Problem with the two slit experiment

jal

12th December 2006 - 04:12 PM

Good Day All!

QUOTE

yquantum
...has been looked at before by non professional and professionals in the field of optics.....

So now ... others are looking elsewhere
micro thermodynamics was one area that I discovered.
If there is a process that is going on at the molecular level .... quantum or not then there will be a component (energy) which will cause some displacement/dynamic of the molecular structure which should be over and above the molecular structure being at rest. ( I mean it's ususal dynamic situation).
My reading indicates that there are a lot of unknowns at this micro level that still needs to be discovered.
jal

Confused2

12th December 2006 - 04:56 PM

Hi GE,

http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/entangled.htm

QUOTE

Our photograph shows the projection of the cones on the infrared film for the pairs (681 & 725 nm), (702 & 702 nm), and (725 & 681 nm).

I think the problem may be that this is a classic experiment using polarisation entangled photons .. of different frequencies. (See NIST BBO type II article for how and where they are generated). Possibly not 'our' type of interference .. depends on what 'our' type is.

The 725nm filter shows the 'other half'' of the 681nm photons and vice versa .. hence the 681/725 pair is built from two photographs .. the later photographs show these rings separately for each frequency .. big ring small ring.

A different sort of interference.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Edit .. I think you need to explain why the bright bits (are there)/(shouldn't be there) for it to make any sense.

Duality

12th December 2006 - 08:36 PM

Jal, Confused2, all,

QUOTE

Yes, but not sure I would tell yq, I win, you lose he is human like anyone else and just because he is, well TMI nice to work with on occasion wish I could more often.

His point went right over your head and that is fine it goes over most of ours as well until we sit down and write all over the table cloth.

There are so many concepts that have be shown to be correct to the 12 and 13 decimal point that everyone seem to want to leave out. My take on this is because of what Confused2 mentioned a while back and everyone just ignored him.

Confused2, stay the course and it will not be popular because it does not fit into a classical model, but until we can improve the quantum mechanic model, we must use the language that it presents to explain the phenomena.

Duality/Lisa

Confused2

12th December 2006 - 09:22 PM

D/L, all,

Back to the DSE
Problems counting individual photons
1/ The counter does not count every photon .. we actually count (say) 10% of the total number. Is this a problem?
2/ Two photons arrive and are counted as one .. either during the dead time of the counter or because other electronics or the counter cannot respond quickly enough.
Looking at http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif .. are these results random? Clearly they are not, they agree very well with the expected counts despite the fact that no allowance has been made for drift due to temperature etc. If the counts are substantially different from you expectations then it may well be your expectations that are at fault.

Duality has alluded to a post of mine that was ignored .. I think it is probably this one..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=150812
IMHO that post summarises the thing to be explained. If you ignore what you see then you stand very little chance of explaining anything.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Duality

12th December 2006 - 09:40 PM

Thanks, you save me from searching the entire post of Confused2,

http://www-hasylab.desy.de/newsletter/2005-12-01.htm

Is this what you were making reference in the DSE, I tried to find something more palatable to everyone to reinforce your, point. <-- Now that is funny!

Duality/L

jal

12th December 2006 - 10:47 PM

Duality!

Just wanted to quote some key points from your link.

QUOTE

....That requires a molecular double-slit experiment based not upon position-momentum uncertainty, but on mirror, more precisely, inversion symmetry...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

....That requires a molecular double-slit experiment based not upon position-momentum uncertainty, but on mirror, more precisely, inversion symmetry...

... So, depending on how the experiment is carried out, the electron is either at position A, position B, or at both at the same time

QUOTE

This remains a certainty in every experiment, despite all the ambiguity in quantum physics

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

This remains a certainty in every experiment, despite all the ambiguity in quantum physics

Recently there has been a set of experiments suggesting that these various manifestations of matter can be "carried over into" each other – in other words, they can be switching from one form to the other and, under certain conditions, back again. This class of experiments is called quantum markers (3) and quantum erasers (4).

QUOTE

Molecules with identical atoms, and thus inversion symmetry, behave like natures own microscopically small double-slit (Fig. 2).

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Molecules with identical atoms, and thus inversion symmetry, behave like natures own microscopically small double-slit (Fig. 2).

Nitrogen is one such molecule ... In addition, the researchers were able to prove something that has long been doubted: a disruption of the inversion symmetry of this molecule leads to a partial loss of coherence through the introduction of two different heavy isotopes, in this case N14 and N15.

edit: We are left with the big question ... What is the mechanism that makes the wave?
jal

"THEY"

12th December 2006 - 11:16 PM

QUOTE (jal+Dec 12 2006, 02:47 PM)

edit: We are left with the big question ... What is the mechanism that makes the wave?
jal

little teeny tiny vibrating strings??/

Duality

13th December 2006 - 12:00 AM

All,

It was very hard for me to find a paper that you did not need payment to read. That is an injustice to those who what to learn. So I will try an sum up most of what is out there.

It is important to understand that this is not simply a philosophical question or a rhetorical debate. Using quantum mechanical language jal, one often must model systems as the superposition of two or more possible outcomes.

Superpositions can produce interference effects and thus are experimentally distinguishable from mixed states.

How does a superposition of different possibilities resolve itself into some particular observation?

This question (also known as the measurement problem that was talked about) affects how we analyze some experiments such as tests of Bell's inequality and may raise the question of interpretations from a philosophical debate which we ALL fall into if not careful to an experimentally testable question.

So far there is no evidence that it makes any difference. The wave function evolves in such a way that there are no observable effects from macroscopic superpositions. It is only superposition of different possibilities at the microscopic level that leads to experimentally detectable interference effects.

I know you do not like this, but Confused2 is using the approach most must due to the advancements that has been made.

Duality/Lisa

Confused2

13th December 2006 - 12:05 AM

Hi jal, THEY et al,

QUOTE (jal+)

What is the mechanism that makes the wave?

It is just possible that if you look again at my post here which (for lack of alternative) refers to WAVEFRONTS

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=150812

and look at wavelike shape of the COUNTS here

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

Ding?

Best wishes,

-C2.

jal

13th December 2006 - 12:26 AM

Duality ... Confused2

QUOTE

The wave function evolves in such a way that there are no observable effects from macroscopic superpositions. It is only superposition of different possibilities at the microscopic level that leads to experimentally detectable interference effects.

I know you do not like this, but Confused2 is using the approach most must due to the advancements that has been made.

I do understand.
Just put me in the camp of all the people who are doing "string" and "quantum geometry". I'm sure that they understand more than me. (They are smarter than me.)
Maybe they will find a mechanism that makes the waves.
Then we will hear the coin drop. Ding!
jal

TRoc

13th December 2006 - 12:27 AM

Hi all,

I'll try to respond bit by bit.

First, I will say that here, I agree with C2: what this interference is is the "same" as entanglement. (not identical, but derivable from the same simple principle) This is what I have been saying (over and over). The simple answer will not be found at the junction of the complexities, it will be at their source. There is room for Bohr & Einstein, QM & S/GR. Some assumptions are wrong: let's start with the one CLEARLY marked "CAUTION: ASSUMPTIONS AHEAD". This is AE's photoelectric equation (which he stated was "heuristic"), and the continual addition (including naming the "photon") to this "particle" math.

Some links demonstrating the equivalences of Resonance (coherence, entanglement, ETC.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_%28...antum_coherence

QUOTE

Coherence is the property of wave-like states that enables them to exhibit interference. It is also the parameter that quantifies the quality of the interference (also known as the degree of coherence). It was originally introduced in connection with Young’s double-slit experiment in optics but is now used in any field that involves waves, such as acoustics, electrical engineering, neuroscience, and quantum physics. In interference, at least two wave-like entities are combined and, depending on the relative phase between them, they can add constructively or subtract destructively. The degree of coherence is equal to the interference visibility, a measure of how perfectly the waves can cancel due to destructive interference.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The coherence of two waves follows from how well correlated the waves are as quantified by the cross-correlation function. The cross-correlation quantifies the ability to predict the value of the second wave by knowing the value of the first. As an example, consider two waves perfectly correlated for all times. At any time, if the first wave changes, the second will change in the same way. If combined they can exhibit complete destructive interference at all times. It follows that they are perfectly coherent. As will be discussed below, the second wave need not be a separate entity. It could be the first wave at a different time or position. In this case, sometimes called self-coherence, the measure of correlation is the autocorrelation function.

QUOTE

In most of these systems, one can measure the wave directly. Consequently, its correlation with another wave can simply be calculated. However, in optics one can not measure the electric field directly as it oscillates much faster than any detector’s time resolution. Instead, we measure the intensity of the light. Most of the concepts involving coherence which will be introduced below were developed in the field of optics and then used in other fields. Therefore, many of the standard measurements of coherence are indirect measurements, even in fields where the wave can be measured directly.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Temporal coherence is the measure of the average correlation between the value of a wave at every pair of times separated by delay τ. In other words, it characterizes how well a wave can interfere with itself at a different time. The delay over which the phase or amplitude wanders by a significant amount (and hence the correlation decreases by significant amount) is defined as the coherence time τc.

QUOTE

In some systems, such as water waves or optics, wave-like states can extend over one or two dimensions. Spatial coherence describes the ability for two points, x1 and x2, in the extent of a wave to interfere, when averaged over time. More precisely, the spatial coherence is the cross-correlation between two points in a wave for all times. The range of separation between the two points over which there is the significant interference is called the coherence area, Ac. This is the relevant type of coherence for the Young’s double-slit interferometer. It is also used in optical imaging systems and particularly in various types of astronomy telescopes. Sometimes people also use “spatial coherence” to refer to the visibility when a wave-like state is combined with a spatially shifted copy of itself.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Waves of different frequencies (in light these are different colours) can interfere to form a pulse if they have a fixed relative phase-relationship (see Fourier transform). Conversely, if waves of different frequencies are not coherent, then, when combined, they create a wave that is continuous in time (e.g. white light or white noise). The temporal duration of the pulse Δt is limited by the spectral bandwidth of the light Δf according to: [delta f * delta t is greater than, or equal to 1 ], which follows from the properties of the Fourier transform (for quantum particles it also follows from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

QUOTE

Light also has a polarization, which is the direction in which the electric field oscillates. Unpolarized light is composed of two equally intense incoherent light waves with orthogonal polarizations. The electric field of the unpolarized light wanders in every direction and changes in phase over the coherence time of the two light waves. A polarizer rotated to any angle will always transmit half the incident intensity when averaged over time.

If the electric field wanders by a smaller amount the light will be partially polarized so that at some angle, the polarizer will transmit more than half the intensity. If a wave is combined with an orthogonally polarized copy of itself delayed by less than the coherence time, partially polarized light is created.

The polarization of a light beam is represented by a vector in the Poincare sphere. For polarized light the end of the vector lies on the surface of the sphere, whereas the vector has zero length for unpolarized light. The vector for partially polarized light lies within the sphere.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

In quantum mechanics, all objects have wave-like properties (see de Broglie waves). For instance, in Young's double-slit experiment electrons can be used in the place of light waves. Each electron can go through either slit and hence has two paths that it can take to a particular final position. In quantum mechanics these two paths interfere. If there is destructive interference, the electron never arrives at that particular position. This ability to interfere is called quantum coherence.

The quantum description of perfectly coherent paths is called a pure state, in which the two paths are combined in a superposition. The quantum description of imperfectly coherent paths is called a mixed state, described by a density matrix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

QUOTE

Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

At the same time, it prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions concerning quantum theory. The correlations predicted by quantum mechanics, and observed in experiment, reject the principle of local realism, which is that information about the state of a system should only be mediated by interactions in its immediate surroundings. Different views of what is actually occurring in the process of quantum entanglement can be related to different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_la..._body_radiation

QUOTE

The relationship between the idea of "energy elements" and the curve that was verified by measurement was demonstrated, but the elements were not separated. In fact the total of the approximations provided a far greater number of "complexions", as Planck called the system states, than the number calculated from the idea of completely separated system elements. This implied some extra microstates or interactions between the elements. The approximation was strongly nonlinear for a small number of elements. The same applies to the derivation of the photoelectric equation by Albert Einstein (the 'light quanta' were not separated).

Actually, none of the papers in question was devoted to the radiation of microsystems and that was perhaps why the writers chose not to give the reason for the approximation. One can only speculate that it could have been equivalent either to a kind of distant interaction being a joint effect of some variables or phenomena not yet known at the time of their writing and discovered later in quantum mechanics, such as spin or the uncertainty principle, or to some still unknown hidden variables . However, a relationship between the lack of separability implied by the early 20th-century thermodynamical analysis of the black body and the contemporary quantum entanglement theories is still missing.

jal,

I am working towards a more "complete" explanation, but I think it is still a little premature at this point. "42" will not have meaning (as you alluded to, with the "right and wrong" statement) until the question is very clearly defined. There is a lot to wade through here.

Regards,

T.Roc

Good Elf

13th December 2006 - 02:13 AM

Hi Confused2,

QUOTE (Confused2+)

Hi GE,

http://www.tongue-twister.net/mr/physics/entangled.htm

QUOTE

Our photograph shows the projection of the cones on the infrared film for the pairs (681 & 725 nm), (702 & 702 nm), and (725 & 681 nm).

I think the problem may be that this is a classic experiment using polarisation entangled photons .. of different frequencies. (See NIST BBO type II article for how and where they are generated). Possibly not 'our' type of interference .. depends on what 'our' type is.

The 725nm filter shows the 'other half'' of the 681nm photons and vice versa .. hence the 681/725 pair is built from two photographs .. the later photographs show these rings separately for each frequency .. big ring small ring.

A different sort of interference.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Edit .. I think you need to explain why the bright bits (are there)/(shouldn't be there) for it to make any sense.

Lets be quite clear these are NOT optical filters per se (either blocking or passing a particular frequency by virtue of the 'color"... they are interference filters (resonant optical chambers) and will pass frequencies outside the band that is specified on the ID ring. That is what is happening here. So the IF for 702nm will not only pass only 702nm at normal incidence and with plane waves but will not pass 702 if the ray is not normally incident and will only pass that ray if the path is a multiple of the wavelength along that diagonal in the medium. This 'footprint' when cast on a plate is a circle... the Airy Disk. In the case of diverged/converged waves using the lens the waves are no longer plane waves and fall on the surface of an expanding sphere and thus until the effective wavenumber path through the IF matches the intersection of a sphere with the plane surface of the IF plate where the sphere's radius equals an integer number of wavelengths through the filter.

Thus you get a very defined circle, indeed a series of circles with increasing radii, called a Fraunhofer Diffraction pattern for a circular aperture. The narrow cut off of the filter results in very high discrimination and a very narrow line only 5nm wide in path length. All other spatial frequencies are completely rejected (same temporal frequency = 702nm just different paths through the resonant system) most notably when the frequency is the one marked on the ring. All other frequencies have been already filtered out in the original experiment (in the UV), this leaves only polarized matched photon pairs at 702nm. There is only ONE frequency here 702nm and it will pass all three filters the 702, 725 and the 680 but with different Airy disks and at different spatial radii when diverged from a point... along a fixed circle... all other retardations will involve destructive interference. The final picture is made from three exposures each with a different Interference Filter and combined with colorization.

