.
This 4-5-6 triangle IS the TRIAD ratios found in Music, AND is responsible for SHG in optics. THEY ARE EQUIVALENT. Musicians, or anyone with access to information, take note:
G + B + D = G "symbolically"
392 + 494 + 588 = 392 "mathematically"
This is NOT what I learned in school, eh?
Use my Beat-frequency Method:
392-494 =102
494-588 = 94
392-588=196
-----------------
The "beat-sum" = 392. This works for all major chords, throughout the frequency spectrum. If you ADD the Beat-sum to the Fundamental, you get 2x the Fundamental, this is the "SECOND HARMONIC" being generated.
At least, I hope I have explained why "counting" waves that can be both DIVIDED (grated, refracted, beam-split, etc), and SUPERIMPOSED ("added") can be problematic.
And, that you can begin to see my view on the "movement" of energy. When you break all values down to their basic ratios, there are a small set of "harmonic rules" that dictate which way the energy will go.
This explains more of QM than anything that I have seen. From the ground, up, Resonance can be seen "behind the scenes" in the problematic "fluctuations" of Boltzmann, and the "unpredictability" of QM. ALL paths are NEVER traveled, because NATURE is TOO efficient for such a waste of energy. The "reduction" in path possibilities is CAUSED by the "dissonant" eliminations. There ARE places IT WILL NOT GO.
No experiment has EVER produced one of these "QM anomalies" that ARE PREDICTED by QM. (IE the hand through the brick, etc.) They use "virtual" particles to justify this, but you can see it is NOT true. The "virtual" resonances are transitory because of "geometry" changes: the interaction zone depends on the geometry, and the length of resonance time depends of the size and shape of the zone.
The interactions of Vibrations are the CAUSE for everything. This is a large statement to make. I have not determined "all" of the answers, but I have determined MORE than QM, & The Standard Model have done. I can produce ALL particles and elements from the same recursive interaction of a base (Fundamental) Vibration. (ask for a sample
)
ciao,
T.Roc
GE,
Don't take offense to my questions, please. I agree that "elf-theory" can have negative context; I will refer to it as GET (pronounced JET, mate?) unless otherwise instructed by you.
I have said many times, that our theories are remarkably similar. The main differences being dimensions, and some fully re-interpretive version of QM. We both are "cherry picking" from QM (as it should be), and replacing things we don't agree with. The hard part is explaining things that A. agree with what NEEDS to be agreed with (LAWS), while B. demonstrating that MODEL (descriptions) changes can lead to errors in METHODS.
Your question:
QUOTE
TRoc... are you suggesting that in the experiment cited that there is "parametric up-conversion" going on within the "free" electron?
No, not with the electron. Let me try a little of your "descriptions" to make this point.
The incoming photons CAN be superimposed in an area ON the detector. This is ONE side (dimension?) of the "brane". On the other side, due to the photoelectric effect, electrons are ejected from the photocathode. So, there are TWO parameters that need to be explained.
Everything is SET to measure a CONSTANT response: when the energy level (work function) is MET, ONE electron, with PREDICTABLE velocity (from ANY excess energy of the photon). These are the EXPECTATIONS of the experiment (assumptions).
I have shown that, due to the superposition of PHOTONS on one side of the "brane" (detector, and TRANSITION MEDIUM, dimension) an amount of energy NOT PREDICTED by standard means CAN EXIST THERE. (IE by constructive/destructive interference)
IF this happens, THE COUNTS ARE NOT VALID.
The LASER is NEVER turned OFF. Pulses are NOT separated by NOTHING, they are CONNECTED by a FLOW of ENERGY. THIS energy, existing in what I term Beat-frequencies, can SUM when superimposed, to make the "counting" FALSE. All the machine can do is count PULSES with high accuracy. When you ask it to "count" individual WAVES, you ask for UNCERTAINTY, because the photocathode is FIXED in place. Momentum and position problems due to HUP.
Yes, I am familiar with the quark models, and the "individuality" of the electron (not having quarks). This is why I asked the question. I wondered if you had different ideas there?
I can give a short example of the SIMPLICITY of Resonance, Geometry, and Beats. (and answer C2 at the same time)
1+1=2 is not Resonance for C2. OK, not directly. It does mathematically describe Second Harmonic Generation though, and I am including that in a new "family" of interactions, that all fall under the heading of Resonance.
1-1=0 is not the whole story either, although it IS BEAT FREE. That is "pure" Resonance. The 1+1=2 is due to 2-1=1 (a Beat). When the Beat = the Fundamental, this is also Resonance, AT the OTHER end of the SCALE.
My Resonance Scale exists as ratios that fall between these 2 phenomena.
Adding a third party changes the DIMENSIONALITY of the interaction.
A moving Vibration REQUIRES 3 points to describe the cycle. Very similar to the sine wave analysis. But Physics failed to FULLY study the phenomena that they BORROWED principles from: Music. NO ONE has ever mathematically proven the INTERACTIONS required by the existence of CHORDS. This is what I have done.
If you take Pythagorean studies to their logical conclusion, you find that Triangles can geometrically represent Triads of Vibrations.
The "perfect" case is the PROTON, with its' 3 indivisible quark make-up.
This is an Isosceles Triangle, with FUNDAMENTAL lengths. If each side has a length of ONE, then NO BEATS can exist inside this AREA. This strictly means that, with VIBRATIONAL MEASURING TECHNIQUES, you CAN NOT "penetrate" this "chord". (and end up with a "Beat", or something DIFFERENT to measure)
I have had some conversations about this with the Heim theorists. His protosimplex is nothing more than a "chord" of frequencies (energy) that CAN be divided, or MEASURED to produce a Beat (difference). They are (not surprisingly) not aware of this Method.
At the other "end" of the scale, we have the right angled triangle, where a^2 + b^2 = c^2 , the 3-4-5. This form is DOMINANT in our sine wave based math, and models. With this analogy, the 4 is the "amplitude", which is symmetric to the start point 3 , and the end point 5 .
The BEATS of this triangle SUM to 4 [ (a-b ) + (b-c) + (a-c) = b ] (delta, not subtraction). This is the "connection" from energy = amplitude, which is misleading. ALL quantum effects are translated through this model. The problem then arises when "intensity" (quantity) does NOT equal "amplitude", or "energy".
So, continue the "turn" of the circular model: at the next basic integer triangle, 4-5-6 , we have >90 degrees. Now the differences in path lengths (legs) create a NEW geometry for the same ratios (plus an additional ratio).
The Beats of the 4-5-6 triangle also SUM to 4 , but now, this value is THE STARTING POINT, or Fundamental. A TOTALLY different outcome, from a "continuous" "plus-one integer" measurement.
This 4-5-6 triangle IS the TRIAD ratios found in Music, AND is responsible for SHG in optics. THEY ARE EQUIVALENT. Musicians, or anyone with access to information, take note:
G + B + D = G "symbolically"
392 + 494 + 588 = 392 "mathematically"
This is NOT what I learned in school, eh?
Use my Beat-frequency Method:
392-494 =102
494-588 = 94
392-588=196
-----------------
The "beat-sum" = 392. This works for all major chords, throughout the frequency spectrum. If you ADD the Beat-sum to the Fundamental, you get 2x the Fundamental, this is the "SECOND HARMONIC" being generated.
At least, I hope I have explained why "counting" waves that can be both DIVIDED (grated, refracted, beam-split, etc), and SUPERIMPOSED ("added") can be problematic.
And, that you can begin to see my view on the "movement" of energy. When you break all values down to their basic ratios, there are a small set of "harmonic rules" that dictate which way the energy will go.
This explains more of QM than anything that I have seen. From the ground, up, Resonance can be seen "behind the scenes" in the problematic "fluctuations" of Boltzmann, and the "unpredictability" of QM. ALL paths are NEVER traveled, because NATURE is TOO efficient for such a waste of energy. The "reduction" in path possibilities is CAUSED by the "dissonant" eliminations. There ARE places IT WILL NOT GO.
No experiment has EVER produced one of these "QM anomalies" that ARE PREDICTED by QM. (IE the hand through the brick, etc.) They use "virtual" particles to justify this, but you can see it is NOT true. The "virtual" resonances are transitory because of "geometry" changes: the interaction zone depends on the geometry, and the length of resonance time depends of the size and shape of the zone.
The interactions of Vibrations are the CAUSE for everything. This is a large statement to make. I have not determined "all" of the answers, but I have determined MORE than QM, & The Standard Model have done. I can produce ALL particles and elements from the same recursive interaction of a base (Fundamental) Vibration. (ask for a sample
)ciao,
T.Roc
H Z.
I might as well follow two crazy posts with a third..(Vote for the craziest)
Edit: -Sorry TRoc .. you slipped your post in while I was thinking .. ignore that comment
Numbering Wavefronts by Wn, Bright bits by Bn
For the middle peak , both path lengths the same
B1: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W1
Moving to the right
B2: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W2
Moving to the right again
B3: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W3
Moving to the right again
B4: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W4
Bn: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on Wn
More generally (any wavefront m )
Bn is the result of photon on W(m+1) constructively interferfering with photon on W(m+n)
But there's only one photon so that must be wrong .. mustn't it?
We now have conclusive proof that we are not seeing what we are seeing.
-C2.
Edit.. in the case of the KT experiment n can be metres/wavelength of light .. so that doesn't work either. MM only shows one fringe .. this is a new discovery... and so on.
I might as well follow two crazy posts with a third..(Vote for the craziest)
Edit: -Sorry TRoc .. you slipped your post in while I was thinking .. ignore that comment
Numbering Wavefronts by Wn, Bright bits by Bn
For the middle peak , both path lengths the same
B1: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W1
Moving to the right
B2: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W2
Moving to the right again
B3: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W3
Moving to the right again
B4: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on W4
Bn: That's a photon on W1 constructively interferfering with photon on Wn
More generally (any wavefront m )
Bn is the result of photon on W(m+1) constructively interferfering with photon on W(m+n)
But there's only one photon so that must be wrong .. mustn't it?
We now have conclusive proof that we are not seeing what we are seeing.
-C2.
Edit.. in the case of the KT experiment n can be metres/wavelength of light .. so that doesn't work either. MM only shows one fringe .. this is a new discovery... and so on.
Whoever attempts this is going to hit the same multiple wavefront interference problem. In fairness it is possible that a Megadodo Laser might help .. but we see the experiment carried out with (possibly) a dim light bulb with a filter in front .. it would certainly give the same result.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Best wishes,
-C2.
I've just read yquantum's post on another thread. He's right .. this is a struggle for all of us. I apologise for my lack of patience that might seem to be creeping into my posts.
Best wishes (again)
-C2.
Best wishes (again)
-C2.
TRoc,
Some questions...
Your harmonic beat frequency approach makes sense. It is the focus or power
energy point of mixed overlapping signals.
What is the minimum null cancellation "0" point using your technique? How do you derive it?
How does gap spacing influence the beat frequency in the DSE.
LL
Some questions...
Your harmonic beat frequency approach makes sense. It is the focus or power
energy point of mixed overlapping signals.
What is the minimum null cancellation "0" point using your technique? How do you derive it?
How does gap spacing influence the beat frequency in the DSE.
LL
Laserlight, TRoc, Confused2, jal, all,
I have read and I am about to think this is one of the premiere post on the forum, except for others you have been involved in. Had to slip that one in, guys.
Guys,
I can’t work without a model, that is the training I have received, call it indoctrination if you like but it help me stay the course.
