I am not sure what the problem is with C2 and his software but I have noticed that when I sometimes mention various pages they become unavailable and no longer accessible. You can never anticipate that and with this forum it cannot be changed after the event.
I am reluctant to drop this subject at this important "crossroad", just when IMHO I was about to make a very important point. I realize that I can be a "drag" at times because of the length of these posts. I would ask any who have followed so far to follow just a little longer. I promise you you will get a deep insight into quantum mechanics you have never thought possible.
Even if you have not read this treatment but have some savvy regards technical literature you will be able to use this to gain some deep insight. To accompany this treatment I will also advise these accompanying documents and windows and mac software (where applicable)...
This document explains the essentials of the software I about to reference and refers back to the treatment by Feynman.
A page that has all of Edwin F. Taylor downloads on it is here...
The software is found here...
read the readme because this is an unusual program to run. I would also suggest that you unzip it into its own folder rather than into the default.
For additional details please look here to see a reference from "Surely you are Joking Mr Feynman"... "Feynman's Ants"...
With this software you can easily simulate a double slit interference experiment and you then need to understand that what is seen on the slit is the square of the amplitude of the state vector. It is a projection.
The additional Gedanken Aspects of this exercise are taken from the frontpiece of the Book in parts called: "DEMYSTIFYING QUANTUM MECHANICS: A WORKBOOK" Edwin F. Taylor, Department of Physics, Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“Wave vs. Particle,” “Explain,” and “Reality”People argue a lot about fundamental ideas in quantum mechanics. Dan Styer of Oberlin College has made insightful comments on two such subjects. At the end is an opinion about a third subject by Taylor.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND that these comments are personal OPINIONS—cocktail-party talk!
Wave vs. Particle (Styer)I think that Feynman makes a pedagogical error on page 15 of QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter when he insists that light is a particle. It is certainly true that you will always get the correct answer by considering light to be a particle . . . a particle that behaves in the strange quantum way. But the word “particle” suggests an object that behaves in the familiar baseball way.
I far prefer Feynman's description of the same situation in The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press, 1965, page 128):
“We know how the electrons and light behave. But what can I call it? If I say they behave like particles I give the wrong impression; also if I say they behave like waves. They behave in their own inimitable way, which technically could be called the quantum mechanical way. They behave in a way that is like nothing you have ever seen before. Your experience with things that you have seen before is incomplete.
The behavior of things on a very tiny scale is simply different. An atom does not behave like a weight hanging on a spring and oscillating. Nor does it behave like a miniature representation of the solar system with little planets going around in orbits. Nor is it like a cloud or fog of some sort surrounding the nucleus.
It behaves like nothing you have seen before.”
The Meaning of “Explain” (Styer)A few words about “explanation” or “understanding” in science. Sometimes a phenomenon can be explained in terms of something simpler. For example: “Why did it rain today?” “Because a cold front moved in.”
“Well, why did a cold front move in.” “Because the jet stream pushed it.” “Well, why did the jet stream push it.” “Because the sun warmed Alberta and so deflected the jet stream”. “Well, why does sunlight warm objects?” And so forth. (Anyone who had raised a child knows such chains of questions all too well.)
The point is that such chains get deeper and deeper to more and more fundamental topics, and at one point, they just stop. Why do photons behave as they do? We have a detailed theory, QED, that describes the way photons behave, but it doesn't explain why they behave that way. Explanation always involves going one layer deeper, and QED is the deepest we've got . . . for now. Maybe someday we'll have
something deeper, but that won’t fundamentally change the situation, because that will merely give another bottom layer that consists of description rather than explanation.
The Meaning of “Reality” (Taylor)In my opinion, physics theory does not talk about “reality” directly. (Sorry!) Instead, theory helps you to discover what procedure YOU have to go through in order to make a prediction that can be verified by experiment. For example, QED tells you how to predict the probability that an electron will be detected at a give place and time. To help you visualize the procedure, quantum theory (I would claim EVERY
scientific theory) uses metaphors, talking in this case about paths and clocks. Are these clocks “real”? Do their hands “really” rotate? Does the electron “really” follow all paths? As residents of Brooklyn say:
“Fuggedaboddit” Forget about it. Asking such questions drives you crazy without helping in the practical prediction business. Of course, you can look for the electron on one of these paths, and use the same procedure to predict correctly the probability of detecting it there. But that is a different experiment and brings you no closer to “Reality.”
NOTE: Both “explain” and “reality” are discussed in much more detail—and deeply—in Chapter 2 of Steven Weinberg’s Dreams of a Final Theory (Vintage, 1994, ISBN 0-679-74408-8)
I will now outline what Professor EM Taylor enumerates as the fundamental differences between Quantum Mechanics and Classical Physics...
Old Idea (a) vs New Idea ( B )... eleven points in all...
1a/ Light consists of waves.
1b/ Light is energy “hunks” called photons.
2a/ Photons reflect the from front surface and back surface of a sheet of glass.
2b/ Photons are scattered by electrons throughout the glass
3a/ A photon or electron moves along a straight-line path from source to detector.
3b/A photon or electron explores ALL paths between source and detector.
4a/ The photon “quantum stopwatch” hand rotates as the photon explores each path.
4b/ Photon clock hand remains stationary as photon explores path. Initial position of clock hand depends on initial emission time from source. (Electron “quantum stopwatch” hand DOES rotate as electron explores path.)