You seem to not quite get what we are dealing with here and just how these Interference Filters actually work. Did you read my references that I supplied? The wavelength of light of 702nm is fixed but a path through a bank of resonant IF chambers will depend on the angle of incidence for each ray which is different everywhere on the surface of the IF due to the slanting path. It is constant on a circle centered on the center of the beam or on the conic section in the case of the deflected rays. One of these conic sections or circles will result in an integer number of wavelengths through the IF filter. There will be no exposure of the plate at any other point on the plane.

PS: Interference is not the same as entanglement. Be very sure of that.

Cheers

Confused2

13th December 2006 - 02:14 AM

Hi TRoc,

Several times I have thought a historical approach might be better..

QUOTE ( [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law_of_black_body_radiation+)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_la..._body_radiation[/URL] ]
The relationship between the idea of "energy elements" and the curve that was verified by measurement was demonstrated, but the elements were not separated. In fact the total of the approximations provided a far greater number of "complexions", as Planck called the system states, than the number calculated from the idea of completely separated system elements. This implied some extra microstates or interactions between the elements. The approximation was strongly nonlinear for a small number of elements. The same applies to the derivation of the photoelectric equation by Albert Einstein (the 'light quanta' were not separated).

Actually, none of the papers in question was devoted to the radiation of microsystems and that was perhaps why the writers chose not to give the reason for the approximation. One can only speculate that it could have been equivalent either to a kind of distant interaction being a joint effect of some variables or phenomena not yet known at the time of their writing and discovered later in quantum mechanics, such as spin or the uncertainty principle, or to some still unknown hidden variables . However, a relationship between the lack of separability implied by the early 20th-century thermodynamical analysis of the black body and the contemporary quantum entanglement theories is still missing.

Looks like a good place to start.

Best wishes,
-C2.

jal

13th December 2006 - 03:12 AM

Hi Good Elf!

QUOTE

It appears that what we see is what you have interpreted. A wave = a sphere expanding at 1/R^2 and that the only time that it intersect the plane is when the radius equals an interger number of wavelengths. Not when the sphere is at an interger number of 1/R^2. If an electron is not positioned at the right place (in the plane) to intercept the interger number of wavelengths it does not make any difference. That plane, at the micro level, would have elevations differences that would make Mount Everest look small.
So since we are dealing with interger number of wavelengths we do not need to have 1/R^2 in the interpretation. The destructive interference pattern has nothing to do with 1/R^2. It is due to the wavelengths.
You think wave ... you think bubbles .... I don't ... I think spin.
jal

Laserlight

13th December 2006 - 05:08 AM

Jal,

QUOTE

So since we are dealing with interger number of wavelengths we do not need to have 1/R^2 in the interpretation. The destructive interference pattern has nothing to do with 1/R^2. It is due to the wavelengths.
You think wave ... you think bubbles .... I don't ... I think spin.

The IR filters are bandpass filters. They block/attenuate all frequencies not tuned to their
specific wavelength range. They work as internally reflective mirror "traps"
(cavities) that are designed to set up 180 degree destructive interference for all
frequencies other than those that have a longer wavelength than the mirror gap
spacing. Stacked interference filters have multi-layer reflective cavities that block
all frequencies within a band range except for the ideal tuned frequency, which
refracts thru the filter.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...intfilt.html#c1

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Basic primer on light filters. See the section regarding stacked filters.
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/lightan...ltersintro.html

I formerly worked for a company that made precision deposition equipment used
for manufacturing optical filters that were used in fiberoptic cable systems. One filter
had 128+ dielectric cavity layers of different thickness and different indices of
refraction and was designed to only pass IR light at a peak transmission wavelength of 1550nM +/- 5nM with minimum attenuation. The individual films were deposited with a thickness accuracy to within 1-2 angstroms.

Regards,
LL

TRoc

13th December 2006 - 05:56 AM

GE,

You are correct; and I should have used my own terms to describe the similarities between the "entanglement", and "coherence" terms in Physics.

Both of these superpositions can be described by the classical sound wave analogy on Resonance between a ensemble of oscillators, each having its own characteristic frequency. Entanglement describes the separation of coherent energy, and the "link" that sustains their "beat-free" Resonance, until one of the parts is "absorbed" (by an equal, or resonant energy). Coherence describes the interactions between beat-free, and "all beats", which measures at the 1/2 wave. This is then repeated in a symmetrically dualistic opposite (phase).

This is compatible with the angle measuring method, and the 90 & 180 degree points of the sine-wave. This has been described as "constructive" and "destructive", but these terms are misleading. Both of these terms are relative to the frame of reference of the "sender", and not "stand alone" reactions.

GE has explained the event very well. I just have slightly different assumptions. As I said about the SSE, there is no point using something "new", if it doesn't improve the explanation. This is the case here as well. It is easier, and has a correct answer, to limit the calculation to "1 frequency", even though, I have established the presence of "more than 1 frequency" at several different "weak" QM assumption points.

I included a link on "interference filters", as well as the notch and line filters.
The thing is, if you describe the "interference filter" as a new cavity within the measurement system, then you must allow for the interactions of the "photons" within said cavity, following interference rules. I though that was against the GE model?

When I asked "is the filter a NEW source of photons, or a CHANGE in energy of the original photons", it was semi-rhetorical. It is a question directed at our (QM) assumptions of what a filter is doing. It is my understanding, that standard QM says that all energy transactions take place through the absorption and emission process. Transparency is an illusion that stems from our limited visual frequency reception. All things are transparent (100% Resonant) to SOME frequency.

The colors of the filters are for very definite reasons, and they are not based on "marketing", or "popularity". The interactions that take place in these filters is "perfectly timed" to cause an outside observer to see a "passing through" of the wave, with a loss in velocity (within the medium), and a minimal amount of angle change. The frequencies, or colors, that are not "perfectly timed" are absorbed, and transmitted at other angles (in the lattice, or reflected), that do not allow a "continuance" in the same direction.

http://www.semrock.com/publishings/11704_S...opy_Reprint.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_filter

I think that we should go back a little further into the history too. I want to describe this ENERGY, and how it interacts with MATTER, with tools that are designed NOT for "large, statistical quantities", but rather, for small groups, or ensembles of oscillators.

regards,

T.Roc

TRoc

13th December 2006 - 10:06 AM

Hi again!

For YQ, Jal, THEY, and (I'm sure,) others too. I think that it is fair to "throw a bone out", in order to justify listening to my argument.

YQ

QUOTE

But from my point of view you have tried to explain the why yet you have only conjectures until you can make predictions that will give you theory any validity.

If a theory has any merit then it can give not only cause, but prediction of results.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

A few weeks back, YQ and I were talking about the Higgs search, and I thought a "prediction" would be a good way to show this, even though it would be quite some time away before we would know the results.

Me (to YQ) Since you are in the position of knowing approximately "where" in the frequency spectrum, the "higgs" particle is expected to be found, might you post here the "band", or range of frequencies that you are looking? If you can give me a "its' between 1f and 2f" , I can further reduce this to 12 distinct frequencies, as a little "online", "out of the box" experiment?

YQ (answers)

QUOTE

TRoc, LL, Good Elf, C2, et al,

Very good question and I want to give you information that will give an introduction in many fields that have been posted.

TRoc, we deal with GeV's/TeV's, but I hope this page will help everyone in dealing with the TSEx as well as other topics. I do not want to be accused of bringing my post to this very productive one. Too many times post become muddled and my desire is for everyone on this subject stick with the format if possible.
..
TRoc, if this does not help I can give you all the information you need in GeV's/TeV's because of my line of work but I do understand you question so read this and then all can give there perspective. I do not want to disrupt any progress on this post.

Me (clearing up numbers)

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Me (clearing up numbers) YQ, the 7 to 14 TeV range was from CERN, and newer than the info that I had, which gave 114 to 200 GeV.

and finally, (me)

QUOTE

I should say here, that I do NOT think anything leading to a description of "where mass comes from" will be found at the "higgs" levels. I must ask, WHY did everyone decide to look there, rather than the "easy" side of the "flip".. namely the neutrino? This is the "trick" particle, that has the morphing ability. This is at the CORRECT symmetries of energy and mass, to MOST easily "observe" the process of energy-to-mass. I think that the "vanishing" time scale that you will be forced to deal with, is going to limit what we can "see". I know that much can be extrapolated though.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

When I looked at my Resonance Matrix, the values that the Higgs boson are expected to be found at are very "crowded". What this ultimately means, in the context of making a "prediction", was it wouldn't be very "predictive", because I would have to give 15 or 20 values (nodes) where it could be found.

The comment about "on the easy side" was about the section before the elements, where things are not so crowded. It wouldn't take so many numbers, making it a much better prediction.

HAD I KNOWN that Science was going to discover a new particle, less than 1 month after this conversation with YQ, I would have definitely gave some values for these "blank" spaces, or unoccupied Nodes on the R.Matrix, near the neutrinos. Oh, well ! Hindsight! I can, at least calculate the peaks where they found the axion. It has not been confirmed by peers yet, so maybe some refinements will come in, or even disagreements. (note: this is not the same as the also searched for "solar axions" that CERN is looking for)

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/long-the-fi...ound-12137.html December 2006
After decades of intensive effort by both experimental and theoretical physicists worldwide, a tiny particle with no charge, a very low mass and a lifetime much shorter than a nanosecond, dubbed the "axion," has now been detected by the University at Buffalo physicist who first suggested its existence in a little-read paper as early as 1974.
..
The axion has been seen as critical to the Standard Model of Physics and is believed to be a component of much of the dark matter in the universe.

"These results show that we have detected axions, part of a family of particles that likely also includes the very heavy Higgs-Boson particle, which at present is being sought after at different laboratories," said Jain.

The axion peaks: 7 and 19 MeV

7 MeV = 1.69259e21 Hz = Z * R^846 = 1.714e21 Hz

19 MeV = 4.59417e21 Hz = Z * R^863 = 4.5763e21 Hz

line up with my "expectation frequencies", or resonant Nodes. Right "in the neighborhood" is the tau neutrino: (where I suggested)

<15.5 MeV = 3.7478e21 Hz = Z^2 * R^859 =3.7292e21 Hz

For those paying attention, you'll note that the axion got one Z interaction, while the neutrino got the square (Z^2). The "physical" interpretation here (IMO) is the "recoil and impact" values that the Universe contributes to measurements (the ZPE, or HV ?) and is also explained by HUP, and the interference of the "observer". The axion (and W & Z bosons), along with other "fading" resonances, do not receive this "energy" (force?) twice, as do all the stable resonances. This can also be looked at geometrically with my hypothesis of "triangulation" (having 3 points, enclosing space), which would be a "spontaneous virtual cavity" where stability arises. The short lived resonances never reach this "cavitation".

This last paragraph is conjecture, which I am faced with doing in trying to interpret the math that so easily, and naturally produces the frequencies of the Standard Model, and the Table of Elements (all Isotopes, actually). This is on top of "predicting" the visible spectrum (frequencies AND wavelength AND c) from ONE number, and for "predicting" a causal, mathematical explanation for musical chords (Resonance). These last two might seem "quaint" to the Physicist, but, since they were the basis of SENSE-ABLE phenomenon that led to the discovery of the same pattern for the "masses", they can not be seen as trivial.

Just in my own defense, asking me (from my theory) for predictions is a little bit strange. The "validity" is already established by the total number of predictions it's already made. Has QM (or any Physics) "predicted" any of these "fundamental" masses, or energy levels? Was QM able to "predict" the "weird outcomes" of the DSE BEFORE they were seen? It seems that the explanations have all come after the fact, and after manipulation, normalization, and reformulating the theory, every time some new data didn't agree with what LITTLE they did try to predict. Even their "probabilities" are not proper statistics (odds don't mingle, ask a bookie).

best regards,

T.Roc

Confused2

13th December 2006 - 10:09 AM

Hi TRoc...

Start with just one oscillator..

Best wishes, C2.

TRoc

13th December 2006 - 10:49 AM

C2,

My best guess (for what you're asking) :

The Universe,

with a "frequency" of 1.0267092999.. ( Z )

better thought of as a rate, 2.67% of the energy being "measured". (at each electron)

Then, with "one spin", or cycle, the 1st harmonic = 2.0534185998..

On the "way" to this harmonic, a "quantized angular momentum", of 12 exponentially scaled parts (ratios). (1.0594630943592952645618252949463 multiplied for every "step") ( R )

Keep in mind, this is a mathematical "pattern". The physical explanations are still being determined in most cases.

ciao,

T.Roc

Confused2

13th December 2006 - 12:13 PM

Hi TRoc,

Noooo... !!!! Not the whole universe!

Something very simple ... any oscillator resonant at a frequency of say 'f'' .

That would mean it absorbs frequency 'f' and having done so it can radiate a frequency 'f' ?

I think Good Elf is an expert in this area so perhaps he can help to clarify how much energy would be associated with a frequency 'f'..

Obviously there is a trap (QM) being set here .. interesting to see what happens next.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Confused2

13th December 2006 - 02:30 PM

Hi TRoc et al,

Probably what we all like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator

---------------------------------------

The maths in the next one looks a bit daunting (to me) but just reading the text gives an idea about where these guys are coming from. It should be possible to read it without losing your soul to QM..

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0503/0503109.pdf

QUOTE

Last, we may remark that the paper of Aitchison et al. and the present
note teach unequivocally the lesson – which every student must learn – that creative work comes about via many routes, including (i) mathematical expertise and sophistication, and (ii) physical insight and considerations.

If we looked at an oscillator of energy E we might feel driven to conclude that there is some physical meaning to the f given by E = hf . It gets more interesting when we consider a system that has states (for want of a better word) E0,E1,E2,En .. in changing from state En to Em we'd get a frequency f = (En-Em)/h which (by any standards) was never physically present in the system. New frequencies! ... not (unfortunately) harmonically related** but at least they are there.

I hope that this has been of some interest.

Best wishes,

-C2.

** (Edit) .. on second reading ??

Good Elf

13th December 2006 - 03:45 PM

Hi Duality, jal, Confused2, Yquantum, Laserlight et al,

QUOTE (duality+)

Superpositions can produce interference effects and thus are experimentally distinguishable from mixed states.

How does a superposition of different possibilities resolve itself into some particular observation?

This question (also known as the measurement problem that was talked about) affects how we analyze some experiments such as tests of Bell's inequality and may raise the question of interpretations from a philosophical debate which we ALL fall into if not careful to an experimentally testable question.

So far there is no evidence that it makes any difference. The wave function evolves in such a way that there are no observable effects from macroscopic superpositions. It is only superposition of different possibilities at the microscopic level that leads to experimentally detectable interference effects.

I know you do not like this, but Confused2 is using the approach most must due to the advancements that has been made.

Lets examine what "superposition" really means...

QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet+)

Superposition

One of the most common classes of problems discussed in a quantum mechanics are interference phenomena. These interference phenomena apparently arise from the self-interaction of particles and the wave-like nature of these interactions. Such self-interaction is enabled by the principle of superposition. A particle does not negotiate any single path through a diffraction grating; its probability wave actually coincidently traverses all possible paths. Ultimately it is the act of measurement that collapses the wave packet to the single observed outcome.