I won’t say I turn my back on nature ruthlessly in order to turn a study into a picture, I think you understand my meaning, by arranging the test to simplifying the results; but in the matter of form I am too afraid of departing from the possible and the true, and what I see in the last few pages is so clear to me, help me if I am misunderstanding.
ENTANGLEMENT!
That has so much to do with this experiment as well as space-time.
Duality/Lisa
I have read and I am about to think this is one of the premiere post on the forum, except for others you have been involved in. Had to slip that one in, guys.
Guys,
I can’t work without a model, that is the training I have received, call it indoctrination if you like but it help me stay the course. I won’t say I turn my back on nature ruthlessly in order to turn a study into a picture, I think you understand my meaning, by arranging the test to simplifying the results; but in the matter of form I am too afraid of departing from the possible and the true, and what I see in the last few pages is so clear to me, help me if I am misunderstanding.
ENTANGLEMENT!
That has so much to do with this experiment as well as space-time.
Duality/Lisa
Duality!
Your picture??? It's a Z picture to me.
A model... to me ... does not look like a spider web.
Let's get discreet. Let's find something that we can work/analyse. Pieces in time and/or pieces in space. USE THE ZOOM FUNCTION
jal
Your picture??? It's a Z picture to me.
A model... to me ... does not look like a spider web.
Let's get discreet. Let's find something that we can work/analyse. Pieces in time and/or pieces in space. USE THE ZOOM FUNCTION
jal
Duality,
Utterly beautiful. Thank you so much.
-C2 .
jal, Base Camp 1?
Utterly beautiful. Thank you so much.
-C2
.jal, Base Camp 1?
Entanglement 
? .. I sense misdirection here 
.. if the laser can do it then can't the grotty green lightbulb do it too ? - an extra twist in the tail for them wot thinks they've sussed it?
Comments/suggestions/ANYTHING welcome.
-C2.
? .. I sense misdirection here .. if the laser can do it then can't the grotty green lightbulb do it too ? - an extra twist in the tail for them wot thinks they've sussed it?Comments/suggestions/ANYTHING welcome.
-C2.
Good Elf,
Some questions:
Regarding the theoretical sketch of your proposed extra-dimensional field
relationship between the electron and the positron.
Since both particles have a spin of 1/2, do they spin in opposite directions
with an inverse torque component similar to what might be observed
in motor's rotor and stator?
If the electron and positron establish an effective dipole charge relationship won't
the corresponding "virtual" electrical charge fields exist directly between them?
If this + - charge relationship exists between point
charges it seems that the magnetic field should follow the right hand rule and form
at a 90 degree phase offset encircling the electrical charge lines that exists
between the "poles" of the point charges. Wouldn't this generate a thrust
component to the electron and positron?
Wikipedia
Wikipedia2
Comments, clarification requested.
LL
Some questions:
Regarding the theoretical sketch of your proposed extra-dimensional field
relationship between the electron and the positron.
Since both particles have a spin of 1/2, do they spin in opposite directions
with an inverse torque component similar to what might be observed
in motor's rotor and stator?
If the electron and positron establish an effective dipole charge relationship won't
the corresponding "virtual" electrical charge fields exist directly between them?
If this + - charge relationship exists between point
charges it seems that the magnetic field should follow the right hand rule and form
at a 90 degree phase offset encircling the electrical charge lines that exists
between the "poles" of the point charges. Wouldn't this generate a thrust
component to the electron and positron?
Wikipedia
Wikipedia2
Comments, clarification requested.
LL
jal, Confused2, Laselight, Good Elf, all,
I know we are divided by to lines of thought or theories and I respect that. Like a have a choice?
In my line of work there are two kinds of concepts, " a theory or theories of principle. & 2. a constructive theory or theories. I will explain later, if you are not familiar with these terms.
Here is an explanation of entanglement without using mathematics.
http://www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles/entanglement/
It effects the DSE in a micro way, but you need to see it for yourself and then come up with your own opinion.
Laselight & Good Elf, I believe there needs to be a different approach in the QM vocabulary. You might call it, Realism but I would say as many have in my circle , we need a unification of through in a new description which I believe is what this post is all about.
Confused2, & jal, I do not believe it is going to be easy for one reason, and that is it has been ninety years and we still have not been able to explain the BIG QUESTION, WHY?
I think this is the part of the puzzle that is being overlooked, it is called entanglement of waves.
Duality/Lisa
I know we are divided by to lines of thought or theories and I respect that. Like a have a choice?
In my line of work there are two kinds of concepts, " a theory or theories of principle. & 2. a constructive theory or theories. I will explain later, if you are not familiar with these terms.
Here is an explanation of entanglement without using mathematics.
http://www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles/entanglement/
It effects the DSE in a micro way, but you need to see it for yourself and then come up with your own opinion.
Laselight & Good Elf, I believe there needs to be a different approach in the QM vocabulary. You might call it, Realism but I would say as many have in my circle , we need a unification of through in a new description which I believe is what this post is all about.
Confused2, & jal, I do not believe it is going to be easy for one reason, and that is it has been ninety years and we still have not been able to explain the BIG QUESTION, WHY?
I think this is the part of the puzzle that is being overlooked, it is called entanglement of waves.
Duality/Lisa
Duality
I liked that last link. Simple obsevations .. duh!!!
http://www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles...anglement.shtml
Question: ...
I'm going to search for other ways that entanglement is done. (beside making a "big" photon into 2 "smaller" photons.)
Maybe you got some sites sitting in your back pocket that would help?
Ohhh! My question!... What are other ways of prodicing "entangling" and any differences in the observations? If there are differences/anything that has been noticed it must have been reported and argued.
Laserlight Ignore this baby discussion happening on the sideline.
Yep!.... I'm looking for the big answers too.
jal
I liked that last link. Simple obsevations .. duh!!!
http://www.joot.com/dave/writings/articles...anglement.shtml
Question: ...
QUOTE
The process of using certain crystals to split incoming photons into pairs of photons is called parametric down-conversion.
Certain crystal structures increase the likelihood that the photon will split into two photons, both of them with longer wavelengths than the original. Keep in mind that a longer wavelength means a lower frequency, and thus less energy. The total energy of the two photons must equal the energy of the photon originally fired from the laser (conservation of energy).
When the original photon splits into two photons, the resulting photon pair is considered entangled.
Certain crystal structures increase the likelihood that the photon will split into two photons, both of them with longer wavelengths than the original. Keep in mind that a longer wavelength means a lower frequency, and thus less energy. The total energy of the two photons must equal the energy of the photon originally fired from the laser (conservation of energy).
When the original photon splits into two photons, the resulting photon pair is considered entangled.
I'm going to search for other ways that entanglement is done. (beside making a "big" photon into 2 "smaller" photons.)
Maybe you got some sites sitting in your back pocket that would help?
Ohhh! My question!... What are other ways of prodicing "entangling" and any differences in the observations? If there are differences/anything that has been noticed it must have been reported and argued.
Laserlight Ignore this baby discussion happening on the sideline.
Yep!.... I'm looking for the big answers too.
jal
Jal, Duality and All,
Jal you picked up on the same text that I did....
Lisa, Regarding parametric down conversion...
Is this really "splitting" a single photon or is there a dislocation in the crystal lattice
that is absorbing the incident UV laser energy and re-radiating 2 lower energy
photons from 2 nearby atoms of the crystal lattice? This seems sort of along the
lines of secondary electron emission, but in this case secondary photon emission.
Tia,
LL
Jal you picked up on the same text that I did....
QUOTE
The process of using certain crystals to split incoming photons into pairs of photons is called parametric down-conversion.
Certain crystal structures increase the likelihood that the photon will split into two photons, both of them with longer wavelengths than the original. Keep in mind that a longer wavelength means a lower frequency, and thus less energy. The total energy of the two photons must equal the energy of the photon originally fired from the laser (conservation of energy).
When the original photon splits into two photons, the resulting photon pair is considered entangled.
Certain crystal structures increase the likelihood that the photon will split into two photons, both of them with longer wavelengths than the original. Keep in mind that a longer wavelength means a lower frequency, and thus less energy. The total energy of the two photons must equal the energy of the photon originally fired from the laser (conservation of energy).
When the original photon splits into two photons, the resulting photon pair is considered entangled.
Lisa, Regarding parametric down conversion...
Is this really "splitting" a single photon or is there a dislocation in the crystal lattice
that is absorbing the incident UV laser energy and re-radiating 2 lower energy
photons from 2 nearby atoms of the crystal lattice? This seems sort of along the
lines of secondary electron emission, but in this case secondary photon emission.
Tia,
LL
Laserlight
Darn... ther goes my simple approach.
Check this out
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/entangled.htm
Photograph of Type 2 Downconversion from BBO
http://www.bu.edu/qil/pdf/PRA-70-043817-2004.pdf
Spatial-to-spectral mapping in spontaneous parametric down-conversion
http://www.bu.edu/qil/pdf/PRA-70-043817-2004.pdf
Spatial-to-spectral mapping in spontaneous parametric down-conversion
1]. An appropriate tailoring of the spectral properties of the entangled two-photon states is often required for efficient information encoding.
Therefore, the elucidation of new physical phenomena that allow control of the spectral properties of generated entangled photon pairs is of paramount importance.
jal
Darn... ther goes my simple approach.
Check this out
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/entangled.htm
Photograph of Type 2 Downconversion from BBO
QUOTE
The tenuous light from a nonlinear crystal was recorded on high speed infrared film. In the parametric down-conversion process one out of 106 ultraviolet photons converts into two photons. These pairs of spontaneous down-conversion photons exhibit interesting quantum properties.
Entangled photon pairs from this source were used to demonstrate a violation of the Bell inequality by over 100 standard deviations. This source is presently used in the Innsbruck Quantum Optics Laboratory for experiments in quantum information coding.
Entangled photon pairs from this source were used to demonstrate a violation of the Bell inequality by over 100 standard deviations. This source is presently used in the Innsbruck Quantum Optics Laboratory for experiments in quantum information coding.
http://www.bu.edu/qil/pdf/PRA-70-043817-2004.pdf
Spatial-to-spectral mapping in spontaneous parametric down-conversion
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The tenuous light from a nonlinear crystal was recorded on high speed infrared film. In the parametric down-conversion process one out of 106 ultraviolet photons converts into two photons. These pairs of spontaneous down-conversion photons exhibit interesting quantum properties. Entangled photon pairs from this source were used to demonstrate a violation of the Bell inequality by over 100 standard deviations. This source is presently used in the Innsbruck Quantum Optics Laboratory for experiments in quantum information coding. |
http://www.bu.edu/qil/pdf/PRA-70-043817-2004.pdf
Spatial-to-spectral mapping in spontaneous parametric down-conversion
1]. An appropriate tailoring of the spectral properties of the entangled two-photon states is often required for efficient information encoding.
Therefore, the elucidation of new physical phenomena that allow control of the spectral properties of generated entangled photon pairs is of paramount importance.
jal
Yo Ho,
Some time ago I was musing that photons might be embedded/attached to their respective electrons transdimensional wavefront as it arcs out into hyperspace;
consider this speculation, as photon pairs emitted by electrons would undoubtedly be occupants of a bigger overall system thus providing the necessary interconnectivity seen in our experiments.
Some time ago I was musing that photons might be embedded/attached to their respective electrons transdimensional wavefront as it arcs out into hyperspace;
consider this speculation, as photon pairs emitted by electrons would undoubtedly be occupants of a bigger overall system thus providing the necessary interconnectivity seen in our experiments.
