Hi all,
Maybe this will help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarizationQUOTE
In electrodynamics, circular polarization of electromagnetic radiation is a polarization such that the tip of the electric field vector, at a fixed point in space, describes a circle as time progresses. The name is derived from this fact. The electric vector, at one point in time, describes a helix along the direction of wave propagation (see the polarization article for pictures). The magnitude of the electric field vector is constant as it rotates. Circular polarization is a limiting case of the more general condition of elliptical polarization. The other special case is the easier-to-understand linear polarization.
Circular (and elliptical) polarization is possible because the propagating electric (and magnetic) fields can have two orthogonal components with independent amplitudes and phases (and the same frequency).
A circularly polarized wave may be resolved into two linearly polarized waves, of equal amplitude, in phase quadrature (90 degrees apart) and with their planes of polarization at right angles to each other.
Circular polarization may be referred to as right or left, depending on the direction in which the electric field vector rotates. Unfortunately, two opposing, historical conventions exist. In physics and astronomy, polarization is defined as seen from the receiver, such as a telescope or radio telescope. By this definition, if you could stop time and look at the electric field along the beam, it would trace a helix which is the same shape as the same-handed screw. For example, right circular polarization produces a right threaded (or forward threaded) screw. In the U.S., Federal Standard 1037C also defines the handedness of circular polarization in this manner. In electrical engineering, however, it is more common to define polarization as seen from the source, such as from a transmitting antenna. To avoid confusion, it is good practice to specify "as seen from the receiver" (or transmitter) when polarization matters.
(emphasis added)
You can also see the relevance to C2's last question about the "energy" changes due to Doppler being "seen" at the source, receiver, or "IN BETWEEN".
As far as "SEEING", I have to say, at the receiver. But "HAPPENING" is unprovable, at this stage of our technical ability.
This is the BIG difference between QM's "counter-intuitive" explanation, and one that could be understood by "mechanism" of "on the way" causation. They have their ANSWERS, and their EXPLANATIONS, that includes "the unknowable" factor (Copenhagen). The ANSWERS are right, but the EXPLANATION is not. I think most of us here will agree to that, to some degree or another.
If we come up with a model, whose "mechanism" takes the data from start to finish, and matches the answer, then we have what we are looking for. Cause "following" Effect in "time". Cramer pointed out, clearly, that Schroedinger's equations can (and ARE) solved for BOTH. This makes the "time" fuzzy, and leads to another "set" of explanations that are also "counter-intuitive" (don't make sense). Nobly, QM used Ockham's Razor, and said "we are not going to replace nonsense with nonsense".
My view on this is that we can still have cause following effect in the time-line, AND have two-way wave communication. The "effect" (receiver) does not communicate FROM the moment of the "cause", it ALREADY WAS there. I think of it sort of like a ZIPPER, two sides of "teeth", OFFSET by a MINIMUM ratio. Very different explanations are needed to describe the zipping, and UNzipping, and from the "sides" point of view, and the "zipper piece" (?) point of view.
My theory is very simple. The Universe is FULL of waves of all "kinds". They are all "in step" with c . They can superimpose, and form simple, and complex resonances. When an EM signal leaves the source, it is "zipping" along the E and B field lines. The PROBABILISTIC part of the wave is the one coming BACK from the "receiver", eliminating "dissonances" along the way. This is along the lines of Bayesian Logic. Reducing the "possible" by first eliminating the "impossible".
We already KNOW (fact) that these two bodies were ALREADY communicating. Mach's principle, Inverse square law, Newton Forces, etc. There are "waves" already there. This is a "carrier signal", a non-Zero-point energy, the "background radiation (CMB). If you want to include Gravity with QM, this is the way. It is the "missing fundamental" effect. The "setting" of the permittivity & permeability of free space; once that is stable, or in equilibrium (which it is) " c " is the constant speed for any transfer of energy done by a coupled EM wave. Uncoupled waves do not have to follow such rules (only E OR B, longitudinal/transverse). These do, in fact, have different "base" velocities, and each has very different velocity~vector relationships. (constructive/destructive)
From the Resonance Matrix, you can see that the CENTER of the values is based on the speed of light waves. The "center" for SOUND wave symmetry is NOT in the same place, yet not as far as you might think. The point I want to add here, without going off too far, is that, there is ONE more VELOCITY symmetry indicated by this "matrix". I am going to "presume" (postulate) that it will indicate a SUBLUMINAL average velocity, in addition to the two that we currently have. (for sound and light)
As GE has pointed out, the cavity has a PRE-SET geometry, and that will give "guidance" to the incoming radiation. I think that the Vibration of the wave has a definite geometry as well, AND BOTH are required to give the "final answer". The "handshake" ALREADY is "extended" towards the "hand" (signal). It is "circular" in free space, but can become "chiral" based on the medium (matter).
This should lead to a similar vein in polarization, chirality, and angular momentum.
"Quantizing" this spin into 12 parts (13 steps to "return") allows for a different geometry to be utilized, including just a "few" harmonic divisions of the "circle". The # of turns stays the same, but the distance between full cycles gets larger (the threads of the screw/helice).
Any "overlapping, mixing, interacting, reflecting, entangling, superimposing, etc." would be able to be described by a limited set of ratios to this primary, or Fundamental radius. This way, the "point" in the "center" is not necessarily REAL. Just the "trace" of the helice; a 3D sector of a circle, on a hyperbolic triangle could APPEAR BOTH as a straight line, and a curve, depending on your frame of reference.
regards,
T.Roc
The only thing I can figure so far is the ratio of a fifth (G to D) of 3:2 is just a mathematical coinkydink. But you say it works with colors and the periodical table too? (my brain wants to say I heard you say that......)
Yep!