So the superposition of the states is related to the infinite number of ways in which a particle may negotiate a cavity. Note very Carefully: One path one possible interference pattern from an infinity of possible coexisting simultaneous states. These patterns "exist" in a cavity even when there is no photons or particles in the Cavity, they are "built in" and are the basic geometry. Just like when you build a church organ... the pipes are built to exacting specifications to fabricate the cavity that will be "excited" when we want music. Until you excite the cavity there is no music.

While in our "real world" we are not as exacting in our "transactions" the Universe will insist on "exactness" and these possible modes are all possible ways the "haphazard" cavity of our Universe can be traversed. In a more complex way the Universe is a series of cavities where the "pipes" may be 'equivalent" to all the objects we find in our world and their spatial positions at all points in time. The "event", which is a photon, "sees" just one of these states from the point of view of the photon's starting position and it's finishing position. These elements it already knows in advance through "resonance" along "a short path in our Universe", in higher dimensions. We have discussed this before with the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment... the sub-topic of this thread.

When you introduce the photon at a particular wavelength or frequency it "sees" the cavity as a standing wave pattern that exists "always" for that one photon event. It can be considered as "information about the cavity" rather than information about photons. Many photons in the one boson state can occupy that one state in the cavity and they expand in it at the speed of light (they spread). In the case of photons there may be many ways the photon may negotiate a cavity and provided the cavity is perfectly reflecting it will execute all "possible" paths. see Zephir's Animation.

user posted image

These eigenstates are the stationary solutions for the harmonic oscillator in a cavity ... the Schroedinger wave Equation. The "solutions" for the cavity do not involve the photon itself but is only a way of describing the state independent of any specific photon. The cavity can be any cavity but in particular it is the cavity of our Universe and the arrangements of all the particles in it right down to the sub-atomic orbital cavities. A particular photon does not need to negotiate the entire cavity of the Universe but will negotiate a part of the cavity in the time the photon or particle is in that quantum state. The simplest state is when the cavity resonates and the photon revisits the same positions and places at equal intervals. In general it is far more complex than this.

Then we have the "collapse of the state" when we finally discover just which state we are measuring. We can only measure "populated states"... states where we somehow know there are photons present. In this sense we simply truncate the state in time. What is really happening is that we are suppressing the "wave function" outside the period when the wave was collapsed. This is the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. The rest of the state still exists "somewhere" but it's effect is masked in the same way that a node masks the effect of a particle in a cavity. So the state can still "emerge" if conditions allow it somewhere else as an "anti-node".

When Yquantum said of the issue "the truth be known nothing that I have read, has been looked at before by non-professional and professionals in the field of optics". He was dead right. What I am actually saying is "everything is pure optics" and nothing else.

One of the prime predictions I can make of this theory is since everything is "optics" then all the forces of the Universe are expressions of optics in various realms. That this implies that gravity itself and even the property of mass are the effects of matter wave optics... and of lower dimensional holograms and the way they interact as "matter waves" in "synthetic" higher dimensions.

QUOTE (Yquantum+)

I would humbly suggest that you find a way to make a prediction of the, double slit experiment and show what will happen instead of why you think it happens.

I just know those on this one post have the minds to achieve what ever they choose, with in reason of course.
I truly wish you the best, but you have to come up with something NEW and Predictive.

Nobody since Einstein has suggested that Gravity is a pseudo-force and relates to "optical distortion" and that it is ultimately "electromagnetic" in origin. The symmetry of gravity is "symmetric" while the symmetry of electromagnetism is "anti-symmetric". The particle theories all use a mix of "gravitons" or a separate force altogether that 'seeps" through dimensional space or Planck Length scale Phenomena (each one has shortcomings). Will the Higgs allow any practical understanding of the "force" that confers mass? It is very problematic as Yquantum has said. The way things are proceeding the best that can be said is we have a working theory of Gravity that is based on geometry and curved Spacetime and quantization of this has failed. If electromagnetism is the answer to mass then this provides an optical solution to gravity as a purely optical phenomena. Clearly the forces of electromagnetism and the force of gravity are related by a factor of about 10^40... that is electromagnetism is 10 raised to the power of 40 times stronger than gravity. This is unexpected by current theory. However this conversion cannot be realized within three dimensions and time but must be widened to include more dimensions. In those extra dimensions the lower dimensional gravity will have anti-symmetric components whose inner product is symmetric. There are some strong ideas behind this... Light travels at the speed of Gravity (at least it seems that way). Light is bent by gravity even though it has no mass... this signifies that mass is not the criterion by which gravity operates but is related to a more primitive "optics". There are significant differences between the behavior of light and the behavior of gravity and that is the most serious source of objection, however much of this objection is from the perspective of only 4D spacetime. A widened perspective would allow for these symmetry differences. Charge in higher dimensions is an expression of topology... in other words pure geometry.

On a totally separate point... Jal has mistaken my attempt to clarify the nature of interference. Quotes should be actual quotes Jal and not ad-libs of what I am trying to say. The intersection of a sphere and a plane is a circle... that is all I wanted to say. The expanding sphere of a spherically symmetric wavefront of light describes ever larger circles on the plane... at one specific point in time the plate becomes "transparent" to the light when it no longer cancels but reinforces on the way through. This occurs at the position of an Airy Disk.

Cheers

yquantum

13th December 2006 - 04:48 PM

Hi Duality, jal, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, Good Elf, et al,

Good Elf, hope all is well!

I am not able to read all that has been posted, I see my pseudo name on occasion

But, all I ask is please do not use my name in vain-joke, you can do as you please if I said it I will stand behind the words or else confess I have made a mistake.

I read your post, Good Elf it takes a entire tea break to think it through. But one of the problems I have in your statement;

QUOTE

While in our "real world" we are not as exacting in our "transactions" the Universe will insist on "exactness" and these possible modes are all possible ways the "haphazard" cavity of our Universe can be traversed.

Your real world is not the world in which you live, you should know this just studying the DSE.

And when everyone uses 10^n power - or +, no one including myself truly understands how large or small this is or comprehends the significance of such a number on the forces. That is the world you live in. And why classical thinking will not explain it. Superposition is the language of QM, and that is what we have to live with until a better model is developed. I did not create this, it is just the way QM works.

Yes, we need a new model, but please understand you will not find it in classical thinking.

I was consumed in the Higgs, now I just hope we have the intelligence to see if we can define or explain supersymmetry which offers a way to unify the two big classes of particles, the bosons and the fermions, which if you look deep into the well you should find a superpartner but this is going to be tricky.That was for TRoc.

I truly wish you all the best, but how you will accomplish this task is going to be formidable at best.

ciao_
yquantum

Duality, jal, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, Good Elf, I know this post will be in good hands and keep up the discussion, it is not who is right or wrong but how can it be solved would be my goal if I could be apart of this great post.

jal

13th December 2006 - 04:55 PM

Good day Everyone!

A few comments for Good Elf
I hope that I get the quotes right.

QUOTE

These patterns "exist" in a cavity even when there is no photons or particles in the Cavity, they are "built in" and are the basic geometry. Just like when you build a church organ... the pipes are built to exacting specifications to fabricate the cavity that will be "excited" when we want music. Until you excite the cavity there is no music.

We have not detected these patterns.
This is my model in your words. I show how the pattern is put together.
I'm waiting for the results from CERN.

Total quote

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

We have not detected these patterns.
This is my model in your words. I show how the pattern is put together.
I'm waiting for the results from CERN.

Total quote
On a totally separate point... Jal has mistaken my attempt to clarify the nature of interference. Quotes should be actual quotes Jal and not ad-libs of what I am trying to say. The intersection of a sphere and a plane is a circle... that is all I wanted to say. The expanding sphere of a spherically symmetric wavefront of light describes ever larger circles on the plane... at one specific point in time the plate becomes "transparent" to the light when it no longer cancels but reinforces on the way through. This occurs at the position of an Airy Disk.

my post

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

In the case of diverged/converged waves using the lens the waves are no longer plane waves and fall on the surface of an expanding sphere and thus until the effective wavenumber path through the IF matches the intersection of a sphere with the plane surface of the IF plate where the sphere's radius equals an integer number of wavelengths through the filter.

It appears that what we see is what you have interpreted. A wave = a sphere expanding at 1/R^2 and that the only time that it intersect the plane is when the radius equals an interger number of wavelengths. Not when the sphere is at an interger number of 1/R^2. If an electron is not positioned at the right place (in the plane) to intercept the interger number of wavelengths it does not make any difference. That plane, at the micro level, would have elevations differences that would make Mount Everest look small.
So since we are dealing with interger number of wavelengths we do not need to have 1/R^2 in the interpretation. The destructive interference pattern has nothing to do with 1/R^2. It is due to the wavelengths.
You think wave ... you think bubbles .... I don't ... I think spin.

I am pointing out that the "expanding sphere" is not needed for your explanation.
If you think about it an "expanding sphere" would always hit Mount Everett and never make a circular pattern.
jal
Hi yquantum just saw your post.

resuccess

13th December 2006 - 05:08 PM

Wow that blows my mind. I don't have an answer but i wana see alot of replys to this. thats amazing

Good Elf

13th December 2006 - 05:22 PM

Hi Jal,

I don't think I mentioned Mt. Everest. I was referring to a expanding sphere and a plane. Thats is all. The intersection is a circle. If the plane contains a special interference filter then every now and again this "light" that is "progressively" illuminating the "plane" will reinforce through the interference filter and and "pass"... everywhere else the interference filter destructively interferes with the light (of that one wavelength of 702nm) and "blocks". This "pinhole" illuminates the backplane of the camera in the image of a circle as it continues to "spread". The supplied image indicates this with the addition of double refraction (birefringence) like in an Iceland Spar Crystal and the Interference Filter (not shown). Those who have worked in crystallography will understand what I mean by this.

Click to enlarge. This is not my image but the one supplied with the experiment. The diverging cones and the E and O rays are explicitly described there. Open "secret".
http://departments.colgate.edu/physics/res...aratus/spdc.htm

Cheers

jal

13th December 2006 - 05:53 PM

Good Elf

QUOTE

I was referring to a expanding sphere and a plane

So am I. The expanding sphere will always hit the closest point and collapse at that point. (Mount Everett

) You will never get a circle.
The circle is only made by many many photons. Not "Expanding spheres" of many many photons.
jal

Laserlight

13th December 2006 - 06:10 PM

Jal,

QUOTE

So am I. The expanding sphere will always hit the closest point and collapse at that point. (Mount Everett

) You will never get a circle.
The circle is only made by many many photons. Not "Expanding spheres" of many many photons.

Consider how energy radiates from a dipole antenna. It is a focused spherical
or conical wavefront (energy lobe) with the highest power point always in the center of the lobe and dropping off along extreme the boundaries of the lobe.

From Wikipedia:

user posted image

Duality

13th December 2006 - 06:42 PM

All,

yq, I do not think the strange world of quantum mechanics is digestible, I cannot blame them much, but the "Emperor Has No Clothes" story. ... notice that the Emperor had no clothes on (classical thinking).

He was not infected with the blindness ... did not seem to mind.

Duality/Lisa

jal

13th December 2006 - 06:49 PM

Duality
Stay with the program.
Explain how "expanding bubbles" of photons can get past Mount Everett and light up a circle of electrons.
Open my eyes so that I can see.

jal

Confused2

13th December 2006 - 07:26 PM

Hi jal,

There's a thayng here that shows angles and interference filters.

I think Good Elf feels a 702nm wave would pass through a 722nm filter if the angle is right .. since we seem to have a point source then this would make a circle. I have to admit I remain unclear why a 702nm wave might make a circle when it goes through a 702nm filter and how a 702nm wave ever gets through a 680nm filter regardless of angle. This aside .. the effect of the angle is more than I had expected and without the frequencies being spot-on it looks to me like the pretty false colour picture contains no information of interest or value.

D/L

Best wishes,

-C2.

"THEY"

13th December 2006 - 08:12 PM

Troc - what does your theory say about the collapse of the wave? Particle behavior? Or was that covered when I was sleeping?

If it was dealt with, and you heard a whistling sound, that was probably the concept flying over my head.....

Laserlight

13th December 2006 - 08:24 PM

Jal.

QUOTE

Explain how "expanding bubbles" of photons can get past Mount Everett and light up a circle of electrons.
Open my eyes so that I can see.
jal

The same way that the DSE forms a center energy peak despite the obstruction of
the center "blocking" post. The post "blocks" the incoming photons and yet
there is no shadow of the post on the screen. The screen shows a superimposed,
reconstructed energy pattern at the center. Certainly, the post is bigger than your atomic scale "Mt. Everest"on the atomic "lattice" surfaces of the filter layers.

Energy always radiates (spreads out) from an atomic point source dipole, it is
always seeking to spread out as it couples to free space.
Even a coherent laser beam will spread over distance. In GE's example a lens
has changed the focal point, and photons passing beyond the focal point are
expanding in a "cone" lobe shape. The highest db energy point is still the center
axis of the cone.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Explain how "expanding bubbles" of photons can get past Mount Everett and light up a circle of electrons.
Open my eyes so that I can see.
jal

TRoc

13th December 2006 - 08:30 PM

Hi all,

GE, very well stated! (your longer post above).

Jal, from previous conversations with GE, I think that the "bubbles" that have been discussed have been "pancakized", meaning (at least) not the perfect spherical form.

These intersecting spheres can be reduced the the radius and the fillet, and what comes the closest to this (IMO) is the hyperbolic triangle. MT. Everest is a "sphere" too.

This is a good time for another BIG question for QM. GE and laserlight have both commented several times about the MATTER being the dominant thing is these harmonic interactions. I do not disagree there; the cavity DOES know (or have) the pre-existing resonant conditions that dictate what frequencies (energy) will do. In another way, these "photons" KNOW exactly where they are going, and how far it is. This is stated because the distance between the 2 electrons will end up (upon measurement) as a whole number of wavelengths. There should be a way that this is communicated, before-hand. This communication might also give a "quantum adjustment" to the distance between the 2 electrons, so that the energy can travel in its' preferred, symmetrical way. If this "communication" can alter a particles position (weakly), then Gravity is a good candidate.

That is better left for a later discussion. For now, let me try to say that I am trying to show the equivalence of the Matter, and Energy Vibrations, by showing that they can be calculated from One source.

From C2's last link (thanks C2, and, it wasn't so bad)

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0503/0503109.pdf

QUOTE

Thus if one wants to make a quantum mechanics of the spectral lines and their intensities, one needs to make quantum mechanics of the Planck harmonic oscillator as Bohr’s jumps are the jumps (transitions) of the Planck oscillators_7. Therefore, first and foremost, Heisenberg tried_8 to do just that – with his expertise in Bohr-Sommerfeld theory_9, dispersion theory_10, and his knowledge of Born’s prescription_11 to translate classical quantities into quantum mechanical ones. And he succeeded.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Two comments: 1. Planck quantized the oscillations of the "photon"; Bohr/Heisenberg quantized the electron jumps. 2. If quantum mechanical quantities were translated from classical ones, then quantum interactions should be able to be derived by classical interactions (of oscillators). This is what I have been saying has been LACKING in music, and that I have found.