Hi all,
LL,
Can you rephrase that? minimum null cancellation
Can you rephrase that? minimum null cancellation
How does gap spacing influence the beat frequency in the DSE.
Do you mean the space between each slit in the DSE?
(if yes)
That is why I said earlier that this method is the same as the "Fraunhauf/Fresnel" methods. Just the inverse quality. Arbitrary division of space, working with the angles. So, you could use the triangulation method I just posted. (keep in mind, 3D: we need to use hyperbolic triangles, the ratios (to area) are maintained)
You can also treat the 2-slit geometry with nonlinear rules. One wave hits the slit wall, splits into 3 waves. 2 go through the slits, 1 gets reflected back into the cavity. That one goes through its' black body curve process, each time it hits the cavity, (absorbed/re-emitted) it lose energy to the cavity. The key is that the slit wall is PART of the cavity. Vibrations to the cavity will "quasi-randomly" alter the slit geometry.
This is a "one size fits all" description. It doesn't matter if you pulse the wave to a low frequency, the carrier wave is still present, at the original, fundamental frequency.
This also explains the "erasure" set up, and other "collapsing" experiments. When you "split" a wave up, the wavelets, or beat-frequencies are "entangled".
This is SUPERPOSITION direction reversal, CONSERVATION OF ENERGY goes both ways.
What was superimposed, and then divided, will come together again. If they can't, they will each manifest as part of the "dual".
There are too many terms for the same set of universal phenomena. I don't know how its going to be done, but some weeds need to be pulled from the QM garden.
I agree with Duality: it is probably time to bring our "photon costumes" to the party, and see what form will work.
Ciao!
T.Roc
LL,
QUOTE
What is the minimum null cancellation "0" point using your technique? How do you derive it?
Can you rephrase that? minimum null cancellation
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What is the minimum null cancellation "0" point using your technique? How do you derive it? |
Can you rephrase that? minimum null cancellation
How does gap spacing influence the beat frequency in the DSE.
Do you mean the space between each slit in the DSE?
(if yes)
That is why I said earlier that this method is the same as the "Fraunhauf/Fresnel" methods. Just the inverse quality. Arbitrary division of space, working with the angles. So, you could use the triangulation method I just posted. (keep in mind, 3D: we need to use hyperbolic triangles, the ratios (to area) are maintained)
You can also treat the 2-slit geometry with nonlinear rules. One wave hits the slit wall, splits into 3 waves. 2 go through the slits, 1 gets reflected back into the cavity. That one goes through its' black body curve process, each time it hits the cavity, (absorbed/re-emitted) it lose energy to the cavity. The key is that the slit wall is PART of the cavity. Vibrations to the cavity will "quasi-randomly" alter the slit geometry.
This is a "one size fits all" description. It doesn't matter if you pulse the wave to a low frequency, the carrier wave is still present, at the original, fundamental frequency.
This also explains the "erasure" set up, and other "collapsing" experiments. When you "split" a wave up, the wavelets, or beat-frequencies are "entangled".
This is SUPERPOSITION direction reversal, CONSERVATION OF ENERGY goes both ways.
What was superimposed, and then divided, will come together again. If they can't, they will each manifest as part of the "dual".
There are too many terms for the same set of universal phenomena. I don't know how its going to be done, but some weeds need to be pulled from the QM garden.
I agree with Duality: it is probably time to bring our "photon costumes" to the party, and see what form will work.
Ciao!
T.Roc
Hi Duality, TRoc,Good Elf, jal et al,
Photon suits?
I am getting the impression that you can pop a photon from almost anywhere in an EM wave. Normally you only 'pop' from the one place so the wave-particle duality argument seems convincing (little 'd' ). The DSE KTE etc are 'popping' from two places and I don't see how the localized particle can do that. If you can pop a photon from one and two places I see every chance that you can pop a photon from any number of places at which point the whatever it is starts to look like a field - which is nice.
The crunch is .. can a single photon perform the DSE trick? Dirac says it must be so and the experimental evidence looks good to me so I place my bet on single photons working pretty much like lots of photons. Entanglement not required (thank you though) but it might spice things up a bit if we had more photons to play with. Evidence to contrary most welcome.
Comments and suggestions (nice ones) also welcome,
Best wishes,
-C2.
Photon suits?
I am getting the impression that you can pop a photon from almost anywhere in an EM wave. Normally you only 'pop' from the one place so the wave-particle duality argument seems convincing (little 'd' ). The DSE KTE etc are 'popping' from two places and I don't see how the localized particle can do that. If you can pop a photon from one and two places I see every chance that you can pop a photon from any number of places at which point the whatever it is starts to look like a field - which is nice.
The crunch is .. can a single photon perform the DSE trick? Dirac says it must be so and the experimental evidence looks good to me so I place my bet on single photons working pretty much like lots of photons. Entanglement not required (thank you though) but it might spice things up a bit if we had more photons to play with. Evidence to contrary most welcome.
Comments and suggestions (nice ones) also welcome,
Best wishes,
-C2.
TRoc and All,
You have a formula for finding the maximum power point with 3 frequencies,
the harmonic beat frequency.
Does your formula also find the null point, the low energy point for the
3 waves?
Tia,
LL
QUOTE
LL,
What is the minimum null cancellation "0" point using your technique? How do you derive it?
TRoc
Can you rephrase that? minimum null cancellation
What is the minimum null cancellation "0" point using your technique? How do you derive it?
TRoc
Can you rephrase that? minimum null cancellation
You have a formula for finding the maximum power point with 3 frequencies,
the harmonic beat frequency.
Does your formula also find the null point, the low energy point for the
3 waves?
Tia,
LL
all,
I have had to studied this experiment from many Universities different perspectives and experiment's.
When all said and completed, the mystery still stands and laughs with a paradoxical smile.
Yet, there is a deeper cause and effect which has not been discovered, if you just send one photon within a two second interval through a Crystal a homogeneous solid formed by a repeating, three-dimensional pattern of atoms, ions, or molecules and having fixed distances between constituent parts. you realize it is a single photon/wave being split into an entangled state.
Now, I am moving slow on this because you must find this out for yourself in oder to appreciate the complexity of the DSE, but the results gives you the impression of a pilot wave, which would mean, FTL. SR, would have something to say about this.
There is one other reason, but again you must find it or it will have not value to you.
Duality/Lisa
btw, you have open a can of QM worms that is on the level of the micro, which we have never understood with intuitive reasoning. It is unintuitive and that is just the QM world, which is why we need a new and complete approach, building on this tool QM that is so successful in prediction.
I have had to studied this experiment from many Universities different perspectives and experiment's.
When all said and completed, the mystery still stands and laughs with a paradoxical smile.
Yet, there is a deeper cause and effect which has not been discovered, if you just send one photon within a two second interval through a Crystal a homogeneous solid formed by a repeating, three-dimensional pattern of atoms, ions, or molecules and having fixed distances between constituent parts. you realize it is a single photon/wave being split into an entangled state.
Now, I am moving slow on this because you must find this out for yourself in oder to appreciate the complexity of the DSE, but the results gives you the impression of a pilot wave, which would mean, FTL.
SR, would have something to say about this.There is one other reason, but again you must find it or it will have not value to you.
Duality/Lisa
btw, you have open a can of QM worms that is on the level of the micro, which we have never understood with intuitive reasoning. It is unintuitive and that is just the QM world, which is why we need a new and complete approach, building on this tool QM that is so successful in prediction.
Hi TRoc, Confused2, Duality, Jal, Yquantum et al,
QUOTE (Confused2+)
The crunch is .. can a single photon perform the DSE trick? Dirac says it must be so and the experimental evidence looks good to me so I place my bet on single photons working pretty much like lots of photons. Entanglement not required (thank you though) but it might spice things up a bit if we had more photons to play with. Evidence to contrary most welcome.
Parametric down-conversion is not magic and when you split an incoming photon of one frequency... energy is conserved and the outgoing entangled photons are at 1/2 the input frequency. The outgoing photons are phase related to the incoming coherent beam but obviously not the same as the incoming beam. A single photon works exactly like a lot of coherent photons. They do not split when they interfere and the wavelength or frequency of light is unaffected. I am sure that is what C2 means. The experiment is with one photon at a time and interference still occurs. I would stress the differences between the wave tank and the standing waves producing light and dark "frozen intensity patterns" on the screen.
The issues regarding entangled photons relate to the way in which a single photon is down converted and is able to produce two entangled and polarization related photons. These conjugate polarizations are able to affect each other along the expanding wavefront (perpendicular to the direction of propagation). In that direction the speed of light can be infinite (phase velocity not group velocity). The real secret of this is each photon which "could be" a vertically or horizontally PLANE polarized photon can be considered (and IS individually) as a superposition of two circularly polarized internal spin components... one is left hand polarized and the other is right hand polarized (each one can lead to optical activity in certain materials). Together they represent one plane polarized photon. Note ... one photon.
Two correlated photons are two of these at the same time. Ignoring time as a dimension photon spin is more complicated than simple planar spin. A three dimensional object can only spin in one plane at once (two dimensions), take a top for instance, but it has one extra dimension of freedom so it can spin in any chosen plane. Note... an odd number of dimensions. A six dimensional object, like a D6 Brane or a Black Hole (embedded in a three dimansional space), can spin in three orthogonal directions simultaneously without any mixing or turbulence effect, since each spin takes two dimensions, each of the spins are "spatially fixed" relative to each other leading to discrete quanta. Note... an even number of dimensions. Thus the six dimensional object is not free to move or spin once some spin plane is chosen then all planes are chosen. The "object" itself (as a whole) is free to move and have planar spin in our three dimensional space as well. Note ... an additioonal three dimensions... an odd number. Similarly the photon has two separate internal spins (noted above) this requires four spatial dimensions, these are also fixed and fall on the spreading light cone which can execute internally simultaneously. Note... an even number of dimensions. The photon also propagates in three dimensional space so these can result in other spins with a "free" dimension as previously noted.
The "fixing" of higher dimensional spin leads to spin quantum number "eigen states" as previously noted. The spin quantum numbers are natural functions of this higher dimensional "resonance". You have all probably seen the applet I have linked on many occasions illustrating the eigen states of these functions.
Cheers
The issues regarding entangled photons relate to the way in which a single photon is down converted and is able to produce two entangled and polarization related photons. These conjugate polarizations are able to affect each other along the expanding wavefront (perpendicular to the direction of propagation). In that direction the speed of light can be infinite (phase velocity not group velocity). The real secret of this is each photon which "could be" a vertically or horizontally PLANE polarized photon can be considered (and IS individually) as a superposition of two circularly polarized internal spin components... one is left hand polarized and the other is right hand polarized (each one can lead to optical activity in certain materials). Together they represent one plane polarized photon. Note ... one photon.
Two correlated photons are two of these at the same time. Ignoring time as a dimension photon spin is more complicated than simple planar spin. A three dimensional object can only spin in one plane at once (two dimensions), take a top for instance, but it has one extra dimension of freedom so it can spin in any chosen plane. Note... an odd number of dimensions. A six dimensional object, like a D6 Brane or a Black Hole (embedded in a three dimansional space), can spin in three orthogonal directions simultaneously without any mixing or turbulence effect, since each spin takes two dimensions, each of the spins are "spatially fixed" relative to each other leading to discrete quanta. Note... an even number of dimensions. Thus the six dimensional object is not free to move or spin once some spin plane is chosen then all planes are chosen. The "object" itself (as a whole) is free to move and have planar spin in our three dimensional space as well. Note ... an additioonal three dimensions... an odd number. Similarly the photon has two separate internal spins (noted above) this requires four spatial dimensions, these are also fixed and fall on the spreading light cone which can execute internally simultaneously. Note... an even number of dimensions. The photon also propagates in three dimensional space so these can result in other spins with a "free" dimension as previously noted.