5a/ A “path” (explored by photon or electron) means a trajectory in space.
5b/ A “path” means a trajectory in space PLUS location of particle on that trajectory at each time. In relativitytalk, a path is a “worldline in the spacetime diagram.”
6a/ A free electron (no gravity or electrical force) has a constant kinetic energy along the path.
8b/ A free electron exploring many paths may have different kinetic energies along different paths and along different portions of a single path.
9a/ An electron moves in an atom under a force provided by the electromagnetic field of the nucleus.
9b/ An electron explores all paths in an atom, exchanging virtual photons with the nucleus and with itself (NO field!).
10a/ Photons do not interact with one another.
10b/ Photons tend to “clump” as a result of the statistics that they follow Bose-Einstein statistics). Feynman calls this a “polarization” effect.
11a/ Electrons repel one another because of their charge.
11b/ Yes, but also electrons avoid one another as a result of the statistics that they
follow (Fermi-Dirac statistics). Feynman calls this a “polarization” effect.
Given all the above we have a fundamental difference of opinion between what we are calling a "particle" and what we describe as a "wave". It all goes back to the interpretation of the "path"...
QUOTE (Feynman's Ants" see above+)
Another aspect of Feynman’s physics that had a counterpart in his study of ants is his interest in the notion of particles and waves traveling backwards in time. His “absorber theory” made use of the advanced potential solutions of Maxwell’s equations, and his concept of particle interactions was largely time-symmetrical. In his popular book “QED” he wrote about the mediation of the electromagnetic force by photons:
I would like to point out something about photons being emitted and absorbed: if point 6 is later than point 5, we might say that the photon was emitted at 5 and absorbed at 6. If 6 is earlier than 5, we might prefer to say the photon was emitted at 6 and absorbed at 5, but we could just as well say that the photon is going backwards in time! However, we don't have to worry about which way in space-time the photon went; it's all included in the formula for P(5 to 6), and we say a photon was "exchanged." Isn't it beautiful how simple Nature is!
Similarly in his study of ants Feynman was interested in whether the paths were inherently directional. He wrote
I found out the trail wasn't directional. If I'd pick up an ant on a piece of paper, turn him around and around, and then put him back onto the trail, he wouldn't know that he was going the wrong way until he met another ant. (Later, in Brazil, I noticed some leaf-cutting ants and tried the same experiment on them. They could tell, within a few steps, whether they were going toward the food or away from it—presumably from the trail, which might be a series of smells in a pattern: A, B, space, A, B, space, and so on.)
So we find in both his physics and his ant studies that Feynman was led to similar sets of questions, such as “How do straight paths arise from the motions of entities that have no innate sense of global straightness?”, and “Are the paths of entities inherently symmetrical in the forward and backward directions?” It’s hard to believe that he wasn’t conscious of these parallels when he wrote about his adventures with ants (in the chapter he entitled “Amateur Scientist”), and yet he never explicitly drew attention to the parallels. Admirable subtlety.
Here is the nub... the photon is an object that "seeks out all paths" and it sums along various boundaries to "project" into a particle interaction phenomena. We are unable to examine the space in which the photon travels because it is "hidden" but what we can be certain of is it touches "everywhere" in the accessible Universe to a greater or lesser effect... exploring all paths. In the end is "appears" that it travels in straight lines, but that is a pure illusion developed from the sum of many paths and taking into account the relative phases. The "confinement" along that path depends on factors outside the software package leading to the various "modes" within the packet. The software does not account for spin in all its forms... neither particle angular momentum (spin) nor orbital angular momentum that bosons all can carry. This would have the effect of confining the lateral spread of a single photon. Some of this was beyond Feynman's lifetime to comment upon and I am sure that if he were alive today he would have made some additional comments on his theory by now. It is left to us to make those comments in his place.
Where the photon is physically when it is between source in destination according to Feynman is not an simply an "unknown" it is simply "unknowable" from our point of view. Remember that all intercepted photons on the way do not contribute to any interference patterns. The subtle difference is it is not a "probability" that is propagating it is an electromagnetic wave with phase and the wavefront of a single photon "particle" is a lot larger than we usually give it credit for, capable of folding onto itself and "mingling" everywhere and passing through both slits at once in Young's Experiment. These simple experiments do not allow for more complex behavior of a packet when confronting real path folding or to tunneling around or near objects.
You may say it is localized into about 1/2 a wavelength in the direction of propagation but it is surely spreading "laterally" in all orthogonal directions as it maps out all space. The effect of objects around the direct path of a particular photon is an interference effect but not a destructive one if it is able to reach its target. This single photon packet is like an expanding shell confined to the wavefront. It is not an aging packet since it travels at the speed of light time is entirely frozen. As shown by these experiments you can do above with the program, you can see that electrons are similar but their wavepackets "evolve" in time (the Group Velocity and the Phase Velocity are different, the group velocity is below the speed of light but the phase velocity is above the speed of light). They are similar to "light" constrained to traveling in a circle and though the electron de Broglie wave is non-stationary in time the interior components (a photon) are stationary in time since they are also traveling at the speed of light and we only recognize that the electron is moving in space as well as in time as a "whole"... the supraluminal aspects are confined to the evanescent region as always and conforms totally with conventional theory.
Virtual Photons exchanges are associated with unobservable internal "forces, and are needed to "balance the books" in the face of conventional classical behavior to cancel out so called accelerations as seen from outside the system. I have spoken of these before. Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics define the "Polarization" effects noted by Feynman.