Back to comment #1. (which is greatly simplified)

On the one hand, we have a system that was developed to quantizes the electron states (Schroedinger, et al), and then (later) the quantization of the EM "fields". Later still, Science attempted to "couple" them with QED.

A quote from Einstein says it perfectly:

"I feel that it is a delusion to think of the electrons and the fields as two physically different, independent entities. Since neither can exist without the other, there is only one reality to be described, which happens to have two different aspects; and the theory ought to recognize this from the start instead of doing things twice."

This DOUBLE quantization process INTRODUCES an infinite set of new degrees of freedom, operating on an infinite set of field modes.

My "single quantization" has a limited set of degrees of freedom, and a limited set of harmonics (modes). It may or may not be right, but I think that it is a valid path to pursue.

Some links to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_reaction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formula

Anybody can be wrong, on occasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticky_bead_argument

A good paper on this subject:

Does A Uniformly Accelerating Charge Radiate?

regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight

13th December 2006 - 09:04 PM

TRoc,

QUOTE

the cavity DOES know (or have) the pre-existing resonant conditions that dictate what frequencies (energy) will do. In another way, these "photons" KNOW exactly where they are going, and how far it is. This is stated because the distance between the 2 electrons will end up (upon measurement) as a whole number of wavelengths. There should be a way that this is communicated, before-hand. This communication might also give a "quantum adjustment" to the distance between the 2 electrons, so that the energy can travel in its' preferred, symmetrical way.

I think I disagree. Energy nor the cavity "know" nothing. It is how they mutually
interact upon "contact" that determines the resultant response.

The geometry of the wave responds to the geometry of the
cavity that it interacts with, as a ratio. The interaction of the geometric ratio's
mathematically determines the resultant reconstruction/fidelity of the energy pattern.

Even ratios are constructive, odd ratios are destructive. Think of it like standing
waves in a cavity or an antenna. Harmonic components (in phase) generate
constructive interference, dissonant components generate destructive
interference, from a wave energy perspective.

That was a great quote by Einstein, he had it right. Electrons and fields are
mutually dependent, and all "quantities" that they exhibit have a direct relationship.

Comments, disagreements, discussion welcome.

LL

Confused2

13th December 2006 - 11:52 PM

Hi LL,

I'm just trying to clarify words a bit...

I suspect that what happens in a cavity or antenna is implicitly cumulative whereas where two or more paths intersect the result is additive (or subtractive) .. in both cases the numbers get bigger and littler but the reason may not be quite the same.

Where you write cavity I generally write path .. if unwanted or unexpected reflections are identified then whatever bit is responsible can easily be painted black .. the result may not be theoretically 'perfect' but I think we can get pretty close to 'paths' without unwanted resonance.

At the transmit and receive end there are changes of state which may (or may not) be the result of changes in resonant 'systems' .. this is probably another area that needs to be dicussed and clarified (again)

Best wishes,

-C2.

Good Elf

14th December 2006 - 12:12 AM

Hi Yquantum,

QUOTE (Yquantum+)

Good Elf, hope all is well!

I am not able to read all that has been posted, I see my pseudo name on occasion But, all I ask is please do not use my name in vain-joke, you can do as you please if I said it I will stand behind the words or else confess I have made a mistake.

No... I have made the mistake! My deepest apologies. I am guilty of a serious misquote there. I attributed an interpretation to you based on a statement you had made earlier on another thread. What I said was "Will the Higgs allow any practical understanding of the "force" that confers mass? It is very problematic as Yquantum has said." The reference was out of context and though not a quote... implied a quote. Put this down to my fatigue and allowing my mind to "fill in the spaces".

The post I was referring to was...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=147018

QUOTE (Yquantum+)

Many have asked this question about the Higgs boson, do you really think it will be found?

I wanted to be very open to constructive criticism, and still give a example showing that I do understand you concerns. So I will approach it this way.

What about string theory compared to the Higgs boson?[...] My point is this, when it comes to the Higgs boson, in finding the Higgs there is a way in which to run experimentations’ with a means to support the test by prediction with the energy needed. The down side is it might not be found, but it is expected.

So I am indeed guilty of misinterpretation there. I am certain that Yquantum firmly believes that the Higgs Boson will be found. My most deepest apologies... please accept. Nothing so bad as being misquoted... it happens to us all and it is time consuming and painful to correct these problems. It is the tyranny of distance and the means of communication that cause these errors since our "conversations" occur over days that would ordinarily occur in minutes... even seconds in real life and in that expanse of time my short term memory "invents stuff" to bridge these gaps.

It is my personal concern and mine alone that the Higgs particle may or may not be found at Cern, that includes tests which can only show an implied Higgs in the shower of stuff that pours out of the experiment... Regardless... a lot will be learned from the exercise. Even with such massive machines, it is still my concern that you can perform experiments in such a way that a positive result is virtually "inevitable". This is because there are so many "particle models" that can be fitted to results and the element of chance is involved. I hope this does not occur but we all trust that in the rush for "immortality", truth is not sacrificed. I am sure that Yquantum will be the honest "gatekeeper" for some of his more zealous colleagues. None of us out here in "fairyland" can hope to interpret the data in any unambiguous way and must accept what those with "The Machine" have to say at the end of the matter. It is frustrating for us (elves included) but we rely on a large number of people to find the result that has asked all the "right questions".

As to the question of "quantum interference" I will answer these points in a separate post later. This post takes primacy over all others since it is about trust and friendship, and not the cold technical "details".

Cheers

Laserlight

14th December 2006 - 12:51 AM

Hi C2 and All,

C2:

QUOTE

Where you write cavity I generally write path .. if unwanted or unexpected reflections are identified then whatever bit is responsible can easily be painted black .. the result may not be theoretically 'perfect' but I think we can get pretty close to 'paths' without unwanted resonance.

At the transmit and receive end there are changes of state which may (or may not) be the result of changes in resonant 'systems' .. this is probably another area that needs to be dicussed and clarified (again)

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Path just doesn't convey any connotation of resonance (signal mixing), which I feel is exactly
the base mechanism of how matter and energy interact. Path is just a sequential
"vector" relationship, IMO. In contrast, cavity describes a "confinement" or
physical boundary common to energy systems, where matter and energy resonantly
interact (mix).

At the transmit and receive end there are changes of state which may (or may not) be the result of changes in resonant 'systems' .. this is probably another area that needs to be dicussed and clarified (again)

Probably not a bad idea, to get everyone on the same "wavelength".

Here are some basic definitions that we commonly use:

Resonance:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/resonance.html

Harmonic:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/harmonic.html

Interference:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/interference.html

Mixing:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/mixing.html

Upon review of the definitions above, "signal mixing" is probably a
better description than "harmonic interaction", since it also defines "signal losses",
as well as gains, that can occur when phased signals interact in the presence of matter.

Best Regards,

LL

Confused2

14th December 2006 - 01:34 AM

Hi LL,

QUOTE (LL+)

In the DSE we've looked at most .. I see 1 metre of 'path(s)' and (say) 2 x 500nm of matter and energy interacting .. you see it differently?

Best wishes,

-C2.

Laserlight

14th December 2006 - 02:20 AM

Hi C2,

QUOTE

In the DSE we've looked at most .. I see 1 metre of 'path(s)' and (say) 2 x 500nm of matter and energy interacting .. you see it differently?

I see the matter+energy "mixing" reaction occuring at the confluence of the
post between the 2 slits (cavities). The result of that signal mixing disperses from that point.
Nothing happens between the distance immediately just past the slits, where the
mixing takes place, and the screen, except the energy spreads until it is finally "detected" at the screen.

The signal "path" is not a factor until matter and energy interact (mix).
If there was no center post (matter/DSE cavity) the energy would not have any
point of reaction/interaction. The paths and form the energy took before and after the slits is different, only because of the "reaction signal mixing" with matter.

Good Elf

14th December 2006 - 08:58 AM

Hi Confused2, and Laserlight et al,

QUOTE (Laserlight+)

This is indeed the heart of the matter. particles have paths and waves have their interference....

QUOTE (Definition of Interference+)

6. physics process of wave interaction: a process in light-wave transmission in which two or more waves are superimposed in such a way that they produce higher peaks, lower troughs, or a new wave pattern

Combined with resonance these principles are not captured with particles having just "path". Argue all you like but the actual amplitude and phase of 'waves" are not captured by path alone. The phase of a wave is also a "distributed" function that may be spread over the entire "canvas" of our Universe. A single particle only defines phase at one point in the system along the path.

The other experimental fact about our world that differentiates it from waves in a water tank is that the waves in a water tank passing through a pair of slits are progressive and interactive. The water waves 'splash up against themselves"... the water particles are all mutually interacting and dissipative. With light waves the "Cavity Universe" has already established standing waves along some short unseen axis for the event. The individual photons propagate through this three dimensional maze of nodes and anti-nodes as if "frozen in time". Of course individual photon events are "frozen in time" due to Relativity and the speed that light propagates. While the photon is "frozen" it can still becomes optically distorted as it propagates in space. Energy is redistributing on the leading edge of the wave through space but not dissipating, the quanta remains intact trapped by the speed of light by being never able to go slower or faster than that speed in a vacuum or the equivalent speed of light in the various media.

What is very unclear is the definition of the particle, according to Quantum Mechanics the photon does not exist at all between emission and absorption yet the energy will be redistributing and "seeking all paths", we can know almost anything about the "particle" except its path, this is highly suggestive that the particle really does not have a fixed path and truly is a distributed "object". That little round hard "soliton" is ill defined and it has been said that it exists or does not exist in a superposition of states which are "interferences". Regarding the usual status of nodes... they are places in space where the energy is not able to collect and the anti-nodes are places where the energy of the photon can be localized provided there are suitable targets which can accept the "packet". Nodes are places where energy does not go at least during the period of the "excitation event". A node has a physical size and it can fall on a perimeter.

It is not true that we cannot measure nodes and indeed we can even plot them for individual geometries at a single fixed frequency. This has been possible for centuries due to the inventiveness of Huygens. However his constructions did not capture spatial intensity. As to measurement of nodes this picture is convincing proof that such things are measurable and plotable...

While our eyes cannot see these images this is a two dimensional "slice" through a waveguide where a STM has been used to measure the waveform in place there.

If the frequency is changed the two dimensional "slice" pattern also changes like so...

Please click on images to enlarge...

Here we see the same cross-section at the same scale under a different excitation frequency. Huygens would have been able to approximate some of this but certainly not all of it since there is much more nuiance and texture because this is a three dimensional space in which we are only viewing but a single slice. The values of psi squared are taken from direct measurement of the electric field strength at the tip of the tiny probe. I promise you they are not measuring probability but the square of the electriic field strength.

QUOTE

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/chao-dyn/pdf/9806/9806023.pdf
A Scanned Perturbation Technique For Imaging Electromagnetic Standing Wave Patterns of Microwave Cavities
Ali Gokirmak, Dong-Ho Wu, J. S. A. Bridgewater, and Steven M. Anlage
Center for Superconductivity Research, Department of Physics, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4111
Abstract
We have developed a method to measure the electric field standing wave distributions
in a microwave resonator using a scanned perturbation technique.
Fast and reliable solutions to the Helmholtz equation (and to the Schr¨odinger
equation for two dimensional systems) with arbitrarily-shaped boundaries are
obtained. We use a pin perturbation to image primarily the microwave electric
field amplitude, and we demonstrate the ability to image broken time-reversal
symmetry standing wave patterns produced with a magnetized ferrite in the
cavity. The whole cavity, including areas very close to the walls, can be imaged
using this technique with high spatial resolution over a broad range of
frequencies.
41.20.-q, 03.65.Ge, 84.40.Zc, 73.23.-b, 74.40.+k

Originally brought to my attention by Jal...
Cheers

Confused2

14th December 2006 - 12:02 PM

Hi All,

Can I test out the suggestion that physics is the art of being 'not wrong'. Bonus points are awarded for elegance.

For the DSE .. anything that predicts the bright bits are where the path differences add up to an even number of wavelengths ( DSE equation) is 'not wrong'.

Perhaps it is unfortunate that we have looked at an experiment contained in a black tube and it is difficult to show whether the black tube is an integral part of the physics or whether it's just so all the bits don't move about and to keep light, coffee and sticky paws away from any of the sensitive parts.

It is possible that consideration of cavity resonances might give the right answer but I find it difficult to see what cavity is to be considered because the experiment can be stripped down to source, slits and screen without affecting the result. I also find it difficult to see how/why any resonances might conspire to cancel out on every occasion to leave only the difference in path length. If cavity resonances don't come into the equation (literally) then I regard that as good and sufficient reason to discard them as an explanation of the observed effect.

-C2.

Good Elf

14th December 2006 - 04:17 PM

Hi Confused2, Yquantum, Laserlight, Jal, TRoc et al,

QUOTE (Confused2+)

Can I test out the suggestion that physics is the art of being 'not wrong'. Bonus points are awarded for elegance.

Well I guess you could say that about a lot of former theories. They are all "not wrong"... it is simply that they answer fewer questions and can still be used but always with the qualification that we can do better.

QUOTE (Confused2+)

It is possible that consideration of cavity resonances might give the right answer but I find it difficult to see what cavity is to be considered because the experiment can be stripped down to source, slits and screen without affecting the result. I also find it difficult to see how/why any resonances might conspire to cancel out on every occasion to leave only the difference in path length. If cavity resonances don't come into the equation (literally) then I regard that as good and sufficient reason to discard them as an explanation of the observed effect.

What you say seems to suggest that because Huygens Constructions gives a fairly good approximation to the results in the double slit experiment then that is all we really need to know. My suggestion is since quantum mechanics does not have the nuance of an understanding of cavities, then some of the randomness seen to be necessary in quantum physics may in part be due to it's inability to take the effects of cavities into account.

It certainly does come into play when we are referring to atomic orbitals and as yet we have no exact physics to show what happens when the photon leaves the immediate neighborhood of an atom after apparently exiting the mostly empty cavity of an atom. All Quantum Mechanics can tell us is statistically what is happening. We have standing waves in the atomic case like this...
How standing waves work....

This is also the Wheeler-Feynman view if not only do we have spatial waves we also have temporal waves too. We also have similar mechanisms which are operational in radio transmitters, lasers, microwave systems at all scales. What I mean is "resonance" and high Q tuning of circuits both optical and electrical. We also have the situation where some driven systems in resonance have apertures and waveguides and linked cavities that lead to open systems in which photons may merge into a more general mixed environment.

Alternatively all this is currently being handled by a physics of particles that does give excellent results and is more comfortable to deal with because of Feynman diagrams and so forth. We have powerful computing tools and we can do much better than the physics of particles in the case of waves and their influence. If a photon can never be found or detected in a node then this is a prediction that physics should take into account.

If nodes are the answer to quantum jumps even through matter, it is of concern that we know where each and every optical cavity is, or alternatively we are able to produce them on demand in place when and where we want them, that is if we want to ensure that particles penetrate a barrier or jump some forbidden gap. You can continue to simply use statistics but this technique may do better in a number of areas not presently accounted for. If it does better in predicting some individual case a bit better than quantum mechanics then according to an Axiom of Science, the theory that answers the most questions wins.