The "fixing" of higher dimensional spin leads to spin quantum number "eigen states" as previously noted. The spin quantum numbers are natural functions of this higher dimensional "resonance". You have all probably seen the applet I have linked on many occasions illustrating the eigen states of these functions.
Cheers
Lisa,
I agree that we have 1 photon packet of energy being applied to the crystal.
It has a specific frequency and a fixed energy level. No problem with that.
My "argument" is with the interpretation of the resultant 2 photons
that exit the crystal lattice. Together they contain the same energy that
was originally applied, but they are at a lower frequency and longer wavelength than the original photon.
They are not the same "photon" that was applied to the crystal, but they are
the same net energy content.
There was an energy conversion event that occured. The crystal "transformed"
the original energy into 2 different photons, it split the energy applied and
re-emitted it in a different "dual" form.
I have no problem with the concept of parametric down conversion. This works.
The photon is not the same, but the energy content is.
Maybe it is only a matter of semantics or interpretation.
Yes, I agree that they are entangled, but each of the lower level secondary
photons came from a different electron in the crystal matrix. What I don't
know is if the 2 photons were emitted from the same atom, where 2 outer orbital
electrons jumped levels simultaneously, or a nearby properly oriented atom that synchronously split the EM energy applied.
Your thoughts, comments, corrections are appreciated.
LL
QUOTE
Yet, there is a deeper cause and effect which has not been discovered, if you just send one photon within a two second interval through a Crystal a homogeneous solid formed by a repeating, three-dimensional pattern of atoms, ions, or molecules and having fixed distances between constituent parts. you realize it is a single photon/wave being split into an entangled state.
I agree that we have 1 photon packet of energy being applied to the crystal.
It has a specific frequency and a fixed energy level. No problem with that.
My "argument" is with the interpretation of the resultant 2 photons
that exit the crystal lattice. Together they contain the same energy that
was originally applied, but they are at a lower frequency and longer wavelength than the original photon.
They are not the same "photon" that was applied to the crystal, but they are
the same net energy content.
There was an energy conversion event that occured. The crystal "transformed"
the original energy into 2 different photons, it split the energy applied and
re-emitted it in a different "dual" form.
I have no problem with the concept of parametric down conversion. This works.
The photon is not the same, but the energy content is.
Maybe it is only a matter of semantics or interpretation.
Yes, I agree that they are entangled, but each of the lower level secondary
photons came from a different electron in the crystal matrix. What I don't
know is if the 2 photons were emitted from the same atom, where 2 outer orbital
electrons jumped levels simultaneously, or a nearby properly oriented atom that synchronously split the EM energy applied.
Your thoughts, comments, corrections are appreciated.
LL
Good Day!
I'm going to produce an interference/entangled conversation.
I want to hear TRoc. There seems to be an interesting explanation of the "fact".
Where will the accidental discoveries come from?
It will come from where I know nothing … Such as photonics/optics, nano-technology, quantum computing, etc
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/entangled.htm
I want to know why the 106 photons did not produce the interference pattern?
There should have been !00% conversion.
Look at my diagram. What need to be explained is why we do not observe everything that is suppose to be happening.
The answers are where we have not looked.
The elucidation of new physical phenomena that allow control of the spectral properties of generated entangled photon pairs is of paramount importance.
The entanglement should be happening where I have put the question mark, at the top of the diagram.
There should be SIX entanglement POINTS for an EXPANDING photon field.
I do not expect an answer because the answer is where we have not looked.
jal
I see that others are posting at the same time and entangling even more.
I'm going to produce an interference/entangled conversation.
I want to hear TRoc. There seems to be an interesting explanation of the "fact".
Where will the accidental discoveries come from?
It will come from where I know nothing … Such as photonics/optics, nano-technology, quantum computing, etc
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/entangled.htm
QUOTE
one out of 106 ultraviolet photons converts into two photons.
I want to know why the 106 photons did not produce the interference pattern?
There should have been !00% conversion.
Look at my diagram. What need to be explained is why we do not observe everything that is suppose to be happening.
The answers are where we have not looked.
The elucidation of new physical phenomena that allow control of the spectral properties of generated entangled photon pairs is of paramount importance.
The entanglement should be happening where I have put the question mark, at the top of the diagram.
There should be SIX entanglement POINTS for an EXPANDING photon field.
I do not expect an answer because the answer is where we have not looked.
jal
I see that others are posting at the same time and entangling even more.
Laserlight, jal, Confused2, Good Elf, TRoc, all,
I have never wanted to really interfere on this, [guys, could have fun with that last word?]
I am going to check with someone who has expertise in dealing with this problem you have presented in many post. I do not expect much has changed, but I will confess that maybe my blinders are on and need some adjustment. YQ, has help me in this area.
I am leaving now and it will take awhile, I going to have a bite to eat, and I am not paying.
Duality/Lisa
I have never wanted to really interfere on this, [guys, could have fun with that last word?]
I am going to check with someone who has expertise in dealing with this problem you have presented in many post. I do not expect much has changed, but I will confess that maybe my blinders are on and need some adjustment. YQ, has help me in this area.
I am leaving now and it will take awhile,
I going to have a bite to eat, and I am not paying. Duality/Lisa
LL,
The null point, if I understand your question correctly, is the MOST dissonant mix of ratios possible. The opposite of the MOST resonant.
This means none of the beats are equal to (or integer multiples/divisors of) ANY of the 3 waves.
All the beats are dissipated into the environment. This can be any of the terms used by Science: heat, solitons, magnons, spinons, phonons, etc.
The environment must be included in the mix. In sub-atomic terms, we are dealing with sets of oscillators. (not general terms like "wall", "slit", "area")
EVERYTHING we have is electron based technology.
Whatever electron state is being used to determine the energy change, is part of the equation. The electron state that produce the Vibration is part of the equation.
What happens "in between" can only be measured by another oscillator. The Vibration is absorbed, measured, and re-emitted. Things like "transparency", and "true reflection" are ILLUSIONS.
So, what happens "in between" can be inferred from the empirical data that we have accumulated. Because WE CAN NOT measure it. This means we can not KNOW (for certain) what happens "in between". But if there is a pattern there, and results in consistent, specific (discreet) values of interaction, then we have a good idea, AND we have GOOD SCIENCE. Predictable, testable, accurate.
At the Fundamental level, the LOWEST energy state is the Universe itself, which contains (the sum of) ALL Vibrations (oscillators). Everything that we are dealing with is a higher harmonic of this frequency (energy).
Because I postulate that it is a RATE, and that we can not go "that low" to measure, the value becomes VARIABLE, and HIDDEN. That is why I have NO problem with Bohm. He did not go far enough though.
It is VARIABLE as a rate because the OTHER data changes. The rate is CONSTANT, and the results are variable. The error of QM to treat these Vibrations as independent, and able to reach "NULL oscillation" is clear. NULL is NOT reachable: That would fly against ALL the "most sacred" laws" of Conservation (thermodynamics).
So, Plancks' "zero-point" is NOT zero. Should be no surprise. But, why did they assume it to be <1 ? What happens to ENERGY there? How does 1/1^2 work? If the ISL fails, it fails here. If ISL fails, we have BIG problems with our "collection" of data!
Ratio interactions AVOID this "singularity". ONE (like zero) IS NEVER reached. The ONLY reason I am having to explain all this now, is that Pythagoras was AFRAID of IRRATIONAL numbers. Don't ask me why, I don't really care. I'm just saying that the fellow who SAW all of this 2500 years ago, by working with simple ratios, and geometry, missed the mark from lack of ability to EASILY work with these numbers.
This has PLAGUED our understanding ever since. Euler was VERY close, but his tendency for the COMPLEX made him miss the SIMPLE truth of resonance.
Planck and Einstein were VERY close.
Had Planck had MORE empirical data on SUPERPOSITION, he might have made the hypothesis that the INTERACTIONS of the waves in the "perfect" cavity/absorber/black-body reduce to a limited set. That energy is conserved by "the sum of the differences" when integer divisions are allowed. The cavity frequency is the Fundamental frequency that the excitation frequency will ultimately fall back into equilibrium with. (the wave can only "find the exit hole" when it is at its' maximum length/lowest frequency)
So, LL, even when "dissonance" is at its' maximum, the same end result happens: all the oscillators relax to their fundamental frequency. But, WITHOUT the "large" clicks that make an electron JUMP a full harmonic amount. These are electron "wiggles"; SOMETHING is happening there, contrary to the "quantum leap" hypothesis. Energy (frequency) is CONTINUOUS, it is THE ABSORBERS and EMITTERS that are quantized, and INTERACT in bits/quanta/"photons".
Ciao!,
T.Roc
QUOTE
“You have a formula for finding the maximum power point with 3 frequencies, the harmonic beat frequency.
Does your formula also find the null point, the low energy point for the 3 waves? “
Does your formula also find the null point, the low energy point for the 3 waves? “
The null point, if I understand your question correctly, is the MOST dissonant mix of ratios possible. The opposite of the MOST resonant.
This means none of the beats are equal to (or integer multiples/divisors of) ANY of the 3 waves.
All the beats are dissipated into the environment. This can be any of the terms used by Science: heat, solitons, magnons, spinons, phonons, etc.
The environment must be included in the mix. In sub-atomic terms, we are dealing with sets of oscillators. (not general terms like "wall", "slit", "area")
EVERYTHING we have is electron based technology.
Whatever electron state is being used to determine the energy change, is part of the equation. The electron state that produce the Vibration is part of the equation.
What happens "in between" can only be measured by another oscillator. The Vibration is absorbed, measured, and re-emitted. Things like "transparency", and "true reflection" are ILLUSIONS.
So, what happens "in between" can be inferred from the empirical data that we have accumulated. Because WE CAN NOT measure it. This means we can not KNOW (for certain) what happens "in between". But if there is a pattern there, and results in consistent, specific (discreet) values of interaction, then we have a good idea, AND we have GOOD SCIENCE. Predictable, testable, accurate.
At the Fundamental level, the LOWEST energy state is the Universe itself, which contains (the sum of) ALL Vibrations (oscillators). Everything that we are dealing with is a higher harmonic of this frequency (energy).
Because I postulate that it is a RATE, and that we can not go "that low" to measure, the value becomes VARIABLE, and HIDDEN. That is why I have NO problem with Bohm. He did not go far enough though.
It is VARIABLE as a rate because the OTHER data changes. The rate is CONSTANT, and the results are variable. The error of QM to treat these Vibrations as independent, and able to reach "NULL oscillation" is clear. NULL is NOT reachable: That would fly against ALL the "most sacred" laws" of Conservation (thermodynamics).
So, Plancks' "zero-point" is NOT zero. Should be no surprise. But, why did they assume it to be <1 ? What happens to ENERGY there? How does 1/1^2 work? If the ISL fails, it fails here. If ISL fails, we have BIG problems with our "collection" of data!