Getting back to the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser, Feynman's explanation that the non-contemporaneous nature of emission and absorption of photons is not explained by an extended period over which the photon was emitted. The DCQE shows that the absorption of the entangled photon into the screen at one point in our time and then to affect that event with a random "which way" determination later in time on its twin is insufficient to account for the anomaly. This anomaly would be many thousands of emission periods "delayed" and could not account for a local explanation for this phenomena. Thus a non-local influence must be the reason this has occurred and philosophically indicates something about the dimensional nature of "Quantum Space" versus our "spacetime". For the pair of photons at least the "event" is a "sheet" thrown over the Universe and is "immobile" in time even though it takes "our time" to put it there. The significance of the electron and its sub-light velocity can be explained by de Broglie behavior as the velocity of the particle approaches some "zero" of velocity. As I have noted before this is related to a broad interpretation of Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity ... the other end of the scale. As to point 5b above I would like to add that the "thickness" of a worldline varies with velocity due to de Broglie's Hypothesis and this is relative to some "stationary state" that we are not normally able to experience. It would also be the case if a particle was deprived of all its mass. It is suggestive that this "winding" around the lightcone is an end of the state experience when a particle has been accelerated to almost the speed of light... just the reciprocal state from our point of view.
Together with the information presented above many may find this phenomena very illuminating. It gives a real meaning to the Emitter-Absorber Theory that Feynman proposed and QED needs to incorporate some aspects of this to completely describe the way events fit into our universe. To many these ideas of Feynman's are too different to those methods they have learned in University Classes to really be understood easily. I do not think that is the case though, it makes too much sense. These advanced potential and the retarded potentials merge only when viewed from outside the venue of our universe where the added dimensionality allows for the existence of negative frequencies that can affect our Universe "retrospectively". We cannot know them from our point of view but we may be able to see single "transactions" in our Universe that violate causality under exceptional conditions. How do we know they are non-causal? That will be probably difficult to detect.
I welcome any interest in this idea. All legitimate questions are accepted.
Cheers
Confused2
15th October 2006 - 07:06 PM
Hi Good Elf, y et al,
Struggling as usual .. I can't get the software to do anything (windows ME)
I suspect the following will clarify matters a lot.. a real experiment.. Hopefully it introduces the same 'philosophy' in a much simpler context.
Michaelson-Morley .. but all we need is the apparatus..
http://www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/teachers_co...s/IFO_9t12.htmlWe will still get interference if the legs are of wildly unequal lengths. (YES/NO)
Good Elf and myself have established that a photon can only intefere with itself. (dispute welcome).. meanwhile..
With 'legs' of length 1 mile and 1 foot.
High intensity .. we get interference (YES/NO)
If we reduce the intensity of the laser to the point where photons are arriving one at a time ..
Interference .. (YES/NO)
--------------------------------------------
I vote yes to all three. It rather undermines the notion of 'the speed of light'.
If we have different answers then clearly our explanations are bound to conflict. Let us first try to agree on the result of the experiment.
-C2.
Good Elf
16th October 2006 - 08:46 AM
Hi Yquantum and
Confused2 et al,
QUOTE
I suspect the following will clarify matters a lot.. a real experiment.. Hopefully it introduces the same 'philosophy' in a much simpler context.
Michaelson-Morley .. but all we need is the apparatus..
http://www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/teachers_co...s/IFO_9t12.htmlWe will still get interference if the legs are of wildly unequal lengths. (YES/NO)
Umm... yes... we were not discussing this experiment. This is not set up to process DCQE using entangled photons. The implications are always the same here... it is a test of Special Relativity. OK ... I will treat this as "interference" and examine the idea of a boson state and the way a single photon is only capable of interfering with itself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I suspect the following will clarify matters a lot.. a real experiment.. Hopefully it introduces the same 'philosophy' in a much simpler context.
Michaelson-Morley .. but all we need is the apparatus..
http://www.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/teachers_co...s/IFO_9t12.html
We will still get interference if the legs are of wildly unequal lengths. (YES/NO) |
Umm... yes... we were not discussing this experiment. This is not set up to process DCQE using entangled photons. The implications are always the same here... it is a test of Special Relativity. OK ... I will treat this as "interference" and examine the idea of a boson state and the way a single photon is only capable of interfering with itself.
With 'legs' of length 1 mile and 1 foot.
High intensity .. we get interference (YES/NO)
Yes... I am not sure that we are worried about this result?... are we?
QUOTE
If we reduce the intensity of the laser to the point where photons are arriving one at a time ..
Interference .. (YES/NO)
Yes again but once again this experiment is only showing interference fringes of apparently unentangled photons. What it is that you want to demonstrate here... something about quantum physics or Special Relativity? If what you are trying to point out is that photons have to travel the length of a tube (one mile or whatever) and the same photon has to travel one foot to interfere so how can the one photon interfere with itself and produce interference fringes? Well my explanation would be each photon interferes with itself so each photon must travel partially through both paths (you cannot know "which way"). The test for special relativity is in the idea that the speed of light may be different in both arms due to an "aether wind". Of course there is no "aether wind". Lets ignore that part of this experiment for now.