By simply ignoring this method of progress then it is very possible that our society may miss out on a new field of technology based on "hidden cavities". One of the hidden cavities we seem to be mostly unaware of its operations is the atomic cavities. There are no current explanations for these other than Quantum Postulates. I can understand why in the past we shunned complex mathematical techniques simply because of the amount of computation required. This should no longer be the argument (as you have proposed) for not using it if it provides some new insight into quantum processes. In particular the case in point of higher dimensions. I could maintain that these nodes and anti-nodes mean nothing regards our dimensional environment but this counter argument should be tested to see if the answers from probing these "voids", man-made or otherwise, leads to no new insights.

QUOTE (Yquantum+)

I was consumed in the Higgs, now I just hope we have the intelligence to see if we can define or explain supersymmetry which offers a way to unify the two big classes of particles, the bosons and the fermions, which if you look deep into the well you should find a superpartner but this is going to be tricky.That was for TRoc.

I truly wish you all the best, but how you will accomplish this task is going to be formidable at best.

I really think we are seeing superpartners in these "voids". Atoms have a double side to their nature. Take for instance the lone proton, the simplest atom. Does the proton have a "cavity" surrounding it even when there is no photon or electron to be found there? From our discussion of interference and resonance I may suggest to you that these cavities are real if only because they respond to phenomena as actual cavities. The fermionic proton has a shadowy partner, the bosonic shells, at a slightly different scale. These are Schrodinger Cavities, overlapping states, superpositions... or quantum interferences occupying the same space. It seems to me these cavities link with particles as they should... boson to fermion. Are these the "super partners" of fermions? If the answer is a qualified "yes", then we have already found the "sparticles" and they have properties different from those predicted by our theory. So what we have done is invented another separate theory to deal with this phenomenon "in isolation". Well... the idea I see is if the theory does not fit the experiment, then change the theory. It would not need too much to change things and incorporate this effect into one "unified theory". Perhaps if we consider electrons differently, we may see that de Broglie Matter Waves are the boson partner to the electronic fermion, "joined at the hip" so to speak, "hovering" in higher dimensions.

Cheers

jal

14th December 2006 - 04:18 PM

Good day everyone!
Particles have problems waves have problems.
Good link. There is nothing in there that indicates "expanding sphere". Rather all indications are “particle-like or point-like” and many many photons.

QUOTE

The tutorial initializes with a single ray of white light. (read particle-like NOT "expanding sphere". Read many many photon NOT one photon.)
That is why the ray of light can get into the interference filters. There’s a mountain at the door that would be blocking the "expanding sphere".
These filters operate by transmitting a selected wavelength region with high efficiency while rejecting, through reflection and destructive interference, all other wavelengths.

.
Everything points to wavelengths nothing points to the "expanding sphere".

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

.
Everything points to wavelengths nothing points to the "expanding sphere".
To produce modern interference filters, successive layers of dielectric materials, with thickness values ranging between one-quarter and one-half of the target wavelength, are deposited onto an optically flat glass or polymer surface in a vacuum.

http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/java/fi...ence/index.html
Interference Filters
-------------------
Next ….A must read paper No "expanding sphere" in here.
Also, all of the arguments that have been presented to preserve the "expanding sphere" have failed. Using a fields to make "expanding spheres" is not an ironclad argument.

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath528/kmath528.htm
Does A Uniformly Accelerating Charge Radiate?

QUOTE

Of course, above some frequency level, we know that the classical equations of electromagnetism are invalid, as shown by the "ultra-violet" catastrophe in cavity radiation. We must also account for the photo-electric effect and all the other familiar effects of quantum mechanics, which are incompatible with the simple wave conception of electromagnetic radiation. Nevertheless, even in the quantum theory of electrodynamics we find that the question of radiation reaction leads to difficulties, which to date have only been resolved in a somewhat ad hoc manner by means of re-normalization.

We would not have to re-normalization if "expanding spheres" worked?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

We would not have to re-normalization if "expanding spheres" worked?
The individual photons propagate through this three dimensional maze of nodes and anti-nodes as if "frozen in time".

I would say, "This is your description of my model."
I'm waiting for CERN to find it and for "the "math kids" to arrive at a description of it.
Everything said so far … want me to learn more about TRoc’s approach.
jal

Laserlight

14th December 2006 - 05:49 PM

Hi Jal,

QUOTE

Everything points to wavelengths nothing points to the "expanding sphere".

Are you ignoring the effects of the ISL as it relates to energy radiation and
propagation in space? Are you also ignoring how energy propagates from
a dipole or atomic "matrix" of interactive dipoles?

Everywhere in nature energy propagates from a center point and radiates
outward, spreading as it goes. Energy "density" spreads inversely with
the square of the distance from the source.

Radiated energy from a source is always plotted as an energy power "lobe" over
distance. A "lobe" is a conical cross section. The centerline of the cross section
is always the high power point relative to all points immediately adjacent to it.

ISL Wikipedia: Read the full explanation it is more comprehensive.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Everything points to wavelengths nothing points to the "expanding sphere".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Other opinion, discussion, alternatives, welcomed.

LL

jal

14th December 2006 - 06:04 PM

Hi Laserlight!
No I'm not ignoring ISL. It's in the opening of my model.
I'm waiting for CERN to find it and for "the "math kids" to arrive at a description of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

QUOTE

This diagram shows how the law works. The lines represent the flux emanating from the source. The total number of flux lines depends on the strength of the source and is constant with increasing distance. A greater density of flux lines (lines per unit area) means a stronger field. The density of flux lines is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source because the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the radius. Thus the strength of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.

Read lines to mean the trajectory of a particle-like photon. More area ...etc
No "expanding sphere" here. Just less particle-like per unit area.
Don't ignore .... We would not have to re-normalization if "expanding spheres" worked.

jal

Laserlight

14th December 2006 - 06:35 PM

Jal,

QUOTE

Read lines to mean the trajectory of a particle-like photon. More area ...etc
No "expanding sphere" here. Just less particle-like per unit area.
Don't ignore .... We would not have to re-normalization if "expanding spheres" worked.

Not sure I understand what you mean by the last sentence.

Another argument that might provide credibility to the expanding sphere
concept. Consider how a parabolic mirror telescope or a lens works, they are
based upon spherical geometries that accumulate distributed energy and refocus it.
Isn't that a form of "renormalization" by using a spherical geometry to reestablish
and re-concentrate the spherical nature of a wavefront of energy?

The geometry of the spherical wave front and the spherical geometry of the lens
medium are complementary, IMO. I think perhaps they are re-establishing a
geometric ratio to the originating dipole spherical nature of the wave. The larger
the spherical radius of the lens, the larger the geometric ratio that exists between
corresponding radii of the energy wavefront and the lens, and the better the
energy coupling efficiency.

A flat mirror or flat piece of glass doesn't perform the same complementary
geometrical focusing effect because they are planar and not "conformal" to the
energy wave shape. Energy passes thru them unfocused because they don't
have a complementary geometric relationship to the energy applied.

Just my opinion. Other opinions or discussion welcomed.

LL

Confused2

14th December 2006 - 06:36 PM

Hi jal, LL et al,

We're talking EM not QM here.

One of the problems with electricity is that you can't mke a charge appear and disappear .. hence a monopole simply can't be made.

BUT

If you could make a monopole it would radiate a nice spherical wavepattern.

BUT

You can shuffle charge from one point to another .. the simplest source made in this way is called a dipole (!) which is two monopoles of alternate phases.

See ripple tank http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm .. select 'dipole' in top right box and play about with distance between the monopoles. The waves correspond pretty well with the E (electrostatic) field of an electromagnetic wave. The two (spherical) 'monopole' fields interfere to produce the 'dipole' field (which is not spherical.).

If you started to think about it in QM terms you might notice one or two problems. I think the DSE is a better place for them wot have eyes to see it to observe and seek to understand these effects.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Edit .. I've just seen more posts made while I was having my tea .. sorry I hope this is still relevent. Bear in mind that EM is made up of gazillions of photons .. each one of which can do the interference thing all by itself (DSE .. wavefront m interferes with wavefront n) .

Laserlight

14th December 2006 - 06:47 PM

C2-

They are still "spherical" wavefronts being radiated. Even when the dipoles are
different distances apart the scattered wavefronts have a conical radiating shape.

Try overlapping the point charges with your mouse, which would show the
dipole from an "end on" point of observation.

Laserlight

14th December 2006 - 07:01 PM

Hi C2,

QUOTE

Bear in mind that EM is made up of gazillions of photons .. each one of which can do the interference thing all by itself (DSE .. wavefront m interferes with wavefront n) .

Only while interacting in the presence of matter. Photons cannot combine energy unless matter
is a catalyst to perform signal mixing. A single photon is a discrete quantum
energy package and remains so until matter interacts with it. A quantum photon
has no time or mass until the energy it is propagating is externally modified by
interacting with the phase modifying geometry of matter.

Case in point. Radio waves propagate and don't interact in free space. They
remain isolated. They can be discretely isolated in a tuner with all of their
original characteristics, even though many other frequencies are interacting
with the same antenna. If they were all interacting in free space we would only
hear noise from a tuner because they would lose their individual wave
and information characteristics.

jal

14th December 2006 - 07:51 PM

Good Day!
Quoting previous posts.

QUOTE

Case in point. Radio waves propagate and don't interact in free space. They remain isolated. They can be discretely isolated in a tuner with all of their
original characteristics, even though many other frequencies are interacting
with the same antenna. If they were all interacting in free space we would only
hear noise from a tuner because they would lose their individual wave
and information characteristics.

They are particle-like and spread particle-like.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

They are particle-like and spread particle-like.
...Bear in mind that EM is made up of gazillions of photons..

So you get the impression of an "expanding spheres".
That's why you should not use the "expanding spheres" concept. You end up having to renormalize because it does not work.
There are problems with both approaches as was explained in what I said "the must read" link from Troc.
So in the end I've focused on finding a mechanism that makes waves.
As a result my model treats photons as particle-like when going from emitter to receiver. Once inside the cavity (DSE) we get the "weirdness" which is caused by the "hidden/undetected (yet) structure.
jal

Confused2

14th December 2006 - 08:06 PM

Hi LL,

Looking here http://tpub.com/content/neets/14182/css/14182_186.htm (best I could find) .. we see a dipole doesn't radiate vertically .. this is an interference effect (not scattering) .. as in the ripple tank each end of the dipole IS radiating into that zone but they cancel out .. no way to get that back .. it's 'gone' .(but turns up as constructive interference in the horizontal plane). hence a dipole has a gain over a (theoretical) isotropic aerial.

As you say, mixing requires a non-linearity and air normally behaves linearly. I understand a Megadodo laser can drive air into a non-linear region but this is a rather exotic effect that doesn't normally happen. Interference is not the same as mixing.

Hope this makes sense ???

Best wishes,

-C2.

Confused2

14th December 2006 - 08:16 PM

Hi jal,

I'm going to get into trouble for this - bear in mind I'm not trying to steal souls here.

Have you considered the possibility that there might be a particle that naturally moves in a way that would allow you to mistake it for a wave .. if there were a lot of them you couldn't tell the difference .. only when you get them one at a time can you see what they're up to. If a single photon can interfere across its own Wn/ Wm wavefronts** then is it even a wave?

Thoughts/comments welcome.

-C2.

** do you see that happening in the DSE?

jal

14th December 2006 - 08:29 PM

Confused2

QUOTE

...only when you get them one at a time can you see what they're up to.

Good point and I have and I get the "weirdness".
As a result I can only come up with a possible explanation that requires info from CERN. I think that a lot of the answer is in the dynamics.
We have not figured or detected what is moving or how.
We cannot even describe a photon ... particle-like, wave-like, point-like.
That is why I'm interested in TRoc's approach.
jal

Laserlight

14th December 2006 - 09:30 PM

C2, Jal, and All,

IMO, a particle has mass (physical substance), energy does not. Energy is the
transport mechanism of a "force".

QUOTE

FORCE:
9. physics influence that moves something: a physical influence that tends to change the position of an object with mass, equal to the rate of change in momentum of the object.
Symbol F

How do you assign "mass" to the energy of a water wave, a sound wave,
a shock wave, a light wave. They are pure energy, not particles, but they do have
momentum, energy density, and propagate as a periodic energy cycle. Energy
waves "disturb" fixed matter by changing its "rest state" potential energy into
kinetic energy by disrupting the normal rest state energy level by temporaritly
adding energy to it.

Free energy propagates, matter does not. Matter relocates and can remain stationary. Matter can have many energy states, radiating free energy only has 1 state.

May the "Force" be with you!

Laserlight

14th December 2006 - 10:04 PM

C2,

QUOTE

Interference is not the same as mixing.

Definition of interference:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Interference is not the same as mixing.

Definition of interference:

6. physics process of wave interaction: a process in light-wave transmission in which two or more waves are superimposed in such a way that they produce higher peaks, lower troughs, or a new wave pattern

Definition of mix:

QUOTE

3. transitive verb make something by combining: to form or create something by combining separate ingredients

2. intransitive verb be combined: to become combined, or be capable of becoming combined

My contention is that interference only happens when matter is involved as
the mediator. Interference is not a spontaneous event. Interference is
the instantaneous superimposing of 2 or more signals such that they
saturate the ability of the detector to discriminate each separate signal
individually.

Case in point. The observable universe is filled with every frequency imaginable
yet, with technology, we are able to discriminate all radiating objects clearly by virtue of
filtering out or only passing certain frequencies which we want to observe.
The entire energy spectrum is radiating throughout space, yet we can selectively detect
those (within our technical ability) that we desire to, and they do not show signs of spontaneous
interference.

Conversely, without filtration to discriminate specific
frequencies, our eyes can only see the saturated energy patterns because we
don't have the frequency resolution necessary to see the infrared, ultraviolet,
radio waves, etc. that are also part of the entire radiation spectrum. Our physical
"detectors" (eyes) become saturated by all the energy in the visible spectrum that
is being received.

The mixing or interference takes place at the point of "detection" or transmission
but only when matter is the reaction catalyst.

Confused2

14th December 2006 - 10:19 PM

Hi LL,

Where did that come from?

Bit out of my depth here .. maybe help will arrive ..

I can only give it as I see it..

From here

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../releng.html#c1

we get the relationship between Energy (E) mass (m0) and momentum.(p)

We know (we're told it so it must be true) that photons have no mass so we get

E = sqrt( p^2 c^2 + 0)

E = pc

we don't need mass to have energy, just momentum.

From the photoelectric effect (probably) we know E = h f soo

hf = pc

gives p = hf/c

So the momentum of a photon is given by (frequency) x (Planck's constant)/(speed of light)

If we worked out the radiation pressure of an EM wave of a given frequency and intensity and then worked out how many photons are involved and the momentum of each photon .. we should get the same answer.

Radiation pressure..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

I have no idea whether or not this helps

????

Best wishes

-C2.

Laserlight

14th December 2006 - 10:39 PM

C2-

EXACTLY!

Once you are past the E=mc^2 equation, mass is not a part of the radiating
energy solution. Energy is a FORCE....it is not an entity.

Energy originates and ends in how it responds to the presence of matter.

Hope this helps.....LOL!