Ratio interactions AVOID this "singularity". ONE (like zero) IS NEVER reached. The ONLY reason I am having to explain all this now, is that Pythagoras was AFRAID of IRRATIONAL numbers. Don't ask me why, I don't really care. I'm just saying that the fellow who SAW all of this 2500 years ago, by working with simple ratios, and geometry, missed the mark from lack of ability to EASILY work with these numbers.
This has PLAGUED our understanding ever since. Euler was VERY close, but his tendency for the COMPLEX made him miss the SIMPLE truth of resonance.
Planck and Einstein were VERY close.
Had Planck had MORE empirical data on SUPERPOSITION, he might have made the hypothesis that the INTERACTIONS of the waves in the "perfect" cavity/absorber/black-body reduce to a limited set. That energy is conserved by "the sum of the differences" when integer divisions are allowed. The cavity frequency is the Fundamental frequency that the excitation frequency will ultimately fall back into equilibrium with. (the wave can only "find the exit hole" when it is at its' maximum length/lowest frequency)
So, LL, even when "dissonance" is at its' maximum, the same end result happens: all the oscillators relax to their fundamental frequency. But, WITHOUT the "large" clicks that make an electron JUMP a full harmonic amount. These are electron "wiggles"; SOMETHING is happening there, contrary to the "quantum leap" hypothesis. Energy (frequency) is CONTINUOUS, it is THE ABSORBERS and EMITTERS that are quantized, and INTERACT in bits/quanta/"photons".
Ciao!,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc
Okay! I get your last post.
So while waiting for duality, would you bring you way of thinking out of “Z” land and into quantum physic?
As a help… get a web free page at http://geocities.yahoo.com/home/ draw your pictures with your “paint” program and put them there so that you can put them in the discussion.
Go sloooowww …. You are asking EVERYBODY to think in a new way.
What you end up doing will probably end up in a “text book”.
At this stage, I’m open minded that IT COULD WORK.
When appropriate .... you will have to link it to the Standard Model and the way physist do their calculations.
I'm listening.
JAL
Okay! I get your last post.
So while waiting for duality, would you bring you way of thinking out of “Z” land and into quantum physic?
As a help… get a web free page at http://geocities.yahoo.com/home/ draw your pictures with your “paint” program and put them there so that you can put them in the discussion.
Go sloooowww …. You are asking EVERYBODY to think in a new way.
What you end up doing will probably end up in a “text book”.
At this stage, I’m open minded that IT COULD WORK.
When appropriate .... you will have to link it to the Standard Model and the way physist do their calculations.
I'm listening.
JAL
TRoc, you may find this useful... they are a java spectrum analysis applets
and other applet references.
http://www.parmly.luc.edu/SpectrumApp/spectrum.html
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/beats.htm
http://www.earlevel.com/Digital%20Audio/harmonigraf.html
http://www.falstad.com/qm3dosc/
http://www.falstad.com/interference/
http://www.surendranath.org/Applets.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/string.html
http://www.falstad.com/fourier/
http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/ugrad/...iffraction.html
Regards,
LL
and other applet references.
http://www.parmly.luc.edu/SpectrumApp/spectrum.html
http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/beats.htm
http://www.earlevel.com/Digital%20Audio/harmonigraf.html
http://www.falstad.com/qm3dosc/
http://www.falstad.com/interference/
http://www.surendranath.org/Applets.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/string.html
http://www.falstad.com/fourier/
http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/ugrad/...iffraction.html
Regards,
LL
The food was great, and so many scientist dealing with there own agenda!
You would never guess who showed up, yep the good guy, ?.
Hi all,
I do not even know where to begin, you people have covered so much in my absence, which is good.
Bad news first, no matter how low the (f) you still will get a ping due to E + remember Plancks/quanta. In other words nothing really has changed. And you cannot explain it, in a classical way.
From what I have read you really want to have a intuitive answer, no can do.
Entanglement, decoherence, superposition, wavefunction, and the weirdness of the QM world which you want to explain is not available. I could give you napkins, table cloths, & extra note paper full of mathematics and you would be in the world where it is no longer, Kansas.
Everyone has there own take on this problem, remember it has been awhile sense we have had to deal with, T. Young but as you could imagine everyone wanted to play and speculate.
We even put in extra dimensions, WHO KNOWS? If you want to go with a sure direction, then, collapse wavefunciton when detected, then you have to realize where the test is being done, and where the observation is held and how many is watching, in other words, who is doing the collapsing. Just something to think about?
That is just how we all feel that QM need improvement, but we have known this for some time. In all fairness it is the best predictive tool in town, and because of it, my food was rewarmed and this computer is sending this message to you.
We had a great time, which you guys could have come someone would have picked up the check for you, so you could have had anything on your hot-dog - just kidding!
Duality/Lisa
You would never guess who showed up, yep the good guy, ?.
Hi all,
I do not even know where to begin, you people have covered so much in my absence, which is good.
Bad news first, no matter how low the (f) you still will get a ping due to E + remember Plancks/quanta. In other words nothing really has changed. And you cannot explain it, in a classical way.
From what I have read you really want to have a intuitive answer, no can do.
Entanglement, decoherence, superposition, wavefunction, and the weirdness of the QM world which you want to explain is not available. I could give you napkins, table cloths, & extra note paper full of mathematics and you would be in the world where it is no longer, Kansas.
Everyone has there own take on this problem, remember it has been awhile sense we have had to deal with, T. Young but as you could imagine everyone wanted to play and speculate.
We even put in extra dimensions, WHO KNOWS?
If you want to go with a sure direction, then, collapse wavefunciton when detected, then you have to realize where the test is being done, and where the observation is held and how many is watching, in other words, who is doing the collapsing. Just something to think about?That is just how we all feel that QM need improvement, but we have known this for some time. In all fairness it is the best predictive tool in town, and because of it, my food was rewarmed and this computer is sending this message to you.
We had a great time, which you guys could have come someone would have picked up the check for you, so you could have had anything on your hot-dog - just kidding!
Duality/Lisa
Duality!
Can you deny/confirm or give a link.
jal
Can you deny/confirm or give a link.
QUOTE
There should be SIX entanglement POINTS for an EXPANDING photon field.
jal
Hi all,
Jal
I'm trying!
I'm trying!
one out of 106 ultraviolet photons converts into two photons.
That is supposed to read 10^6 !
Next, you need to find out how long it takes 10^6 photons to be generated. I have a hunch it's around 3 per second that "converts" to 2 photons.
If you are "hinting" at Z , just look at this link that you gave:
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/bbo_photo.htm
The laser frequency is 351nm.
In figure #5, you see the picture of the 2 entangled photons. This ratio is symmetrical, as is the area of "overlap". The filter that was used to create this "beat-frequency" (interference) was 702nm (2x frequency, 1/2 wavelength). The 1:2-2:1 RATIO.
In the other to figures (3 & 4) you see 2 non-symmetrical circle relationships. Just a "~1/2" step lower (Z=1.0267092999) by filtering with 681nm, and the "energy" (wave center) moves to the "left". A ~1/2 step up, with a filter of 725nm, and the energy is on the "right".
More "coincidences".
Duality,
It sounds like you had a nice time!
Can you rephrase this, I don't understand:
While I realize that it sounds "crazy", it is more accurate to say I HAVE the intuitive, classical explanation, and am trying to explain it to "quantumly familiar" people. It's like a German trying to convince a Frenchman to have a beer with dinner.
One of the tenuous "footholds" that I have is that EVERYONE agrees that there are "problems", and the "solution", once found, will be so simple that everyone will exclaim "how did we miss that?" Elegant enough to wear a Tuxedo to!
regards,
T.Roc
Jal
QUOTE
Go sloooowww …. You are asking EVERYBODY to think in a new way.
I'm trying!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Go sloooowww …. You are asking EVERYBODY to think in a new way. |
I'm trying!
one out of 106 ultraviolet photons converts into two photons.
That is supposed to read 10^6 !
Next, you need to find out how long it takes 10^6 photons to be generated. I have a hunch it's around 3 per second that "converts" to 2 photons.
If you are "hinting" at Z , just look at this link that you gave:
http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/bbo_photo.htm
The laser frequency is 351nm.
In figure #5, you see the picture of the 2 entangled photons. This ratio is symmetrical, as is the area of "overlap". The filter that was used to create this "beat-frequency" (interference) was 702nm (2x frequency, 1/2 wavelength). The 1:2-2:1 RATIO.
In the other to figures (3 & 4) you see 2 non-symmetrical circle relationships. Just a "~1/2" step lower (Z=1.0267092999) by filtering with 681nm, and the "energy" (wave center) moves to the "left". A ~1/2 step up, with a filter of 725nm, and the energy is on the "right".
More "coincidences".
Duality,
It sounds like you had a nice time!
Can you rephrase this, I don't understand:
QUOTE
..no matter how low the (f) you still will get a ping due to E + remember Plancks/quanta. In other words nothing really has changed.
While I realize that it sounds "crazy", it is more accurate to say I HAVE the intuitive, classical explanation, and am trying to explain it to "quantumly familiar" people. It's like a German trying to convince a Frenchman to have a beer with dinner.
One of the tenuous "footholds" that I have is that EVERYONE agrees that there are "problems", and the "solution", once found, will be so simple that everyone will exclaim "how did we miss that?" Elegant enough to wear a Tuxedo to!
regards,
T.Roc
Hi TRoc, Confused2, Duality, Jal, Yquantum et al,
I really didn't expect that "quantum reality" would cut the ice. I notice that there are no explanations why it will not work, just that it is too comfortable to leave the old ways behind.
However for those who like to still think about these matters and a modern "semi-classical" approach and see a rather rare treatment of the semi-classical method... look here....
The near field (evanescent field) is a source of wonder for some of us and it is not spoken of much. It has been known for a very long time these facts and the nature of thse measurables is not accounted for by quantum theory. But as a doorway to possibily higher dimensions I think this may hold answers. This illustrates how sources "work" with graphic illustrations.
Cheers
I really didn't expect that "quantum reality" would cut the ice. I notice that there are no explanations why it will not work, just that it is too comfortable to leave the old ways behind.
However for those who like to still think about these matters and a modern "semi-classical" approach and see a rather rare treatment of the semi-classical method... look here....
QUOTE
Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields
William D. Walker
Royal Institute of Technology, KTH-Visby
Department of Electrical Engineering
Cramrgatan 3, S-621 57 Visby, Sweden
bill@visby.kth.se
1 Introduction
A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source. A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a dipole antenna to a parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna. The phase difference between the two antenna signals is monitored with an oscilloscope as the distance between the antennas is increased. Analysis of the phase vs distance curve indicates that superluminal transverse electric field waves (phase and group) are generated approximately one-quarter wavelength outside the source and propagate toward and away from the source. Upon creation, the transverse waves travel with infinite speed. The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. The inward propagating transverse fields rapidly reduce to the speed of light and then rapidly increase to infinite speed as they travel into the source. The results are shown to be consistent with standard electrodynamic theory.