The individual photon is in both paths and it is capable of interfering with itself. This interference occurs
at the beam splitter (on the way through)from the laser. Maybe some more interference will occur on the way back, especially if the geometry changes. The result of that interference at the beam splitter is witnessed on the screen when any of the photons get there as a fringe. The exact fringing is defined by the geometry (length of arms in the tube)... the packet contains spatial interference fringes (alternate maxima and minima) that are "fixed in space" as the packet moves bye through the instrument (see idea 4b above) with its "clock stopped" exhibiting only "spatial phase". It just so happens that all the photons have this one monotonous pattern regardless of "which way" they travel. The one packet actually simultaneously travels to both ends of the instrument before it makes another "pass" of the beam splitter. I am not worried that the wavefront passes the same point in space twice, and at different times, because of the action of "folding" due to the mirrors at the ends.
Is that what you mean... The wavefront of a
single photon may "spread out" over a large portion of the instrument but that does not affect the packet in any material way since the energy processes are "conservative". With a single photon the absorption of the photon will decide what will happen to the final "measurement"... if this occurs on the screen then you will see a flash, if not an absorbed photon elsewhere will not play any part in the "observed" experiment.
The action of the beam splitter is the interesting part of the experiment and that is where all the interference actually occurs for all the photons. Regardless of the interpretation you place on it
a photon as a particle may go one way or another but you cannot know which. The interference pattern indicates the "real" aspect of the experiment as it propagates as a wave and the particle aspect can only be tested through "destruction" interaction at the screen. If you determined "which way" by some means this photon "particle" actually passed you will no longer produce an interference fringe for that photon (would not be able to assist in building up a "fringe picture" on the screen over time). I would strenuously object to the possibility that multiple photons are able to interfere with each other in different boson states (from different 1/2 (split) phase wavelength wavefronts) or even "between" each other. The photons in the one wavefront are all bosons traveling together and if there is one or a million they all behave identically and share some boson properties with each other. They do not share any properties with photons on any other wavefront at any other time. I stress again... They are only interfering with themselves... individually. They may be "bounced around a bit" but each photon stays on the one wavefront they were "born" on and only "consorts" with itself.
Is this what you believe?... or not! Test of "character" here... do we Believe it or not? I for one believe it!
Cheers
Confused2
16th October 2006 - 10:52 AM
Hi Good Elf,
The main point of introducing this experiment was to examine the nature of a 'wavefront' and how it applies in the case of a single photon. Clearly if the wavefront were an expanding shell then we would only see interference (of a single photon) if the 'legs' of the MM experiment were (almost) precisely equal. If the wavefront is
not a shell that expands with time at 'c' (and to me it doesn't seem to be) .. then I don't think it's a wavefront... it is a 'something else'. I am not convinced that your explanation has fully encapsulated just how much of a 'something else' a photon really is.
My own rather painful analysis using Feynman's graphical 'sum over paths' method (+) does not allow me to make any prediction about interference until the paths actually arrive at the screen .. I don't see anything happening in the beam splitter except we establish two paths with a probability of 50-50. I hope you agree that the alternative paths bear a striking similarity to the double slit experiment but without the complication of entanglement.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The action of the beam splitter is the interesting part of the experiment and that is where all the interference actually occurs for all the photons. Regardless of the interpretation you place on it a photon as a particle may go one way or another but you cannot know which. The interference pattern indicates the "real" aspect of the experiment as it propagates as a wave and the particle aspect can only be tested through "destruction"
On a good day my 'method' will predict where a photon is most likely to hit the screen and where interference will occur.. can your explanation do the same?
-C2.
(+) Feynman's graphical 'sum over paths' method is described in his book 'QED' .. I will describe it if anyone isn't already familiar with it.
Good Elf
16th October 2006 - 02:26 PM
Hi Confused2,
QUOTE (C2+)
Clearly if the wavefront were an expanding shell then we would only see interference (of a single photon) if the 'legs' of the MM experiment were (almost) precisely equal. If the wavefront is not a shell that expands with time at 'c' (and to me it doesn't seem to be) .. then I don't think it's a wavefront... it is a 'something else'. I am not convinced that your explanation has fully encapsulated just how much of a 'something else' a photon really is.
The individual photon is indeed an expanding shell traveling at the speed of light but the geometry of the space can be altered by the position of all the objects within that space even out to infinity (according to Feynman's interpretation).. The actual picture is fully three dimensional but side lobes are suppressed. If it was possible to "track" that photon "core" around the place, that is where it will finally end up, but do not be too sure certain arrangements of "harmonic" reflective surfaces can result in the position of the photon being found in a quite unusual place through phase cancellation and reinforcement in periodic ways. The "shell" of a single wavefront "could" extend way beyond the instrument and far out into the Universe
"exploring" all possible paths. Obviously a pencil thin laser beam has suppressed side lobes and has significantly reduced the possibility of finding the photon in some "remote locale" but the possibility does exist and though the probability is low there will be finite possibilities that some stray photons will go somewhere "interesting" far beyond the "ray" interpretation and related more to resonances of the space the photon has found itself in.
These photons will still "explore all paths". This cannot be seen but nevertheless is happening. Obviously the "core" which I have formerly described as "an eye of a hurricane" really does not have any true "substance" to it and it is not substantially any different to the rest of the photon.