LL

jal

14th December 2006 - 11:01 PM

hehehe

Since this the season to be jolly... got to http://www.elfyourself.com/

jal

TRoc

15th December 2006 - 01:40 AM

Hi all,

Just a note: I am a very slow learner when it comes to computers. I swore the last time (#3 I think) that the "system" ate my post, that I would write all posts "offline" to prevent that. I got lazy, because it has been a long time since it happened, and this morning.. BAM!

A nice, full mornings' work, down the tubes!

So, I tried to respond, but "failed".

I will try again when I get some more time. (and patience!)

regards,

T.Roc

Laserlight

15th December 2006 - 01:56 AM

TRoc,
The same thing has happened to me repeatedly. You are correct. Write your
post using MSWord or copy what you write before you post it so you can
repost it again. I think the problem is that the link "times out" when you are
authoring it and doesn't reconnect. For long posts, definitely do them offline in
Word.

LL

Confused2

15th December 2006 - 11:58 AM

Hi LL,

QUOTE (LL+)

Energy originates and ends in how it responds to the presence of matter.

Clarification please ... from the LL (et al?) point of view the difference in path length does not explain the variation in the amount of energy reaching various points after the slits

? .. therefore it must be 'something else'

? If it is 'something else' then C2 must be barking up the wrong tree

?
????
Best wishes,
-C2.

yquantum

15th December 2006 - 02:31 PM

C2, Good Elf, LL, TR, "THEY" [hope you received the site?], jal, et al,

Good Elf, NO PROBLEM it is a nice feeling to be human, not sure you could ever offend me, well I am sure you could if you wanted, but not yet. BEST to you and family.

yquantum Got to go, have a great Holiday everyone....

yquantum

15th December 2006 - 02:45 PM

C2,

Let me read his post throughout the course of the day most likely during 'TEA', will get back with you and give you my humble opinion. Best to you and yours.

ciao_
y

Laserlight

15th December 2006 - 07:57 PM

Hi C2 and All,

QUOTE

Clarification please ... from the LL (et al?) point of view the difference in path length does not explain the variation in the amount of energy reaching various points after the slits ? .. therefore it must be 'something else' ? If it is 'something else' then C2 must be barking up the wrong tree ?

This is purely a speculative proposal on my part:

IMHO, TRoc's harmonic frequency mixing seems like the correct solution. I also
think that there are perhaps more subtleties involved with how the harmonics
are induced according to the phase relationships of the photons as they
interact with the geometry of the center post/slit(s) combinations, which changes their relative phase timing and energy relationship as they are "mixed".

What I am implying is that each photon enters the geometry of the slit(s) at a
different rotational phase angle in its 360 degree electro-magnetic propagation
rotational "cycle". Basically, each photon that enters that specific point in space is at a
different instantaneous phase angle. A photon could enter at a phase angle
of 0, 30, 45, 90, 180, 270 or any other portion of the 360 degree phase angle during
its phase "rotation". The photons "instantaneous" energy content, at that phase angle,
determines its new path trajectory after departing the mixing (doubling) vicinity of the slits.

I am proposing that its instantaneous phase angle is "doubled" (split) by the
resonating "mixing" action of the 2 slit/post geometry. Each 1/2 portion of the instantaneous phase angle is projected evenly on each side of the center energy point which represents
the + and - 90 degree high power points of the 360 degree electric field
sine wave phase relationship. This might explain the mirror symmetry on each side of
the projected center line of the single photon experiment. The projected centerline on the screen represents the postive and "negative" absolute values of
the full 360 degree sine wave.

The single slit waveform, of the single slit interference pattern (pulse), represents
the full wave 360 degree solution set of all phase angles. This is the absolute
values of the positive and negative 1/2's of the sine wave.

The double slit experiment doubles the number of solutions by splitting each 1/2
of the full sine wave on each side of the projected centerline. All values to the
left of the centerline represent the positive 1/2 of the sine wave and all values to
the right of the centerline represent the negative 1/2 of the sine wave.

As the phase timing signal that comes thru each slit is divided, and then recombined (mixed),
those instantaneous phase values that are "in phase" are constructively added,
those that are out of phase are destructively cancelled. Their relative
phase "timing" affects the dispersion and mixing. The phase timing is determined
by the geometry of the slit arrangement, which includes the individual slit width,
the gap spacing (center post) between the slits, and the wavelength of the
light.

JMHO. Other opinions, comments, disagreements, corrections, discussion
welcomed.

LL

jal

16th December 2006 - 12:02 AM

Hi Laserlight!
Maybe the calculation have already been done for this approach?
Since your approach involves dynamics, It might be possible to make a simulation as a particle-like photon bouncing around and "lighting up" the proper places.
( like a pin ball machine)

If not then it might shed some light on the debate of the "Afshar experiment "
See: http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
and
http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/rebel.html
jal

Good Elf

16th December 2006 - 01:36 AM

Hi Laserlight, Yquantum, Jal, Confused2, TRoc, "THEY", Fivedoughnut et al,

I would like to fall back on a defining moment in your thoughts please... If possible if you all answer this then you will get me for one on the same footing as yourselves. You all know just what I think on this matter already. I really do not want anyone having two cents either way, as part of your basic understanding of Physics, I want you to tell me what you actually really believe... what is the reality of your belief about our Universe.

Yquantum linked this page and it gives a highly illuminating view (philosophically at least but there is indeed much more for you to think about there too...) as to the nature of this problem .... deep down.

Yquantum said this... (being very careful this time and not being offensive and making a number of "ad libs"...

)...
Yquantum on Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later
There he referenced this page...
Does Light Exist Between Events?

I ask all my colleagues here that the basis of all sensible and sensate force in our Universe and the source of interference and resonance in your TV antenna and down into the realm of the sub-atomic... Does Light Exist Between Events? Really are there any waves at all? That is of light itself...

Please read this and tell me your thoughts so I may see how much people deny the reality of the quantum having and being our "universal" existence. Perhaps what you are saying is you also do not exist?... Is this the case since all perceived solidity and forces in the universe come from the photon and all light and the persistence of nature our World and the events around us may all be a dream? Just do not drift off into "Universes simply created inside a Computer" somewhere as the ultimate explanation for our reality since that merely shifts the problem from "our Universe" to another for the reality?

Then what you have accepted is this...

Nothing anywhere else in our Universe to describe it... or in any other universe either. Tell me this is so! No mechanism, no thing to connect events and underneath our spacetime .... if we were to make an incision ... still nothing??? This OK with you?

I do not want to hear about "particles" either since there are none between events... at least no quantum acceptance of them in that interval. No descriptions to cover this situation so in the end no Physics either... Right!

Cheers

Laserlight

16th December 2006 - 03:40 AM

Hi Good Elf and All,

I'm not sure if you were addressing me directly or soliciting comments from everyone.

I will read what you requested and comment accordingly, however I am
perplexed at the ambiguity of what you are actually asking for. Please
clarify what you are asking as a direct question(s) and I will try to address
specific issues.

I think the underlying complexity of the problems/questions about how the dual
slit experiment "works" must be addressed individually but, when assembled
sequentially/serially, must give an accurate accounting and proper solution.
There are many variables in the experiment. Perhaps not all of them have
been accounted for. Each DSE experiment that has been presented yielded the
same basic "cursory" classical summary of results, but there was no "in depth"
detailed analysis provided to describe or model events transpiring at the micro
level.

Each "interaction point" (variables) of the experiment must be analyzed and
conceptually described to insure an accurate and complete "story" in the sequence
of events. The "story" must always result in the same predictable ending,
once the variables and interactions are correctly modeled. The results must also
pass "peer" review and provide correct answers to newly posed questions.

Best Regards,
LL

Nick

16th December 2006 - 03:47 AM

SO SCIENCE IS UNCERTAIN OF SOME THINGS.
"GOD DOES NOT PLAY DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE."

WHAT WE KNOW ONLY THE ODDS OF GOD KNOWS THE OUTCOME.

RMC

16th December 2006 - 04:30 AM

Nick your mind is so open - so open that ideas simply pass through it. Do you just say stupid stuff to get your post count up or do you enjoy annoying people. Why don't you just go to a forum where people talk about god and all that stuff, but all you are doing here is start arguments. I have no problem with people believing in god but when all you do is end a scientific debate by saying something stupid then when you have been proved wrong say something about god that we can obviously not prove wrong, and even if we do you will go "GOD MADE IT". And please stop with the caps, just stop there is no reason.

Nick

16th December 2006 - 04:44 AM

ATHEISTS DON'T BELONG IN SCIENCE.

RMC

16th December 2006 - 04:55 AM

Everyone belongs in science, except those who choose not to believe it.

Laserlight

16th December 2006 - 04:57 AM

Nick,

Nietzsche was right.

Good Elf

16th December 2006 - 06:11 AM

Hi Laserlight,

This applies to everyone and none. It is simply a question to see if we understand what it is we are believing. If people do not want to put their point of view as Nick seems to be doing, they are not compelled to think or to do anything at all. I am only interested in people who are thinking for themselves, not delegating that responsibility to other authorities...

Throughout this discussion you seem to be pretty open to ideas. We do not need to agree on any particular topic but as an elf I feel compelled to challenge peoples beliefs in some way. There are some who are forthright in challenging much established authority. I do not say they are entirely right but at least in Australian terms they are "having a go". Take for instance the recent article on New Scientist on Brian Josephson, you might call him a crank but he has that "gong" to hang around his neck to tilt at all the windmills he wants now.

I will quote a little from a respected source but I wonder if you will respect him after this?? I will include only about 50% of this article on account of copyright but you should all read 100% of it

QUOTE (excerpt from issue 2581 of New Scientist magazine+ 09 December 2006, page 56-57)

Did your Nobel prize allow you to investigate areas that are off-limits for other scientists?

It meant I was free to explore, and people felt less able to say "you can't work on that". However, I have had problems with getting funding for collaboration because of the areas I've chosen to work in.

You have become an advocate for unconventional ideas. How did that happen?

I went to a conference where the French immunologist Jacques Benveniste was talking for the first time about his discovery that water has a "memory" of compounds that were once dissolved in it - which might explain how homeopathy works. His findings provoked irrationally strong reactions from scientists and I was struck by how badly he was treated. To an extent, I realised that the way science is done by consensus could get things completely wrong. I feel that it's important to try and correct the errors that scientists are making.

What errors are these?

I call it "pathological disbelief". The statement "even if it were true I wouldn't believe it" seems to sum up this attitude. People have this idea that when something can't be reproduced every time, it isn't a real phenomenon. It is like a religious creed where you have to conform to the "correct" position. This leads to editors blocking the publication of important papers in academic journals. Even the physics preprint archive blocks some papers on certain topics, or by certain authors.

Do you believe that cold fusion and the memory of water are real, or are you just open to the idea of their being real?

In both cases there is evidence that makes me accept them as almost certainly real. They're probably connected with aspects of organisation that are difficult to deal with in the usual scientific way. I'm pushing in that direction. I look very carefully at things before I accept them as real.

You draw the line in a very different place to most scientists when it comes to hard-to-prove phenomena such as telepathy and cold fusion.

Can I take you up on something? These things are not hard to prove, they're just hard to get accepted. The evidence for these phenomena would normally lead to them being accepted, but they have an additional barrier in that they are "unacceptable" and often unpublishable. Some people are extraordinarily hard to convince. In particular, people who work in an area in which the phenomena are highly reproducible cannot envisage situations such as cold fusion where - as in many areas of materials science - things are not that reproducible. They take the illegitimate step from "hard to reproduce" to "non-existent". Science is often presented as an objective pursuit, but the history of science tells you that this is far from being the case.

Do you mean that scientists cannot accept these phenomena because it would ruin their view of the world?

It would mean an admission of error. Instead, sceptics can always say that there must have been something wrong with these experiments. This means that you can never really prove anything, and a sceptic doesn't actually have to discover anything wrong to dismiss an experiment.

Is this why you've posted the motto "take nobody's word for it" at the top of your website?

Yes. And the corollary of this motto is that if most scientists denounce an idea, this should not necessarily be taken as proof that the idea is absurd. It seems that anything goes among the physics community - cosmic wormholes, time travel - just so long as it keeps its distance from anything mystical or New Age-ish.

There are lots of pointers towards strange things, such as the quantum interconnectedness of entangled particles, but physicists are very prickly about them, saying you shouldn't read anything into these results. There are in fact a lot of scientists who believe telepathy exists, but they keep quiet about it.

Why do you speak out about these things when you know it causes difficulties for your own research career?

They are important for various reasons. For example, cold fusion may contribute significantly to solving the problem of generating clean energy. Had it not been ridiculed back in 1989, we'd probably all now be using energy generated by cold fusion. So it's really important to speed up the process. I reckon that cold fusion will be accepted in the next year or so.

Profile
Brian Josephson was awarded a Nobel prize for work on superconductivity he carried out as a 22-year-old graduate student at the University of Cambridge. The Josephson junction, which has many scientific and technical applications, is the legacy of this research. Today he leads the Mind-Matter Unification Project at the University of Cambridge (www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10).

Please forgive this excerpt but I think this is important that all are able to understand where some thinkers are being thwarted by convention and by something that is not that scientific when it comes down to it.

No obligations but I entreat all of you to think about your own stance carefully and to not be a "paradox in your own mind".

Cheers

fivedoughnut

16th December 2006 - 06:16 AM

Well stated oh wise Elf ..... appeals to my crank sensibilities.

Laserlight

16th December 2006 - 06:20 AM

Good Elf,

QUOTE

as part of your basic understanding of Physics, I want you to tell me what you actually really believe... what is the reality of your belief about our Universe.

My "beliefs/opinions" (and they are subject to change...): Call me "old fashioned"!

1. The universe is finite and infinite, because it warps back on itself. My personal
opinion is that the universe is an electro-magnetic based energy "entity", and
all "discrete" forms of energy follow the same fundamental EM rules or universal
EM constants. It is a matter of scaling.

2. At the atomic level, all matter has its basis in the "evolution" of the primordial
hydrogen atom thru nuclear conversion. ( I won't touch fundamental particles,
because I don't understand enough about them)

3. The "fundamental" frequency of the universe has its roots in the oscillating
EM frequency of the primordial hydrogen atom.

4. There is an "aether", it is the cosmic microwave background radiation and
serves as a "conduit" for the transfer of all free EM energy (photons) in the vacuum of space. All higher levels of energy are "superimposed" on some lower level of "carrier" energy.

5. Absolute zero temperature is an impossibility due to the influence of ubiquitous
background IR radiation.

6. Gravity is the result of the concentrated "available" energy of mass. Mass
"radiates" energy. The greater the mass the greater the amount of energy
it "radiates". The displacement (radiation) of energy produces a counter
force (backwash) which is gravity. They are inversely proportional.
(my unscientific opinion)

7. The "big bang" was a change of energy states, cause unknown. Energy
"morphed", perhaps inter-dimensionally, perhaps electromagnetically.

8. Light propagates, as a higher form of EM radiation, along the "ubiquitous"
ambient (lower) EM energy fields that exist everywhere. Energy fields act as
a "conduit" for other energy fields. The interaction of those fields are
self sustaining. (Think of superimposing/modulating signals on top of one another.)