Theoretical analysis of an oscillating electric dipole reveals that the longitudinal component of the electric field and the transverse magnetic field are generated at the source and propagate away from the source. Upon creation, the waves travel with infinite speed and then rapidly reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. It is noted that the special theory of relativity predicts that from a moving reference frame superluminal signals can propagate backward in time. Arguments against the superluminal wave interpretation presented in this paper are reviewed and shown to be invalid. Because of the similarity of the governing partial differential equations, two other physical systems (magnetic dipole and a gravitationally radiating oscillating mass) are noted to have similar superluminal near-field theoretical results.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
William D. Walker
Royal Institute of Technology, KTH-Visby
Department of Electrical Engineering
Cramrgatan 3, S-621 57 Visby, Sweden
bill@visby.kth.se
1 Introduction
A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source. A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a dipole antenna to a parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna. The phase difference between the two antenna signals is monitored with an oscilloscope as the distance between the antennas is increased. Analysis of the phase vs distance curve indicates that superluminal transverse electric field waves (phase and group) are generated approximately one-quarter wavelength outside the source and propagate toward and away from the source. Upon creation, the transverse waves travel with infinite speed. The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. The inward propagating transverse fields rapidly reduce to the speed of light and then rapidly increase to infinite speed as they travel into the source. The results are shown to be consistent with standard electrodynamic theory.
Theoretical analysis of an oscillating electric dipole reveals that the longitudinal component of the electric field and the transverse magnetic field are generated at the source and propagate away from the source. Upon creation, the waves travel with infinite speed and then rapidly reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. It is noted that the special theory of relativity predicts that from a moving reference frame superluminal signals can propagate backward in time. Arguments against the superluminal wave interpretation presented in this paper are reviewed and shown to be invalid. Because of the similarity of the governing partial differential equations, two other physical systems (magnetic dipole and a gravitationally radiating oscillating mass) are noted to have similar superluminal near-field theoretical results.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
The near field (evanescent field) is a source of wonder for some of us and it is not spoken of much. It has been known for a very long time these facts and the nature of thse measurables is not accounted for by quantum theory. But as a doorway to possibily higher dimensions I think this may hold answers. This illustrates how sources "work" with graphic illustrations.
Cheers
Hi all,
In the news:
Optical clocks strike again
6 December 2006
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/12/4/1?rss=2.0
"precise absorption frequency" = classical 1:1 resonance
"a feedback mechanism" stabilizes the resonance = beat-frequency sum regenerates resonant frequency
"a femtosecond comb" = a way of measuring frequencies so that they are an equal RATE apart. (this requires an expanding size or scale... just like the frets on a "classical" guitar!)
The movement of atoms (the electrons in the device, not just the screen) disturbs (interferes with) the measuring process.
regards,
T.Roc
PS Great link GE. I'm too tired to read it now though.
Is that the original source for the graphic (of Zeph) that you've been posting?
In the news:
Optical clocks strike again
6 December 2006
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/12/4/1?rss=2.0
QUOTE
Optical clocks are based on a specific transition between atomic energy levels that involves the absorption of laser light at a very precise frequency. A laser is used to stimulate the transition and, once absorption begins, a feedback mechanism stabilizes the laser light at the precise absorption frequency. A device called a “femtosecond comb” is then used to measure the frequency, which is the ticking of the clock.
Unfortunately this process can be easily disturbed by the motion of atoms, which is a key challenge facing designers of optical clocks.
Unfortunately this process can be easily disturbed by the motion of atoms, which is a key challenge facing designers of optical clocks.
"precise absorption frequency" = classical 1:1 resonance
"a feedback mechanism" stabilizes the resonance = beat-frequency sum regenerates resonant frequency
"a femtosecond comb" = a way of measuring frequencies so that they are an equal RATE apart. (this requires an expanding size or scale... just like the frets on a "classical" guitar!)
The movement of atoms (the electrons in the device, not just the screen) disturbs (interferes with) the measuring process.
regards,
T.Roc
PS Great link GE. I'm too tired to read it now though.
Is that the original source for the graphic (of Zeph) that you've been posting?
A very general proposal - may be it helps while JAL is in open mind mode:
In practice, there are no processes in Universe where mass is conserved. The only case would be a mass closed system;
However, such a system in my opinion can not exist in our Universe. Mass conserving system in our Universe would be something without any form, some vibrating ocean. As soon as form appears, mass conservation is not possible.
The problem is that mass additions are very small and very slow; in most real life cases the effects of changing mass are lost by using expansion in series, as phase information is lost by using concepts like energy and temperature.
However, these small mass change effects tend to be multiplied if the phases are right and grow into macro processes we observe. No wonder we can not explain where they come from.
Continuous math hides the importance and existence of universal clock frequency , hides the fundamental discreteness of Nature.
Arrow of time is lost when instead of non-associative math we use associative.
Luckily some time we use non-commutative math- so we can discern left and right. But not in school.
We should not be wondering some things like double slit experimetn look unexplainable - what we get is the result of constraints we have put on ourselves.
In practice, there are no processes in Universe where mass is conserved. The only case would be a mass closed system;
However, such a system in my opinion can not exist in our Universe. Mass conserving system in our Universe would be something without any form, some vibrating ocean. As soon as form appears, mass conservation is not possible.
The problem is that mass additions are very small and very slow; in most real life cases the effects of changing mass are lost by using expansion in series, as phase information is lost by using concepts like energy and temperature.
However, these small mass change effects tend to be multiplied if the phases are right and grow into macro processes we observe. No wonder we can not explain where they come from.
Continuous math hides the importance and existence of universal clock frequency , hides the fundamental discreteness of Nature.
Arrow of time is lost when instead of non-associative math we use associative.
Luckily some time we use non-commutative math- so we can discern left and right. But not in school.
We should not be wondering some things like double slit experimetn look unexplainable - what we get is the result of constraints we have put on ourselves.
Hi Good Elf,TRoc,D/L, jal, Ivars (welcome!) et al,
After looking at
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
I must admit that when I saw group and phase velocity being used in a linear system excited by a single frequency ... I thought "Something has probably gone wrong here."
Anyone who has ever shelled peas will know that you can fire peas out of the end of the pod by squeezing the side of the pod .. obviously the pea is fired at right angles to the direction of squeeze with a much higher velocity than the speed at which your fingers are squeezing the pod.
Possibly the best way to analyse these superluminal waves is by ripple tank
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
Set up one source .. then another a half wavelength away from it. Shift the 'phase control' slider to the right so the sources are 180 degrees out of phase.
The sources are point sources of 'waves' at a single frequency and we are looking at one superimposed on the other. Speeds measured in directions other than the direction of propagation can be 'superluminal' simply because the wave isn't propagating in that direction.
In a linear system (ie superposition applies) the addition of sinewaves of the same frequency ( eg adding one of amplitude A and phase p1 to one of amplitude B and phase p2 ) ... the result is still a sinewave of the same frequency.
Good Elf will almost certainly recognise phasors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor_(electronics) ).
For a simpler approach http://www.udel.edu/idsardi/sinewave/sinewave.html (set both frequencies to the same value)
http://www.udel.edu/idsardi/sinewave/sinewave.html
Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Superposition principle .. http://www.answers.com/topic/superposition-principle
After looking at
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0009/0009023.pdf
I must admit that when I saw group and phase velocity being used in a linear system excited by a single frequency ... I thought "Something has probably gone wrong here."
Anyone who has ever shelled peas will know that you can fire peas out of the end of the pod by squeezing the side of the pod .. obviously the pea is fired at right angles to the direction of squeeze with a much higher velocity than the speed at which your fingers are squeezing the pod.
Possibly the best way to analyse these superluminal waves is by ripple tank
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
Set up one source .. then another a half wavelength away from it. Shift the 'phase control' slider to the right so the sources are 180 degrees out of phase.
The sources are point sources of 'waves' at a single frequency and we are looking at one superimposed on the other. Speeds measured in directions other than the direction of propagation can be 'superluminal' simply because the wave isn't propagating in that direction.
In a linear system (ie superposition applies) the addition of sinewaves of the same frequency ( eg adding one of amplitude A and phase p1 to one of amplitude B and phase p2 ) ... the result is still a sinewave of the same frequency.
Good Elf will almost certainly recognise phasors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor_(electronics) ).
For a simpler approach http://www.udel.edu/idsardi/sinewave/sinewave.html (set both frequencies to the same value)
http://www.udel.edu/idsardi/sinewave/sinewave.html
Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Superposition principle .. http://www.answers.com/topic/superposition-principle
Ivars, all,
Just something to think about Ivars, what we get because of ourselves, is that it keeps us from the results.
Confused2, Let me check into something and will get back with you on a few points.
jal, let me check into your request.
T.Roc, sounds like a plan and wish you the best.
Good Elf, need to think on this one a little.
Where is the Laidbacks take on this.
Duality/Lisa
Never drink and eat when you want to do serious physics, just a hint guys!
Yq was in town, & still wants to attend the party when you make the connection on all concepts, even if he has to pay the check.
QUOTE
what we get is the result of constraints we have put on ourselves.
Just something to think about Ivars, what we get because of ourselves, is that it keeps us from the results.
Confused2, Let me check into something and will get back with you on a few points.
jal, let me check into your request.
T.Roc, sounds like a plan and wish you the best.
Good Elf, need to think on this one a little.
Where is the Laidbacks take on this.
Duality/Lisa
Never drink and eat when you want to do serious physics, just a hint guys!
Yq was in town, & still wants to attend the party when you make the connection on all concepts, even if he has to pay the check.
Good Day All (& Ivars)
Tech.... math... more accuracy .... conflicting with old interpretations ...new knowledge
Here is the "time accuracy" article
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0611/0611067.pdf
Sr lattice clock with inaccuracy below 10−15
Martin M. Boyd, Andrew D. Ludlow, Sebastian Blatt, Seth M. Foreman, Tetsuya Ido†, Tanya Zelevinsky, and Jun Ye
JILA, National Institute of Standards and Technology and University of Colorado,
Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0440
(Dated: November 7, 2006)
Somewhere in that info (I assume) there is support for TRoc.
The experimental knowledge/tech is beyond my level.
Comments??
...connection on all concepts...
...conflicting with old interpretations...
????!!!!!
jal
Tech.... math... more accuracy .... conflicting with old interpretations ...new knowledge
Here is the "time accuracy" article
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0611/0611067.pdf
Sr lattice clock with inaccuracy below 10−15
Martin M. Boyd, Andrew D. Ludlow, Sebastian Blatt, Seth M. Foreman, Tetsuya Ido†, Tanya Zelevinsky, and Jun Ye
JILA, National Institute of Standards and Technology and University of Colorado,
Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0440
(Dated: November 7, 2006)
Somewhere in that info (I assume) there is support for TRoc.
The experimental knowledge/tech is beyond my level.
Comments??
QUOTE
Yq was in town, & still wants to attend the party when you make the connection on all concepts, even if he has to pay the check.
...connection on all concepts...
...conflicting with old interpretations...
????!!!!!
jal
Just to cover up one of the thinner parts of my photon costume I'd like to agree in advance that if the principle of superposition does NOT apply .. then it doesn't.
-C2.
-C2.
Confused2
I'm not ignoring the water tank. It can only show some of the interferences.
What I want to know is about the 6 points of interference.
The pictures of the photons show 2 points of interference. There should be 6 points of interference.
A theory should be able to explain where are the other 4 points that did not show up in the picture.
It should be able to explain the symmetry that the pictures revealed.
It should be able to explain the changes of symmetry.
This is an entangled thread.
comments please
jal
I'm not ignoring the water tank. It can only show some of the interferences.
What I want to know is about the 6 points of interference.
The pictures of the photons show 2 points of interference. There should be 6 points of interference.
A theory should be able to explain where are the other 4 points that did not show up in the picture.
It should be able to explain the symmetry that the pictures revealed.
It should be able to explain the changes of symmetry.