Feynman construction is really the way it occurs and it shows how phase is the deciding factor. This is not the way it is usually taught. I have indicated the software and it is easy enough for people to test for themselves how these things work. There are few simplifications other than reduction to two dimensions in the example given. The actual construction actually does account for the third dimension in a realistic way since this "model" projects onto this plane and it just so happens that if you do this the result is as given. The constructions do not allow for mirrors but everything has limitations. You cannot do that construction with this simple program you can only model "expanding shells" not "re-entrant" ones. As I said stay with the simple case of Young's Double Slit Experiment and all is well or be prepared for the full analysis.
Naturally photons can appear to behave like "rays" under ideal conditions but beware of this simplistic reduction into absurdity. Light is not made up of "rays". This is what a non-collimated source will do...
http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14182/css/14182_186.htmThis radiation pattern is not what we observe in most cases in the case of a laser pencil the "lobes" are suppressed. Please note that in the plane perpendicular to this view we would note that most transmitters will develop "nodes" that are periodic in the solenoidal direction. Here is a typical "directed" radiation pattern from an antenna but it could just as easily be a laser pencil....
This represents is a two dimensional pattern of an actual three dimensional pattern with "lobes" and all. Naturally for a laser pencil the "reverse" lobe is also very much attenuated by suppressing this direction with a strongly reflecting mirror. The small side lobes are "always" there and cannot be ignored in the greater picture. Have a look at these radiation patterns which relate to other kinds of "confined" radiation based on a sphere and cavity...
Spherical Harmonics 1 : Wolfram ResearchSpherical Harmonics 2 : Wolfram ResearchThese are the same solutions we have for atomic orbitals or even idealized spherical resonant "chambers" or cavities. To see dynamic versions of these radiation patterns see this transition from one atomic eigen state to another...
Superposition state of the hydrogenThis involves loading and running a short quicktime movie animation of a transition between two states in a "confined space"... an atomic "cavity". The pretty colors represent the complex numbers found in electromagnetic theory. They also represent the complex state of some of the vectors in time in Feynman Constructions. Of course "probability" are just "projections" of these dynamic entities onto an "orthogonal plane" and then squared.
Cheers
Confused2
17th October 2006 - 11:10 AM
Hi Good Elf,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The individual photon is indeed an expanding shell traveling at the speed of light but the geometry of the space can be altered by the position of all the objects within that space even out to infinity
Sorry to keep coming back to this point .. it remains unclear.
Looking at the diagram here (lower part of page) -
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../michel.html#c2We see that we can vary either Lf or Lm. We could make Lf = 1000 metres and Lm = 1 metre.
To save messing about I propose making the the
total length of the Lf path to be 1000 metre and the
total length of the Lm path to be 1 metre.
Assuming we have a laser light source..
A classical analysis..
We turn our laser on ..
After 1/c seconds the light from the Lm path arrives at the screen .. no interference
After 1000/c seconds the light from the Lf path arrives .. we have interference.
-----------------
Not so classical..
While all other paths may be possible it would be helpful if we consider the most probable path for a moment or two..
The beam is split in two by the half-silvered mirror .. 'half' each way.
Since we know a photon can only interfere with itself .. are we not left wondering how 'half' of it takes 1000/c to arrive at the screen and the other 'half' takes 1/c to arrive?
-C2.
Confused2
17th October 2006 - 01:17 PM
Maybe I should confess that the answer I am fishing for is that that QM only predicts the probability of detection .. the classical notion of 'interference' may not be adequate to address this point.
-C2.
Ron
17th October 2006 - 01:34 PM
Hi C2, GE, Y et all,
I won't claim to know exactly what I'm talking about, but in QED and the sum of all paths, to me it doesn't seem to matter the length the photon travels but more the 'rotations of the clock' for whether or not you will see interference. So this 1/c and 1000/c only makes sense to me if were talking lambda. No?
Thanks,
Ron
Confused2
17th October 2006 - 02:00 PM
Hi Ron,
Yes.. that's my impression too.. divide the path length by lambda and chuck away the integer part .. even though the path lengths are wildly different all we need is frac(lambda_1) and frac(lambda_2) .. not terribly classical!
Thanks,
C2.
?
Phase for interference purposes = 2 * pi * frac(lambda_n)
Good Elf
17th October 2006 - 03:02 PM
Hi Confused2, Ron, Yquantum et al,
I suppose this is why we are discussing "Problem with the two slit experiment... Observing later". It is clear that what happens later "has already determined the outcome of self-interference". Light with its "stopped clock" is only describing a single instant in its time no matter how far it travels, or "when" it travels. Once it is in the cavity it already "knows"... instantly... that it reached the mirror at the end and interfered with itself ... if you like. The fringes are determined by the shape of the cavity and not due to a photon actually traveling up and down a path... As you have indicated this interpretation should not work. Those fringes have always existed there in that space at that time and they are "immobile". The photon and its wavefronts just paint it out as a totally "static picture" over time. From our point of view "foreknowing" the position of all the moving objects in the Universe and mapping this pattern out "once and for all time". The actual wavefront will twist and turn and wind all over the place, but will never need any "updating" due to something moving between when the photon was emitted and when it was absorbed.
This result can only occur if all parts of the wavefront represent a single instant in time (stopped clock). This is just "Special Relativity"... light travels at C and it never ages so where ever it goes in "our time" is a single instantaneous moment in the photons life.... when it "explored all paths" ... all the way out to the ends of our Universe (or whatever). Some "paths" will actually go there in the general case. Just because in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment one of the matched photons was
destroyed in the distant past, the fate of the diffraction pattern determined in that past is actually
being decided in the future... our future... not the photon's future which it obviously never has. This is not a debatable point it is the result of practical experimentation. This is no statistics either it happens "every time" with the entangled photons. It is not strictly a classic result in one sense since we are very parochial about how we measure time and the way we view causality but this is one case where how we measure time actually counts for a lot.