Maybe a bit unconventional....

fivedoughnut

16th December 2006 - 06:33 AM

LL,

Hey a bit unconventional (excellent

) ... Have a look at my weird hotchpotch of ideas, some I believe good and others crap:
Spacial Vacuoles

Nick

16th December 2006 - 07:01 AM

Atheists don't belong in science.

Laserlight

16th December 2006 - 07:04 AM

Hi Fivedonut,

Not sure that I quite understand your interpretation of vacuoles?

Perhaps a better description is low energy points in the universal energy field
density or EM field "dislocations".

Branes are an interdimensional "membrane" or dimensional "junction"?
Couldn't they be interpreted as intersections of EM energy fields?

Just asking. I'm not much into string theories since I'm "locked" into a
4D universe. Imagination is a wonderful thing, but reality can be measured.

Regards,
LL

jal

16th December 2006 - 03:22 PM

Good Elf and all!

The bottom line..... I don't know! .... I'm still looking.

Many great minds have looked into the abyst .... some have gone in and never returned.
What can be found at the edge of the abyst are some gems of truth mixed with the isms, para, psudos, mystics, magic etc.
I have pointed out the gems that I found. (my model)
TRoc is working on an other gem. (harmony)

Your link to Does Light Exist Between Events does not further our ability to make a search.
It removes all distances and all space.
It removes your "expanding spheres".
It removes all "connecting" forces.
It removes all approaches to find out how the universe is made.
It removes ALL.
jal

Confused2

16th December 2006 - 03:23 PM

Hi LL,

Metaphor. Everything is a metaphor.

Just because you open the bottle doesn't mean you have to drink all of it. (OK this may not be true in practice but I'm trying to establish a principle )

Two slits .. one equation .. find the best metaphor .. that's all.

Going back to your post here..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=154926

There is clearly a bit of a problem with the meaning of mixing/adding. I get the impression that when you hold your hand like this it means a linear superposition and when you hold your hand like that it means a non-linear process .. and when your hand waves (like this) .. it means something else. We only see what you write .. not what your hand is doing. If you ADD two waves of the same frequency and phase you get a bigger one of the same frequency and if you add them out of phase you get a smaller one (or nothing) of the same frequency. LL 'mixing' (hand doing this) remains undefined.

Setting up the ripple tank ( http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm )
'Double slit' .. make new slits as far apart as possible (so wonderful!) .. stretch the tank as far as possible and select maximum frequency. We see (hopefully) the classic DSE result.

Classically (I think) we'd say the wavefront hits the barrier with the two slits in .. the two slits act as spreading points for the wave on the other side of the barrier and we get constructive/destructive interference (addition/cancellation) where the difference in paths length is a whole/half wavelength.

Moving on to the LL description..

The photon is split into to halves of opposite phase by the slits .. if one half goes through there are a gazillion places for the other half to go which don't include the other slit so maybe some clarification is required. The ripple tank suggests that what spreads from the slits is roughly in phase .. but this is a minor point. Randomness in introduced at the slit. After the slit we have hands here mixing. One of the more difficult points to understand seems to be that the bright bits are not just where the path lengths are the same .. that would be one bright bit in the centre. There are bright bits where the path lengths differ by an integer number of wavelengths .. one half of the LL photon has travelled say N wavelegths in time time t and then mixes (hands here) with the other half that has travelled a different number of wavelengths in the same amount of time. Clarification of this process requested.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Ripple tank..
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm

Aerohead

16th December 2006 - 04:19 PM

Thank you, Good Elf, for your continued thoughts on this subject and for your pointings to further readings. Very delightful ! All things considered, it occurs to me that we are indeed lucky - in a way - to HAVE to finally confront these problems in physics, to wit : the random probabilities of QM which are seemingly inherent in the Universe AND to the metaphysical barrier of measuring single, fundamental entities with single entities thereby losing information. We are SO used to inferring literal continuity in all things and as Jim Walker points out, we simply can't see - and therefore can't imply - that a photon exists in flight. Conundrum on top of conundrum ! And yet, in the limit of fundamental entities, are we so surprised that the Universe agrees with metaphysical uncertainty ?

Nonetheless, as things scale up and become larger physical systems, we are able to imply the apparent existence of continuity. And it's a good thing, too, isn't it ! As I look at my cup of coffee (now that my power is back on where I live in the Northwest and those electrons are moving according to QM), I keep asking : Is it still there ? Is it still there ? ... And I imagine the sum of all difficult-to-predict events leading to the continuum mechanics in which I am trained and am embedded.

The mystery of how the transition occurs from the unpredictable to the predictable must be as interesting as Quantum Mechanics. ~Jim

jal

16th December 2006 - 05:24 PM

Good Day Confused2
I keep playing with Ripple tank..
http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm
If I was a student wanting to work with the "wave formulas", then this would give me a good visual representation of what is happening.
It even visualizes the problems that we are discussing.
I cannot find an inspiration.
I'm still searching for understanding of the "weirdness".
jal

Good Elf

16th December 2006 - 06:06 PM

Hi Laserlight, Yquantum, Jal, Confused2, Aerohead, TRoc, "THEY", Fivedoughnut et al,

That is interesting about your beliefs and thanks for your input Confused2 and Jal. Also the input by Aerohead. But what about
Does Light Exist Between Events?
That page tells me more about what you "really" think about all those issues you have raised.

How "real" is this Universe and where does everything "go" when we are not looking at them? Were they ever there in the first place? There really is no particle description when there are no interactions. Yet it is absolutely necessary to have those particles having some independent existence in order to calculate these interactions in the first place. In between events particles were formerly one place and now they are at another... do they go there by "magic" or do "fairies" carry them there? Suddenly, "by slight of hand" out of sight the particle is just where we now want it and it "collapses" from a "superposition of states" which are waves of "nothing" to become 'something"... the particles interacting.

When it becomes necessary to call attention to the fact that a "trick" has been performed, everyone cries "foul" and say I am the one to blame in trying to discover this trick. Good magicians admit a trick and within their guilds they will eventually reveal them. Scientists owe their "audience" more than this... Our belief systems and even our very religions would cut us all down if a "foul" was detected.

Quantum Theorists have couched the problem in a fashion that puts them in a very favorable light but they themselves never state that this really is the ultimate outcome of the linguistic or semantic trap. They have reduced the problem to one that cannot be solved by human argument. It is like the age old question "Answer yes or no... are you still beating your wife?" Well and good if you are the one asking the question but not so good if you must answer it. Turn this problem around and ask the Quantum Mechanist what does he believe about the world and he can them have 2 cents either way and the problem can never be answered by way of experiment since no experiment is enough to disprove this proposition.

I am "compelled" to say that I firmly believe matter is just what we call the interaction of virtual photons in the context of "particle fields", what you "feel" when you press your fingers together is almost 100% electromagnetic in origin and has noting to do with "solidity" in any abstract sense. When I am pushed I will say there are no such things as particles, but there are fields. This is because between "events" involving particles Quantum Mechanics has no description of the particle, if there was a description that would be called Bohmian Mechanics.

We have "quantum interference" or the "quantum superposition of states" ... when pushed this is the same entity as "optical interference" except this is for particles and we use probability instead of Electromagnetic Waves. But as Yquantum has said these are waves of "nothing". I tend to agree with that idea since it is little different from my own theories and I must admit while I "believe " that space is filled with a geometric property that varies "something" in the space in which things exist I am not able to hang my beanie on it! There is nothing actually "marked out in space" and what is there really relates the "beginnings" and the "outcomes" to the space it is inhabiting. This is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. The instant in time can even be spatially re-entrant.

I see a picture of what I am trying to convey and these represent "solutions" to psi squared in space. The numbers are time independent and the patterns are the same as the ones Schrodinger would associate with "probability"... yet this is like "dusting for prints". You must fill the space with something before you can see the pattern...

Confused2 has understood the problem but asks..

QUOTE (Confused2+)

Two slits .. one equation .. find the best metaphor .. that's all.

Going back to your post here..
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=154926

There is clearly a bit of a problem with the meaning of mixing/adding. I get the impression that when you hold your hand like this it means a linear superposition and when you hold your hand like that it means a non-linear process .. and when your hand waves (like this) .. it means something else. We only see what you write .. not what your hand is doing. If you ADD two waves of the same frequency and phase you get a bigger one of the same frequency and if you add them out of phase you get a smaller one (or nothing) of the same frequency. LL 'mixing' (hand doing this) remains undefined.

We are dealing with two questions when we are speaking in these terms. A circularly polarized wave can be considered as two plane polarized waves with a 90 degree phase difference and a plane polarized wave can be considered as a two opposite circularly polarized waves. This does not mean they are two separate waves but only one wave with two ways we can consider the intrinsic spin. This is isospin. A quick totting up of interior dimensions indicate 6 dimensions for a wave that can spin in all these ways at once. For a photon to self interfere and to be self reentrant and form standing waves the "patter" is just more complicated if you want to understand it...
Optical Activity and Light Polarization
The internal spin quanta do really exist on the action space of the surface of a sphere and it is truly higher dimensional. These patterns are the projections we have when we take a six dimensional object and project it into only thee dimensions. Check out Isospin it is most certainly a spin since it can cause the physical spin of particles but it is certainly NOT planar spin when considered in its pure essence. The wave motion of electromagnetism is actually a spin in higher dimensions and that is why it conforms to the Complex Maths of Euler's Equations. It is not a simple "undulation". We have discussed this all before.

Then there is all these quantum interferences which I want to deal with as realistic phenomena and yet every starting point in space for a quanta and every exit point in a fixed cavity will have different standing waves even at he one frequency. These standing wave patterns are unique and calculable as you can see in the simplified case of a double slit. The truth is if you have ever been inside a camera obscura (I have) what you find is the viewer becomes part of what is being viewed because "the box" is not empty with you in it. You are a new emitter-absorber. The simplified double slit experiment is a similar "box" in which objects inside distort the image on the screen. This is even when you are not standing in the way of the direct beams. Your very presence does "stuff" to the internal space. The addition of additional "sources" or "sinks" inside the cavity really does have a direct though subtle influence. Test this yourself if you like. C2's simplified double slit equation will not adjust for that but it is a measurable influence. If you really want an answer to the double slit you must account for all of it and that includes the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment.

The difference between the camera obscura and the double slit is only of degree... the double slit's physical shape and the superposition of two Fraunhofer Diffraction "slits" correlated patterns of the one source. You are easily able to replace the slits with tiny apertures, each one an ideal Fraunhofer "source". The lines on the back screen are replaced with the same lines in the direction of the separation on the front apertures but Airy disks in the direction perpendicular to the separation. Of course our Universe in reality is filled with a great many "sources" some are correlated and others are not.

I was taken by the very interesting paper that Confused2 presented recently...
On the role of Planck’s oscillator in the construction of Heisenberg’s mechanics: Budh Ram
I liked what he was saying and I was able to follow a bit of the discussion. It drew me to this reference...
http://xray1.physics.sunysb.edu/~jacobsen/...51f2006/l10.pdf
By Professor Chris Jacobsen. A quick read will convince you that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was arrived at via "semi-classical" means. Translation... Quantum Theory is not really a quantum theory but a continuum theory...

Maybe this reference as well...
MATRIX REVOLUTIONS THE ORIGIN OF QUANTUM VARIABLES: EDWARD G. EFFROS

The argument about the nature of the quantum is the same argument about the nature of "Earth and Hades". Here are two separate realms where passage one way is easy and the other way is hard. At the doors to Hades is Cerberus who will not let any denizens of Hades leave but will happily allow any to venture into the "pit" unopposed wagging its tail happily. The cleaver "subterranean traveler" offers Cerberus a "sop" when he wants to leave... a trifle like a cake or a bun and Cerberus will allow a denizen of the nether world to leave while it munches on the "sacrifice". Our world and our Universe is a closed energy system like Hades.However the barrier may be passed if you offer an appropriate "gift" to that which bars our way... a "sop" if you will of "resonance". The quantum exits our Universe and its dimensions not without some special conditions. The return is "easy" through quantum demolition.

Is it Cerberus with its three heads or is it the Angel of Death with its shining sword that turns in all directions that guards the way back to Eden? "The lamb was laid upon the altar, and fire flashed from the shining sword of the cherubim guarding the way to the Tree of Life, and the sacrifice was consumed." and "So he drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." Or is this the legend of the sword Excalibur and of Arthur? He he he! There is always a little truth hidden among our legends. Anyone coming with me... this is a prison break and I am about to bribe the Jailer?

Cheers

fivedoughnut

16th December 2006 - 06:36 PM

QUOTE (Laserlight+Dec 16 2006, 07:04 AM)

Ahoy LL,

A vacuole is simply what I call a closed n-dimensional wave trap; the wave propagates from high to zero dimensionality and visa versa via the 'magic' of event reversal tachyonics, courtesy of endo event horizon transit; the membrane is visualized as the wavefront in this process.

Imagine that our universe is a such a wavefront inhabited by innumerous children resulting from parental 'decay', creating matter with every singularity condensation. We look at the universe .... it appears huge .... well it would indeed from the singularity's perspective, as it looks through hyperspace via photons that are carried, embedded on there own parental wavefronts ( electrons). This is how I see the multiverse, one big family, existing eternally.

.... how very sweet 5-D

Laserlight

16th December 2006 - 06:56 PM

Hi C2-

Signal mixing......adding.......same thing. The result can be positive or negative.

Perhaps I was too ambiguous, not plain spoken enough.

I'm suggesting that photons enter the cavities of the slits at different point of
their sine wave rotational phase. The reason being that they are generated by
different atoms, with a different discrete distance between their origin and the
slits. This means their time of flight along the flight path to the slits is different,
and their "phase" upon entering the slits is also different.

Different phase angles also suggests a different "amplitude" power level
at the instantaneous point of entry into the cavity. Upon entering the cavity,
considering that each photon is at some different point in its sine wave phase,
there is interference induced by the geometry of the cavity. How they add
constructively and destructively past this point depends upon the phase angle
at which they entered the slits. Where their energy lands on the screen
depends upon which part of the sine wave cycle they were in.

In a single cavity we normally see this as simple diffraction interference since there are
phase shift distortions introduced by the slit cavity. The distorted sine wave
energy is trying to reassemble (mix) to maintain the perfect phase relationship of all components of the sine wave, but there has been a phase shift (delay) to part
of the wave energy. The component parts (phases) of the sine wave either
add or cancel according to their phase relationship as they disperse past the slit.

The centerline of the waveform on the screen is the 2D representation of the
distorted sine wave.
User posted image

In the 2 slit argument, photons still arrive at different phase angles, but now
the results are doubled.
User posted image

2 slits

Some references:

Phase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_%28waves%29

instantaneous phase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instantaneous_phase

Instantaneous frequency:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instantaneous_frequency

Nothing up my sleeve!

jal

16th December 2006 - 07:22 PM

Laserlight
With our inputs ... something/better understanding may come out of what we are saying.
Good Elf

QUOTE

Anyone coming with me... this is a prison break and I am about to bribe the Jailer?

Warning! ... Arrange your affairs first ... find a cult or ism to take care of your corporal need and those of your loved ones ... preferably one which will try to interpret your babbling as inspirations.
You will be a burden to those left behind.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Anyone coming with me... this is a prison break and I am about to bribe the Jailer?