This is an entangled thread.
comments please
jal
Hi TRoc, Confused2, Jal, Duality et al,
QUOTE (TRoc+)
PS Great link GE. I'm too tired to read it now though. Is that the original source for the graphic (of Zeph) that you've been posting?
If you mean the "blue" Animation... this is a cut down zephir has made of the Dr 'Bas' Lago animations which are a lot bigger to download. He was rightly tetchy about the actual size of the original animation which was about 144K. Zephir's "reduced" size animation "fits" our site better and loads faster.
The original site has a similar solution but it differs in the way the electric field lines actually "cross" near the source. A lot of "devil in the detail".
http://www.lago.demon.co.uk/
http://www.lago.demon.co.uk/FRAME.HTM
It is "exceedingly" difficult to actually get solutions for the near field region and to interpret just what the phenomena really means. That is why I have pointed to the highly accurate and experimentally verified effect here. The more you attempt to actually measure this phenomenon the more elusive it can become.
Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminly Propagating Electromagnetic Fields: William D. Walker
In that region the "fields" accelerate to "infinity"... in that last 1/4 wavelength at the "source". I had some books which described these fields written in the 1940's but my suggestion is this is best handled by Wheeler-Feynman Methods... using advanced and retarded fields.
It is to be noted that the nature of the source is contained in these components. Photonics is attempting to harness these waves to "reconstruct" the full sources at a remote position. Obviously when you are dealing with "matter waves" this fully reconstructs the sources... something not really seen before. This is the work of John Pendry I have mentioned before and is an "alternative" to present forms of quantum teleportation (check out Pendry and "optical anti-matter"). Sub wavelength resolution far below the Schrodinger Limit are obtainable "within the source". Current Quantum Theory is unable to handle this analysis and physical materials... metamaterials... are currently under construction. The literature has already included crystals that "work" in the near infra red region. A "race" is on in this technical area presently to perfect a metamaterial that operates in the visible region. Pendry has shown this year how to construct "Invisibility Shields" in a similar fashion, unfortunately these are still in the microwave region (see ref. below).
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory : Jian Qi Shen
I have mentioned Boyd before in relation to light traveling in reverse... I offer this information from his site...
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544
http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups...U-Q-Im_2006.pdf
http://www.physorg.com/news72714237.html
http://www.sst.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/pdf/DRS&JBP_final_.pdf
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061021/fob6.asp
I "offer" this material without interpretation or further comment for those who are interested and are not theoretical and represent the experimenter's own "practical" results in each case. There is a "War" out there, and I do not mean "Iraq" or "Afghanistan".
Cheers
The original site has a similar solution but it differs in the way the electric field lines actually "cross" near the source. A lot of "devil in the detail".
http://www.lago.demon.co.uk/
http://www.lago.demon.co.uk/FRAME.HTM
It is "exceedingly" difficult to actually get solutions for the near field region and to interpret just what the phenomena really means. That is why I have pointed to the highly accurate and experimentally verified effect here. The more you attempt to actually measure this phenomenon the more elusive it can become.
Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminly Propagating Electromagnetic Fields: William D. Walker
In that region the "fields" accelerate to "infinity"... in that last 1/4 wavelength at the "source". I had some books which described these fields written in the 1940's but my suggestion is this is best handled by Wheeler-Feynman Methods... using advanced and retarded fields.
It is to be noted that the nature of the source is contained in these components. Photonics is attempting to harness these waves to "reconstruct" the full sources at a remote position. Obviously when you are dealing with "matter waves" this fully reconstructs the sources... something not really seen before. This is the work of John Pendry I have mentioned before and is an "alternative" to present forms of quantum teleportation (check out Pendry and "optical anti-matter"). Sub wavelength resolution far below the Schrodinger Limit are obtainable "within the source". Current Quantum Theory is unable to handle this analysis and physical materials... metamaterials... are currently under construction. The literature has already included crystals that "work" in the near infra red region. A "race" is on in this technical area presently to perfect a metamaterial that operates in the visible region. Pendry has shown this year how to construct "Invisibility Shields" in a similar fashion, unfortunately these are still in the microwave region (see ref. below).
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory : Jian Qi Shen
I have mentioned Boyd before in relation to light traveling in reverse... I offer this information from his site...
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544
http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups...U-Q-Im_2006.pdf
http://www.physorg.com/news72714237.html
http://www.sst.ph.ic.ac.uk/photonics/pdf/DRS&JBP_final_.pdf
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061021/fob6.asp
I "offer" this material without interpretation or further comment for those who are interested and are not theoretical and represent the experimenter's own "practical" results in each case. There is a "War" out there, and I do not mean "Iraq" or "Afghanistan".
QUOTE
“How profound that mystery of the Invisible is! We cannot fathom it with our miserable senses, with our eyes which are unable to perceive what is either too small or too great, too near to us, or too far from us”.
Guy de Maupassant, ‘The Horla’ (1887).
IMHO "the source" is on the very "edge" of our measurable Universe.Guy de Maupassant, ‘The Horla’ (1887).
Cheers
Hello Good Elf and All,
GE, did you overlook the questions that I posed to you re your drawing,
or are you just ignoring me?
All theoretical proposals should be open for scrutiny and skepticism. If an
acceptable answer can be provided for potential conflicts to theoretical
concepts, then other explanations/options can be justified.
Still keeping an open mind....
LL
GE, did you overlook the questions that I posed to you re your drawing,
or are you just ignoring me?
All theoretical proposals should be open for scrutiny and skepticism. If an
acceptable answer can be provided for potential conflicts to theoretical
concepts, then other explanations/options can be justified.
Still keeping an open mind....
LL
I haven't had time to read through to todays post, but I wanted to put in my two cents to Troc. I have been sitting on pins and needles watching this theory unfold, and can't contain myself anymore! Since my degree WAS to be in music and physics (before I had to drop out and settle being a "bean counter") you are playing the song my heart always wanted to hear. lame pun....
I can say this to back you up. The frequencies of G B D played together DO make a G chord, and you also have G major, G minor G7 chords, and many others I won't take the time to go into. It all comes down to the key G. But where I think it needs to be expanded (which others will understand ) is how this fits into colors. Harmonics (IMHO) do create colors, and I think a good test for this theory is in that direction. If we have multiple frequencies that create a G chord or a song in the key of G, then how do multiple frequencies of color blend and react together? Ok, I don't ask much...
I personally see/hear music everywhere I look in the universe, and I won't go into how deep I feel this goes. yet...... I wish you the best of luck, this thread is going someplace that will help you (I hope!) and I will do anything to help in my own small way. Maybe I can buy some higher music theory books on ebay than what I own?
Any body else have ideas how harmonics can blend into color?
I can say this to back you up. The frequencies of G B D played together DO make a G chord, and you also have G major, G minor G7 chords, and many others I won't take the time to go into. It all comes down to the key G. But where I think it needs to be expanded (which others will understand ) is how this fits into colors. Harmonics (IMHO) do create colors, and I think a good test for this theory is in that direction. If we have multiple frequencies that create a G chord or a song in the key of G, then how do multiple frequencies of color blend and react together? Ok, I don't ask much...
I personally see/hear music everywhere I look in the universe, and I won't go into how deep I feel this goes. yet......
I wish you the best of luck, this thread is going someplace that will help you (I hope!) and I will do anything to help in my own small way. Maybe I can buy some higher music theory books on ebay than what I own?Any body else have ideas how harmonics can blend into color?
Hello They and All,
That is an outstanding observation/comment!!! Music is frequencies, light is
frequencies. Music is chords, color is chords...it is just a matter of scale but if it
works for one, it should work for all waveforms. Keep in mind that it is the manner in
which our "organs" (ears and eyes) process the information that blends/mixes the
individual frequencies to form the chords....in our brains! We merely interpret the
signals being mixed by our senses.
LL
That is an outstanding observation/comment!!! Music is frequencies, light is
frequencies. Music is chords, color is chords...it is just a matter of scale but if it
works for one, it should work for all waveforms. Keep in mind that it is the manner in
which our "organs" (ears and eyes) process the information that blends/mixes the
individual frequencies to form the chords....in our brains! We merely interpret the
signals being mixed by our senses.
LL
Hi all,
First, to THEY,maybe to get a quick answer. Thanks for the response.
What I (actually everybody else) wanted you to see was the FREQUENCIES that I used {392 + 494 + 588 = 392} give REAL answers. If you have a keyboard with frequency display/analyzer, or maybe just a simple "tuner".
Simple "superposition" does NOT explain this.
My beat-frequency summation DOES. This works because of resonant ratios.
What everyone needs to see is that a "wave detector/analyzer" DOES NOT register the other frequencies (notes). It shows the same frequency play playing the individual G note, and the 3 notes together (superimposed over a tuned resonant cavity), with a slight increase in amplitude. It will tell you that the frequency of the superposition result is the same as the idler / fundamental (low energy).
(I'm trying to NOT use musical terms, where possible)
You are exactly right about "colors", which are just specific frequencies across the visible spectrum, which is EXACTLY one "octave", if you include the mysteriously missing (from Physics) color "magenta" (the superposition of the first UV frequency, and the last IR frequency).
GE, and C2 have probably already had "an ear full" from me already (from an old GE thread about "bubbles"). But, I will say that, I too was studying the 2 concurrently (Physics and Music), and it forever altered my way of thinking. I have NEVER had the "problem" of observing the results of QM experiments, and thought "gee, that is NOT intuitive"; it just "made sense". Only the QM explanations for what was supposed to be going on were "counter-intuitive".
I entered the "Dragon's Armor" through a small, magenta crack. It was then I saw the "ghost" in the dragon-machine, and this guy had NO clothes.
All empirical data from photographic, and high tech FILTERS, AND the process for generating a specific "colored" laser, have ALREADY been matched to my hypothesis.
That means, that I can EXPLAIN with simple MATH why we have chords and colors. IF you don't think that the GLASS tower of QM NEEDS these explanations, you are not seeing the Big Picture.
Spectral Analysis, Quantum Jumps (between resonant frequencies), Harmonics, Resonance, Superposition, on and on and on. They all USE these basic principles, yet NO math exists (before) to explain the MOST basic, fundamental, starting points.
Why is the frequency of a chord (3 or more notes) the same as 1 of its' constituents?
What is the frequency of magenta?
Where are the answers to these SIMPLE questions?
It is here!
regards,
T.Roc
First, to THEY,maybe to get a quick answer. Thanks for the response.
What I (actually everybody else) wanted you to see was the FREQUENCIES that I used {392 + 494 + 588 = 392} give REAL answers. If you have a keyboard with frequency display/analyzer, or maybe just a simple "tuner".
Simple "superposition" does NOT explain this.
My beat-frequency summation DOES. This works because of resonant ratios.
What everyone needs to see is that a "wave detector/analyzer" DOES NOT register the other frequencies (notes). It shows the same frequency play playing the individual G note, and the 3 notes together (superimposed over a tuned resonant cavity), with a slight increase in amplitude. It will tell you that the frequency of the superposition result is the same as the idler / fundamental (low energy).
(I'm trying to NOT use musical terms, where possible)
You are exactly right about "colors", which are just specific frequencies across the visible spectrum, which is EXACTLY one "octave", if you include the mysteriously missing (from Physics) color "magenta" (the superposition of the first UV frequency, and the last IR frequency).
GE, and C2 have probably already had "an ear full" from me already (from an old GE thread about "bubbles"). But, I will say that, I too was studying the 2 concurrently (Physics and Music), and it forever altered my way of thinking. I have NEVER had the "problem" of observing the results of QM experiments, and thought "gee, that is NOT intuitive"; it just "made sense". Only the QM explanations for what was supposed to be going on were "counter-intuitive".