Cheers
PS: He he he... I couldn't resist waxing just a little "lyrical" at this point... When all the stars in the Universe are blinking out at the end of time, some wavefronts are just deciding then when and where a particular photon that was "destroyed" in the first few moments after the "Big Bang" met it's fate way way back then. This means that events in the far distant future are affecting the past... the Emitter Absorber Theory in action... Advanced waves propagate back in time to the beginning of the Universe to complete a "great circle of life"...
Everything old is new again. Obviously more than just a couple of photons are "entangled".... everything is actually "entangled".
Confused2
17th October 2006 - 04:11 PM
Good_Elf, Ron et al,
Sorry, I'm not convinced we've got the first bit sorted out yet ..
In the odd-legs Michaelson Morley experiment
1/ When we start.. Are we happy that we don't have to wait for the light to go all the way round the long leg before we can detect a photon.. and we still get interference?
2/ If we assume the most likely path is very much more likely than any other then our photons will turn up in a pattern dictated by the probability distribution (as revealed by the phase difference between the two 'main' paths). This answer should (I think) be the same for both the MM and the two slit experiment.
3/ Do we feel strong enough to consider why the photon seems to want to have a wavelength even though we think (or do we?) that no time is passing for the photon travelling at 'c' ?
4/ Even this photons travel at 'c' thing is starting to look like a dodgy assumption.. any takers?
-C2.
Confused2
17th October 2006 - 06:21 PM
Would anyone prefer me to start a new thread for the odd legs MM? I suspect we would have to try to unravel the whole of QED (and QM?) to get a full answer to the question..
-C2.
Ron
17th October 2006 - 07:09 PM
Hi C2,
I've been on other threads recently and, with Zephir pushing his AWT, you might lose sight of what your intentions are pretty quickly!
Also, if your talking about the $150 version (which is pretty cool btw), you're going to run into noise issues that have to be accounted for very carefully (ie:vector addition and subtraction of problems arising from rotation of the Earth at all hour of the day). I'm sure your familiar with some of the non-null proposals that have been made over the years, which mostly have to due with error correction, so, while it would be a fun exercise, I doubt we'd get any real insight. But, if you'd like, I'd really suggest titling it something more generic than MME or the like.
Just thinking out loud,
Take care,
Ron
Confused2
17th October 2006 - 08:28 PM
Thanks Ron. Yes.
The real test of character comes when you have an odd legs device and feed an electron into it. Rather more difficult to actually build the thing .. but it should work the same way as a photon version.
Since I've found it .. this includes nice photos of single electron interference
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/9/1The number of maxima indicate (to me) that a single electron is effectively in more than one 'wave' of de Broglie wavelength... the same as with a photon, just how far this goes is unclear to me. Comments most welcome.
-C2.
yquantum
17th October 2006 - 08:53 PM
Good Elf, C2
It took a few tea times but I was able to read the information given. Please help me on this when I read what you have stated there is a flavor of D. Bohm which I believe if it had not been for the trials that he refused to participate in, many scientist of today might have seen the light © in a different perspective today as of today in 2006.
You have certainly brought up some interesting questions that should and I believe is being researched in many labs around the world because the papers that are now coming out on the subject.
I will stay in touch and
Best to you both.
ciao_
yquantum
Ron
17th October 2006 - 09:17 PM
Excellent link, C2!
The photos are particularly amazing. I remember my first light double-slit experiment I did in college that blew me away, but seeing the same pattern with electrons, even learning the principles since, is just incredible. Your link also talked about experiments with nucleons much larger than electrons. To think, if we had the right equiptment, we could probably do the same experiment with baseballs!
Thanks again, man.
You should probably bring that credibility factor up a few hundreths!
Later,
Ron
Good Elf
19th October 2006 - 11:53 PM
Hi Ron,
Yquantum, Confused2 et al,
QUOTE (Yquantum+)
It took a few tea times but I was able to read the information given. Please help me on this when I read what you have stated there is a flavor of D. Bohm which I believe if it had not been for the trials that he refused to participate in, many scientist of today might have seen the light © in a different perspective today as of today in 2006.
You have certainly brought up some interesting questions that should and I believe is being researched in many labs around the world because the papers that are now coming out on the subject.
He he he… you see through me like a pane of glass... a "Looking Glass". I think there would have been a lot of problems a couple of decades ago about actual testing of these ideas of David Bohm. Unlike David, I am no “mystic” on these matters and I am a very interested in Bhomian Mechanics and to interpretations of physics in terms that also remove the “observer” as "creator" from a central role in events occurring in the sub-atomic realm. Or even to the concept of the idea of the Anthropic Principle. Physics is not about a quest to "discover God" or to substitute "us" into the place, if one exists, that only a "god" would hold.
There are just so many different practical experiments that reinforce these views and play down the “other mystical” interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, one based on a flattened version of Physics forced to work in only three dimensions plus time. What remains is a melding of a “semi-classical” interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that involves an interpretation of dimensional space that will not conform to Einstein’s Spacetime, yet Einstein’s Spacetime forms a subset of a greater dimensional interpretation.