The only thing that you will have as an acceptable bribe will be your sanity.

I recommend staying HERE and evaluating the gems that have already been discovered.
Going down YOUR probability path without investigating the other paths cannot yield substantive rewards for THOSE LEFT BEHIND.

Be a good boy... Open your mouth and eat this piece of bread. ("sop" )
jal

Laserlight

16th December 2006 - 07:40 PM

Hi GE and All,

The article titled "Does Light Exist Between Events" was interesting, but seemed
to ignore other, similar, natural phenomena. I could use the same argument
that he used with light but replace light with sound. We can't see sound either,
as it makes its way from source to detector, but that doesn't mean it propagated
across a distance without actually "existing" in some form in time and space.
A shadow cast upon a wall doesn't have real form, but it was projected from a
source of origin and arrived and was detected at a point in time....I think you see
my point.

Philosophical arguments are great for expanding our inner "depth" or
comprehension to explore alternatives, but they really never solve anything.
They are meant to stimulate the concept of "possibilities". The difficulty is
separating the possible from the impossible and assigning reality in the
form of "absolute" solutions.

Regards,
LL

Confused2

16th December 2006 - 08:12 PM

Aerohead .. Welcome!

LL,

I agree to a local definition of 'mixing' as being the same as (vector addition) .. no new frequencies generated. If we want to suggest that new frequencies are involved we'll have to find a new word (later).

So we explain single photon interference using two photons. Novel. I'm tempted to write 'Next'..

Looking at the drawing you reproduced we can see that there is a phase difference introduced by the difference in path length. If the phase relationship between the inputs at the two slits was random thare would be no dark bits .. for every phase cancellation due to path length there would be a phase addition due to a compensating phase mismatch of the two inputs.

A wave that is more than 360 degrees phase shifted ahead or behind another is normally considered 'out of range' for interference .. the one has already happened before the other gets there .. if you see what I mean. A phase shift of 360 degrees corresponds to a time shift of T where T=1/f. In the DSE We certainly observe interference where the phase shift is many wavelengths (time difference is many T's).... and if the time difference is many T's for the same source then the propagation speed of the 'whatever' is clearly not as well defined (eg not 'c') as we might have liked it to be. This (and other points) fall into the category of that which is (still) to be explained.

GE.. response will follow

jal .. I share your doubts/worries.

Best wishes,

-C2

fivedoughnut

16th December 2006 - 08:16 PM

QUOTE (jal+Dec 16 2006, 07:22 PM)

Good Elf

Warning! ... Arrange your affairs first ... find a cult or ism to take care of your corporal need and those of your loved ones ... preferably one which will try to interpret your babbling as inspirations.
You will be a burden to those left behind.

The only thing that you will have as an acceptable bribe will be your sanity.

I'm with Good Elf; might get shot in the back by those damn guards ..... but basically I feel he's on the righteous path.

Nick

16th December 2006 - 08:58 PM

Gravity isn't an energy field. Energy is conserved in gravity. Gravity is curvature in spacetime around massdensity. It is also spatial acceleration.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --

Aerohead

16th December 2006 - 09:25 PM

Hello all,

I continue to be intrigued with all points of view here. QM talks a lot about electrons and photons but I haven't seen much discussion of late about the electric "field" except that some physicists now model it as an exchange of virtual photons between charged particles. Personally, I keep coming back to this over and over. I'm waiting with baited breath at what Good Elf is going to show us in that regard. This, coming from an aerodynamicist permanently enamored with potential functions who really doesn't want to give up the classical view of fields, waves and how they interact with particles. But I'm willing to....kind of like the way particles in a gas know what every other particle is doing through the transmission of Mach waves...(probably a bad analogy).

You use a nylon comb in a low humidity environment and it's then full of spare electrons sitting around, doing what ? exchanging virtual photons with other charged particles some distance from it ? Why are the photons "virtual" ? We were always taught that the "field" was real. And you can model it analogously to sources and sinks in aerodynamic flow. It's always seemed to me that quanta are more associated with the electron than with light as so many have persuasively argued lately that radio photons / waves are no different than light photons / waves but with nearly infinitely variable possible frequencies corresponding to no electron states. This surely must suggest that the "field" is really "something" just sitting there staring at us !

If the field IS real, do we have an understanding of IT ?? I think not. If we can't correctly model "q" and it's field-like (and quantum-like) behavior, how the heck can we understand the photon ? I'm less surprised about the results of the double slit experiment in all its variations than I am in my complete lack of understanding of electric fields, i.e., charge. From my limited understanding, I say QM needs a better theory of charge.

Laserlight

16th December 2006 - 11:05 PM

Nick,

QUOTE

Gravity isn't an energy field. Energy is conserved in gravity.[Gravity is curvature in spacetime around massdensity. It is also spatial acceleration.

Pretty general and ambiguous statements, IMO. Care to elaborate on your comments?

My contentions:

Considering invariant mass at rest:

Since E = mc^2

m = E/c^2

so, mass = energy

-Mass is matter (balanced energy).
-Matter is composed of charged particles/fields (energy).
-Energy is conserved in mass.
-Mass density exhibits gravity, therefore gravitational force is a direct function of
the concentration of energy per volume.

Wikipedia, Mass

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Gravity isn't an energy field. Energy is conserved in gravity.[Gravity is curvature in spacetime around massdensity. It is also spatial acceleration.

1. The centerline point of maximum radiation from a spherical surface is also the point of maximum gravitational attraction to any gravitational mass along the
same centerline.

2. Gravity follows the ISL. The further from the source of gravity (mass) the
lower the pull of gravity. The pull of gravity decreases over distance, so does
energy density, so energy and gravity have a relationship.

3. The denser the matter the more energy it contains, the more energy it contains
the higher its gravitational attraction.

4. Mass is concentrated energy. A dense sphere radiates gravity evenly around
its circumference. The "warp" is a plot of the mass acceleration over distance.
Time is warped as a function of the instaneous acceleration along the plotted
curve, since time is relative to acceleration.

QUOTE

Energy is conserved in gravity.

Doesn't that infer that energy and gravity have a direct relationship?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curved_spacetime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Laserlight

16th December 2006 - 11:44 PM

Hello Aerohead,

We've had atomic point charge discussions in the past, perhaps prior to your
becoming involved with this board.

I agree, EM fields are the basis of the universe. Therein lies the paradox.
In order for there to be EM fields, there must be charged matter to generate the
fields. They coexist because of, and inspite, of one another. A complementary
Ying-Yang relationship.

Applets for electrostatic/electric fields:

http://www.falstad.com/vector3de/

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~phys1/java/phy...eld/EField.html

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/waves...s/wavpart3.html

http://www.falstad.com/emstatic/

Regards,
LL

Good Elf

16th December 2006 - 11:52 PM

Hi Laserlight, Yquantum, Jal, Confused2, Aerohead, TRoc, "THEY", Fivedoughnut et al,

Don't worry this is not the Heaven's Gate Away Team here... Elves only like to lighten up a little once in a while. Very serious minded Physicists call the this "The Holy Grail" of Physics, we can indulge ourselves as well. I do not like that other analogy the "Theory of Everything" thus we have the Big TOE of Physics... Yuk!

Virtual Photons arise in Quantum Mechanics to connect events together. They are particle descriptions. There is nothing "virtual" about them if you have ever tried to separate two powerful magnets... he he he! Same with static charges. Forces are indeed involved. The old way to explain these entities was the electrostatic field. Any attempt to "see" these photons will fail since they are "evanescent". The discussion here has tended to neglect this approach. Here is one description of them by a university I have used in the past.

QUOTE

Virtual photons

The electron and nucleon interact by the electromagnetic force, the carrier of this is the virtual photon as has different properties to ordinary photons. Take for example two electrons. These repel each other due to the electromagnetic force, we say that there is a mediator or exchange particle which is transferred between them, the photon. If one imagines two ice skaters facing each other and one throws a ball to the other person both skaters will move apart, just as two electrons would repel each other.

When delving inside the proton (or neutron) it is not the electron which actually 'probes' the nucleon but the photon. An electron gives some of its energy (and so loses some of its momentum) to the photon. The more momentum which is transferred to the photon, the more energy it has and so the shorter the wavelength of the photon. One can imagine that a longer wavelength photon will only 'see' the whole nucleon and so be elastically scattered, but for shorter wavelength photons it can 'see' the constituents of the nucleon, the quarks inside. This is why physicists want to build larger and larger accelerators, so that they can see more and more of the structure of particles.
Virtual Photons - University of Oxford

The description of an electron or the topological photon here is a stringy interpretation where this interpretation is describing a particle's inner fields.
Here is a single electron in a Bohr Orbit...
user posted image

Notice that due to internal self interference it spreads internally as a electromagnetic wave. What we try and do is to treat this dynamic entity as a single tiny billiard ball. This in some respects could also be a photon but please understand this is not a photon but an electron in a Bohr Orbit. The evanescent waves from a particle or a photon can interact with the environment but because we are talking about quanta not electric fields they are unable to dissipate.
The basic theory for optics is to be found collected in this reference...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=140563
These Huygens reconstructions cannot capture the complexity of "interferences"...

Individual photons can be virtual or real and they are the force carriers in our Universe. The lower the frequency the source the longer the wavelength as given by de Broglie's relationships..
$user posted image$
This relationship shows a connection with Einsteins Special Relativity, only this is the "low" velocity end of special relativity. It has been discussed in this thread previously. Photons "wrap" along a short dimension in higher dimensional space this is perpendicular to our space and is therefore "dynamically separate".
That is why it is called Geometrodynamics. In a "slogan"...
JA Wheeler said...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

I frequently quote from this reference...
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?:J.G. Williamson(a) and M.B. van der Mark(

another useful link is ...

QUOTE

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

These are supposed to show in lower dimensions what a potential higher dimensional model may be able to do. If we accept higher dimensions then we can fit the model to the real world and this charge is now easily demonstrated. This is quite easily shown in the near field of transmitters or other resonators where it develops static charges that are the result of topological electromagnetic fields. This is not in dispute what is in dispute is that this is the primary source of all charge... even the charges on a plastic come rubbed with fur. The electron. all this is only suggestive since "proof" is dependent on acceptance of "physics or quantum realism" which Quantum Physicists do not accept and on which they are not going to budge.

I am simply illustrating to everyone that if you reject "quantum realism" it leads to internal self inconsistency. It can even be seen in what Richard Feynman said about his own theories...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=147909
Read this reference here fully to see an arguement.

Now I realize this is complex but the Universe is complex, you need a working theory before we can all see the "simple Tee Shirt Slogan" or utter the "soundbyte" everyone yearns for. What I am saying is those "icons" do not mean that the user has any understanding of the process than if they were wearing a slogan that said 'Colarado" or "Amanti". At present there are really no practical theories and mine comes closest to being testable.

If you want a "Tee Shirt Slogan" you can use one that already exists... Maxwell's Laws and Special Relativity and that just about covers it ... including Gravity when you add in AdS/CFT expressed in "reciprocal space". The details get a little messy when we start on the "Holographic Universe".

Cheers

Aerohead

17th December 2006 - 12:57 AM

Good Elf, I think I'll go back to just reading this thread with great anticipation !

The problem I have (among others) is perhaps with the confusing terminology of "virtual photon" when QM physicists really mean "charge carrier" that carries force as opposed to electromagnetic "photons," oscilating particles that carry momentum. It's these charge carriers - these "virtual" particles (as a way of looking at things) - that I just don't get as a way of modeling the classical, static electrical field. So, you got enough of them and they look like a field. Whoa. There sure must a heck of alot of them flying out saying "Hey, baby, come closer !" or, "Hey you, go away!" depending on whose looking. Is there a probabilistic "Charge Carier Mechanics" similar to Quantum Mechancis for these guys? Please don't answer. I'm sure one of these days I'll get it if I just keep reading and thinking about it. ~Jim

Nick

17th December 2006 - 01:05 AM

CURVATURE ISN'T ENERGY.

Good Elf

17th December 2006 - 03:15 AM

Hi Aerohead,

Regarding virtual photons... the exchange of energy process is very similar to the "skin effect" in that photons "almost totally" ignore phenomena that are smaller than a 1/2 wavelength of the excitation. This is how light travels thought the intersteller medium without losing energy. Anyway most atoms in the interstellar medium have trapped photons blocking all normally available states making this material "invisible" to light of normal wavelength. These "quantum obstacles" are totally transparent to this visible radiation and to all longer frequencies. The reverse is not true. Energy of an absorbed photon that is in excess of what is needed to form a quantum state may be redistributed through this exchange process of "virtual photons" by "snipping off" as much energy as is needed to generate a quantum state. The longer the photon is "trapped" the more penetrating is the evanescent field... you can call this the inductive field. This is the situation where the photon is not radiated but is still attached to a source. Once the secondary quantum state is primed and ready to go it enters the quantum "space" where no further energy will be accepted. The residual energy is then too long in wavelength to be re-emitted as a photon per se, and usually ends up as surplus kinetic or potehtial energy (the former is often dissipated as heat). This happens so fast that we mostly call the process "scattering". The photon is absorbed transferring its energy into a secondary state and re-emitting a photon while at the same time the particle is "deflected" from its intertial frame of reference. It all relates to be Broglie's relationship and what happens to a de Broglie particle as v -> 0.
$user posted image$
As v -> 0 λ -> ∞, this is "spreading" of the wave and occurs at the speed of light ... a very high velocity but not infinite. If the particle is at 'rest " in a quantum state it will "spread" to infinity in an infinite time or fill the Universe if allowed. It now becomes a quantum "event". This is discussed at length in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment, a single pair of "entangled" photons can be used to investigate the properties of events and we can see that an event can actually reach back through history into the past... but only from the perspective of that "elevated quantum state space".

In Cramers Event Driven Interpretation of Feynman's Quantum Electrodynamics an positron is an electron traveling back in time and anti-proton is also traveling back in time. I suggest a reading up on Cramers Transactional Theory of Quantum Physics.

Further reading should include this...

QUOTE

What's done is done… or is it?
28 September 2006
from New Scientist

Patrick Barry

Ever wish you could reach back in time and change the past? Maybe you'd like to take back an unfortunate voicemail message, or rephrase what you just said to your boss. Or perhaps you've even dreamed of tweaking the outcome of yesterday's lottery to make yourself the winner. Common sense tells us that influencing the past is impossible - what's done is done, right? Even if it were possible, think of the mind-bending paradoxes it would create. While tinkering with the past, you might change the circumstances by which your parents met, derailing the key event that led to your birth. Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and quantum physics.
Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration. It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.

Cheers

Montec

17th December 2006 - 03:23 AM

Hello Aerohead

I have been searching for the "hows" and "whys" things work for the last few years. So far I keep running into right angle forces. Thus I've learned to go slow to keep from mashing my nose. I have yet to find a why for these "right angle forces" but I've found plenty of hows.

Never give up the search and you will never grow old just a little wiser.

Confused2

17th December 2006 - 11:07 AM

Re virtual particles and right angle forces.. try

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quan..._particles.html

http://van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2358

Comments/discussion most welcome.

Best wishes,

-C2.

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

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.