I entered the "Dragon's Armor" through a small, magenta crack. It was then I saw the "ghost" in the dragon-machine, and this guy had NO clothes.
All empirical data from photographic, and high tech FILTERS, AND the process for generating a specific "colored" laser, have ALREADY been matched to my hypothesis.
That means, that I can EXPLAIN with simple MATH why we have chords and colors. IF you don't think that the GLASS tower of QM NEEDS these explanations, you are not seeing the Big Picture.
Spectral Analysis, Quantum Jumps (between resonant frequencies), Harmonics, Resonance, Superposition, on and on and on. They all USE these basic principles, yet NO math exists (before) to explain the MOST basic, fundamental, starting points.
Why is the frequency of a chord (3 or more notes) the same as 1 of its' constituents?
What is the frequency of magenta?
Where are the answers to these SIMPLE questions?
It is here!
regards,
T.Roc
Thanks LL, I shouldn't be posting (or reading!) I hope I don't make my meeting start late! BUT~!!! I just had a thought in the bathroom... I greatly enjoy music in minor keys and played with dissonance because my ear has been trained to learn to enjoy what many cannot. But there are plenty of colors that I cannot stand to look at that maybe an artist loves. Is that a dissonant color? Are "dark mood" colors minor? Are bright happy feeling colors major? Just something to ponder........
For this to work it must work all across the board. Does it? I hope.
For this to work it must work all across the board. Does it? I hope.
Troc, just missed your post... Are colors octaves or keys? ponder. later..... late!
THEY, TRoc, jal, Confused2, GoodElf, LL, all
I think it does, but my words will not suffice on this so maybe this will help all ["2"].
But I think we all [this includes me more than anyone on this post, BTW!]
A taste for simplicity cannot endure for long, when it come to quantum mechanics.
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
This will give a simple explanation for my reasoning, I hope.
Duality/Lisa
QUOTE
Simple "superposition" does NOT explain this.
I think it does, but my words will not suffice on this so maybe this will help all ["2"].
But I think we all [this includes me more than anyone on this post, BTW!] A taste for simplicity cannot endure for long, when it come to quantum mechanics.
http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html
This will give a simple explanation for my reasoning, I hope.
Duality/Lisa
THEY,
For some reason your comment stimulated the image of Rodin's "The Thinker"
to come to mind.
The Thinker
LL
QUOTE
I just had a thought in the bathroom...
For some reason your comment stimulated the image of Rodin's "The Thinker"
to come to mind.
The Thinker
LL
Duality and All,
I appreciated your applet as it conceptually shows the wave mixing en route
to the target screen.
Look at this applet of Young's experiment under the Applet Menu titled "Optics".
It is most interesting when looking at the "Results" pull down menu on the left.
This shows how the waveform is projected onto the screen and the effects of
varying the geometries involved with the phenomenon.
http://www.surendranath.org/Applets.html
http://www.surendranath.org/Applets/Optics...lSltApplet.html
LL
I appreciated your applet as it conceptually shows the wave mixing en route
to the target screen.
Look at this applet of Young's experiment under the Applet Menu titled "Optics".
It is most interesting when looking at the "Results" pull down menu on the left.
This shows how the waveform is projected onto the screen and the effects of
varying the geometries involved with the phenomenon.
http://www.surendranath.org/Applets.html
http://www.surendranath.org/Applets/Optics...lSltApplet.html
LL
D/L
Thanks, now I have a few things to think about on this. I have been reading and trying so hard to understand the reason these particles do what they do. Now it makes sense because they are waves and it just takes something to interfere with them to cause them to collapse.
It took me awhile, help of a good search engine so see how small we are talking about, you all seem to think on these levels, well some of you but I was dealing with a much larger conception. Not anymore and now even the Heisenberg Uncertainty theory and your constant reminder of Space and Time is starting to sink in.\
I also like what C/2 had to say which is in the same vain of your thoughts. Now I must go back and ask my professor how I missed all this, I just make good in undergrad. HA!\
@Wow....Rick
PS
Thank you very much. We have to live with QM until we come up with the technology to help us see deeper into the realm of the very, very, very incredible small world.
Thanks, now I have a few things to think about on this. I have been reading and trying so hard to understand the reason these particles do what they do. Now it makes sense because they are waves and it just takes something to interfere with them to cause them to collapse.
It took me awhile, help of a good search engine so see how small we are talking about, you all seem to think on these levels, well some of you but I was dealing with a much larger conception. Not anymore and now even the Heisenberg Uncertainty theory and your constant reminder of Space and Time is starting to sink in.\
I also like what C/2 had to say which is in the same vain of your thoughts. Now I must go back and ask my professor how I missed all this, I just make good in undergrad. HA!\
@Wow....Rick
PS
Thank you very much. We have to live with QM until we come up with the technology to help us see deeper into the realm of the very, very, very incredible small world.
Laserlight you almost got me in trouble! it took me about a minute to quit laughing, thankfully nobody walked into my office at that time!
I think I need help here, I think I am an addict... Its interferring with my work. I got caught drinking on the job.......... drinking Troc's harmonic physics......... I JUST CAN'T QUIT LOOKING!
I think I need help here, I think I am an addict... Its interferring with my work. I got caught drinking on the job.......... drinking Troc's harmonic physics......... I JUST CAN'T QUIT LOOKING!
TRoc and All,
Is it fair to say that the actual "mixing" of the signals doesn't take place until
the individual frequencies converge or overlap at the point of "detection"?
It seems that the blending/mixing takes place at the "detector" which is physically
unable to descriminate the individual frequencies. Because it is being saturated
with closely phased signals, it combines the "in phase" components of the total
energy being applied. We sense the total energy applied, because we cannot
separate the signals unless they are much out of phase coherency/alignment.
Our spectral and frequency sensory response is "physiologically" limited.
Our analysis equipment could be designed to descriminate individual frequencies
of the harmonic by frequency filtering. I think this technique is used in
astronomy where photographs are enhanced or separated by using optical
color filters.
LL
Is it fair to say that the actual "mixing" of the signals doesn't take place until
the individual frequencies converge or overlap at the point of "detection"?
It seems that the blending/mixing takes place at the "detector" which is physically
unable to descriminate the individual frequencies. Because it is being saturated
with closely phased signals, it combines the "in phase" components of the total
energy being applied. We sense the total energy applied, because we cannot
separate the signals unless they are much out of phase coherency/alignment.
Our spectral and frequency sensory response is "physiologically" limited.
Our analysis equipment could be designed to descriminate individual frequencies
of the harmonic by frequency filtering. I think this technique is used in
astronomy where photographs are enhanced or separated by using optical
color filters.
LL
Rick,
It is a little more complicated than what you mentioned.
http://www.enformy.com/dma-rml.htm
Example: the electron {e-} has mass.
electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms, but keep the search engine hot and you will understand the dynamics of what we are talking about. TRoc, is heading towards a better understanding, and that is a very honorable challenge.
Best to you,
Duality/Lisa
quoted by LL,
http://www.enformy.com/dma-rml.htm
Example: the electron {e-} has mass.
electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms, but keep the search engine hot and you will understand the dynamics of what we are talking about. TRoc, is heading towards a better understanding, and that is a very honorable challenge.
Best to you,
Duality/Lisa
quoted by LL,
Is it fair to say that the actual "mixing" of the signals doesn't take place until
the individual frequencies converge or overlap at the point of "detection"?
Laserlight,
I understand your point, but it is difficult to except because of the speed in which the signals as you put it are traveling. That opens up other laws in which could and do affect this experiment.
It is a little more complicated than what you mentioned.
QUOTE
these particles do what they do. Now it makes sense because they are waves and it just takes something to interfere with them to cause them to collapse.
http://www.enformy.com/dma-rml.htm
Example: the electron {e-} has mass.
electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms, but keep the search engine hot and you will understand the dynamics of what we are talking about. TRoc, is heading towards a better understanding, and that is a very honorable challenge.
Best to you,
Duality/Lisa
quoted by LL,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| these particles do what they do. Now it makes sense because they are waves and it just takes something to interfere with them to cause them to collapse. |
http://www.enformy.com/dma-rml.htm
Example: the electron {e-} has mass.
electron mass = 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms, but keep the search engine hot and you will understand the dynamics of what we are talking about. TRoc, is heading towards a better understanding, and that is a very honorable challenge.
Best to you,
Duality/Lisa
quoted by LL,
Is it fair to say that the actual "mixing" of the signals doesn't take place until
the individual frequencies converge or overlap at the point of "detection"?
Laserlight,
I understand your point, but it is difficult to except because of the speed in which the signals as you put it are traveling. That opens up other laws in which could and do affect this experiment.
THEY,
Well, it beats crack, and................ no hangover!
LL
QUOTE
I think I need help here, I think I am an addict... Its interferring with my work. I got caught drinking on the job.......... drinking Troc's harmonic physics......... I JUST CAN'T QUIT LOOKING!
Well, it beats crack, and................ no hangover!
LL
Duality,
Keep in mind that human physiololgy has a "latency" effect that is not
instantaneous. Our frequency conversion process is an electrical to chemical to
electrical to final analysis sequence (cognition) response to a stimulous.
We have a very slow latency and long persistence relative to the incoming
speeds of the applied signals. We simply cannot resolve the incoming signals
saturating our sensory organs due to how fast they are arriving. However,
our analytical equipment can be designed to that for us.
LL
QUOTE
Laserlight,
I understand your point, but it is difficult to except because of the speed in which the signals as you put it are traveling. That opens up other laws in which could and do affect this experiment.
I understand your point, but it is difficult to except because of the speed in which the signals as you put it are traveling. That opens up other laws in which could and do affect this experiment.
Keep in mind that human physiololgy has a "latency" effect that is not
instantaneous. Our frequency conversion process is an electrical to chemical to
electrical to final analysis sequence (cognition) response to a stimulous.
We have a very slow latency and long persistence relative to the incoming
speeds of the applied signals. We simply cannot resolve the incoming signals
saturating our sensory organs due to how fast they are arriving. However,
our analytical equipment can be designed to that for us.
LL
Agreed, Laserlight.
I agree somewhat, but quantum physics has revolutionized our understanding of the deep structure of reality.
Material objects have dissolved into "wave functions" that lack well-defined properties and Laserlight this is the problem for us all, interacting with "non-locally," and "collapse" into particles in non-deterministic ways that are inseparable from the subjects who measure them.
That was the only point I wanted to make, I want this to work but I am not sure it is possible, please prove me wrong!
I am on your side and TRoc, you can be assured that I have no hidden agenda. We need to find a way to improve the language of the micro for sure.
Duality/Lisa
QUOTE
Keep in mind that human physiololgy has a "latency" effect that is not
instantaneous.
instantaneous.
I agree somewhat, but quantum physics has revolutionized our understanding of the deep structure of reality.
Material objects have dissolved into "wave functions" that lack well-defined properties and Laserlight this is the problem for us all, interacting with "non-locally," and "collapse" into particles in non-deterministic ways that are inseparable from the subjects who measure them.
That was the only point I wanted to make, I want this to work but I am not sure it is possible, please prove me wrong!
I am on your side and TRoc, you can be assured that I have no hidden agenda. We need to find a way to improve the language of the micro for sure.
Duality/Lisa
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.