I believe that David Bohm’s idea of a "guiding wave" is also not the true picture (I have said this previously in this thread) since the “hidden variables” of Bohm’s Configuration Space simply confine the particle to follow an undulating path in spacetime. To me the only acceptable “physics” is that “particles” behave according to long established patterns of very conventional dynamics except in an unconventional space of additional dimensions. The view I am proposing is a purely geometrodynamic interpretation where “particle” is just what we measure when an "particle interaction" occurs. The quantum “realm” is truly a different space that is
additional to the common dimensions we experience. The additional dimensions must be whatever we mean as "ordinary space" since they are conforming to the "ordinary physics" that we use within "spacetime".
In this respect the quantum “particle” travels in a “hidden” space where the effects we are able to determine are all wavelike as projections into normal “spacetime”. This is this “harmonic” connection I am always trying to stress. These “waves”, we have them discussed before and for particles, are the de Broglie Matter Waves. For light the waves are actually traveling or propagating within our space yet confined to our Universe as mentioned by a strict interpretation of Feynman’s “explore all paths” dictate. Light travels at a finite velocity in our space but we also know that when we are considering entangled photons this influence can be instantaneous across any distances. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment reinforces the fact that the photons seem to know the answer to the physical question “explore all paths” the instant the photon is launched and seems to know, even in our dynamic Universe, the position of all particles and objects everywhere and everywhen inside of that "extended space". This suggests the space this “signal” is traveling in does not have the same significance for distance as the space we live in. It just takes time for this temporal “painting” to propagate through the entire Universe, at the speed of light. What it is saying about that event is it is unable to be changed and it “knows”, using a “shortcut”, where everything was, is, and going to be… even in the distant future.
The “vision” it has created for me is the “outside” of our Universe (the surface of a light cone), could be a tiny pebble the size of an atomic particle in which this "where and when" information about the internal physical and temporal landscape of our "internal" Universe is always present. All the while the inside of this “particle” is our Universe… at the very least three spatial dimensions and time of it. How does this trick with a “Russian Doll” that is bigger on the inside than on the outside work? IMHO it is David Bohm’s “Holographic Universe” where the internal dimensional space is defined on a lower dimensional “hypersurface”, a flatspace very similar to the flatspace of a hologram where “strings” define a frequency reciprocal space… an anti-de Sitter space. Of course if a Universe is defined by a comparatively flat “hologram”, this flat “screen” of this surface reveals an inner portal to a much larger "virtual" space.
A low dimensional analogy would be those large holographic plates you can see in certain Science Displays showing the interior of a full scale room. Of course this hologram is simply a two dimensional surface of acetate film or glass plate recording what appears on close examination to be "harmonic strings" caught at a single instant in time in that surface. It behaves and looks like a complete three dimensional room with all the perspective and depth similar to Alice’s “Looking Glass World”… Yet this is just a heap of dynamic “surface” frequencies which are “decoded” using a laser reference beam. There is apparently nothing “in” there. This idea has physical relevance since Stephen Hawking, Carlo Rovelli, Juan Maldacena and Ed Witten have separately worked on this idea and shown that the information contained in Black Holes is contained on a surface. One of the great breakthroughs of current string theory was a proof that showed that the information inside a "Black Hole" is a simple function of the "informational string" found on the surface of that Black Hole and that this was found by using the T-Duality Principle of String Theory that relate "dimensions" to the "reciprocal dimensions". See this reference for String Theory...
Wikipedia: T-DualityPlease look at this interpretation of the
Weak Holographic Principle in this Wikipedia reference where the contents of the “Black Hole” actually is the surface “hologram”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principleI am simply extending this idea to “optical” Black Holes not just “gravitational” Black Holes. I will quote…
QUOTE
The Weak Holographic Principle
The weak holographic principle states that all information entering the event horizon of a black hole is encoded on the surface of the event horizon of that black hole and is proportional to the surface area of the event horizon. Unlike the "strong" version the weak holographic principle states that there is no particle behind the "screen" and that the physical processes of the universe can be wholly described by the "screens" or surfaces through which the information is observed.
Thus a kind of Hologram. One success of String Theory was to show that it could be used to determine that this principle was indeed upheld.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The Weak Holographic Principle
The weak holographic principle states that all information entering the event horizon of a black hole is encoded on the surface of the event horizon of that black hole and is proportional to the surface area of the event horizon. Unlike the "strong" version the weak holographic principle states that there is no particle behind the "screen" and that the physical processes of the universe can be wholly described by the "screens" or surfaces through which the information is observed. |
Thus a kind of Hologram. One success of String Theory was to show that it could be used to determine that this principle was indeed upheld.
In 1997 Juan Maldacena conjectured a relationship between string theory and a gauge theory called N=4 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. This conjecture, called the AdS/CFT correspondence has generated a great deal of interest in the field and is now well accepted. It is a concrete realization of the holographic principle, which has far-reaching implications for black holes, locality and information in physics, as well as the nature of the gravitational interaction. Through this relationship, string theory may be related in the future to quantum chromodynamics and lead, eventually, to a better understanding of the behavior of hadrons, thus returning to its original goal.
Recently, the discovery of the string theory landscape, which suggests that string theory has an exponentially large number of different vacua, led to discussions of what string theory might eventually be expected to predict, and to the worry that the answer might continue to be nothing.
Please look at this reference here...
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence - anti-De-Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondenceQUOTE (Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondence+)
An example is the duality between Type IIB string theory defined on AdS5 × S5 space (a product of five dimensional AdS space with a five dimensional sphere) and a supersymmetric N=4 Yang-Mills gauge theory (which is a conformal field theory) defined on the 4-dimensional boundary of AdS5. It is the most successful realization of the holographic principle, a speculative idea about quantum gravity originally proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and improved and promoted by Leonard Susskind. Although it remains unproven, the conjecture has been mathematically tested in many cases (i.e. various calculations performed on both sides, which are conjectured to be equivalent, indeed yield equivalent results).
The AdS/CFT correspondence was originally proposed by Juan Maldacena in late 1997. A more precise statement of the correspondence was soon given in articles by Gubser, Klebanov, and Polyakov, and by Edward Witten. The correspondence has also been generalized and applied to many other (non-AdS) backgrounds or (non-conformal) theories. In about five years, Maldacena's article had 3000 citations and became one of the most obvious conceptual breakthroughs in theoretical physics of the 1990s, providing stark new insight into both quantum gravity and QCD.
These principles are sweeping behind the scenes of the more popular theories of Quantum Theory which are confined to the much "flatter space" of spacetime. For background discussion here is a reference about "interpretation"...
Black hole entropy: inside or out? Authors: Ted Jacobson, Donald Marolf, Carlo Rovelli I have stressed the relationships between Special Relativity and de Broglie Matter Waves (I have explained this relationship here)...
Perpetual motion?, Cyclic photon reflections: Good Elf
The reciprocal relationship "connects" with the spatial relationships through the evanescent region and the property of quantum tunneling. This behaves like a very small zone in which the different "Universes" mingle. The speed of processes there are supraluminal but fade rapidly with distance from the zone as does those "matter waves". The low speed end of particles that lead to this relationship for de Broglie's theory and an ultimate "delocalization" of the particles world line lead with increasing speed to the high velocity end of Special Relativity and a rapidly thinning world line of high energy particles. These properties wrap in reciprocal space and are the one physics. This process occurs in the limit as relative velocity approaches zero or the mass approaches zero. The "conjecture" is this process can be encapsulated "holographically" any number of times leading successively to Quantum Electrodynamics of Atoms and then immediately to Quantum Chromodynamics at the next "twist".
There is tremendous experimental support for a physical interpretation for "all of this". Kondo Phantom Particles even "Kondo Atoms and molecules", some part phantom and part actual atom with all the properties of a source atom do really exist and have been experimented on in the NIST Laboratories under the topic of Quantum Corrals. What is interesting about these experiments is the behavior of these quantum images exactly mimic the "real McCoy". These "signals" are an entangled connection between the "object" and its "image" at the level of the de Broglie Matter Wave. The matter wave defines actual physics (virtual photons) in the same way optics define "image". The difference is only in "degree". All the more if nature actually provides "perfect quantum corrals" where we identify sub-atomic particles. Therefore what we are looking at are the "Many Worlds" we know theoretically exist but never dared think really did exist and are able to witness them almost with our own eyes since what we are seeing right now are "reflections" in our own personal "Looking Glass World"!
QUOTE
Virtual photonsThe 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 Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character Sherlock Holmes once remarked to Watson... "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Cheers
Confused2
20th October 2006 - 09:53 PM
yquantum, Good_Elf, Ron et al,
Good Elf .. not an attempt to supercede your post .. hopefully both stand.
On another thread yquantum has kindly offered to look at my problem with 'the speed of light'.
Clarification of the problem ..
For simplicity we re-use 'old' equipment but on this occasion we are looking at the speed of light itself .. detection of Aether drift is not what is being analysed.
Full image here :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9...lson-morley.png (thanks Wiki)
The semi-silvered mirror has many of the properties of a double slit in that it allows (forces) the light into two paths. The light detector is normally a screen, this will suffice for a start. By moving the mirrors we make the total blue path length one metre and the total green path length 1000 metres. Classical analysis assures us that we still see interference at the screen. Quantum analysis (Dirac?) assures us that a photon can only interfere with itself .. so does the photon 'probability pattern' arrive at the screen after 1/c, 1000/c or something else? To me it seems that the 'speed of light' cannot be consistent over both paths.
If we use a laser and reduce the light intensity it should be possible to scan a detector over the interference pattern and actually measure the time delay between the photon emission and detection. I feel this should be a 'classic' QM demonstration experiment .. but I can't find anything like it.
This might or might not shed some light on the 'instant' nature of solutions which Good Elf has described in his last post.
Best wishes,
-C2.
TRoc
21st October 2006 - 02:37 AM
Hi GE, C2, YQ, Ron ..
I have thought of a better way to ask about a specific detail of this process, that will still lead to my point (which I have never been able to get to, because of the "debates" that ensue from my question).
So, rather than ask about how to know if we ever have "just one photon", let me ask this:
Does a single "photon" constitute only ONE frequency? IE. is 1 "photon" monochromatic. Here I mean, as usual, ABSOLUTELY monochromatic, not the kind of monochromatic thrown around in the labs, that are derived from statistics & probabilities.
Secondly, and also very important to understanding this "phenomenon", (IMHO) I will ask this:
Is the "half-silvered" mirror an observer? Is it composed of electrons, like all other matter? I'm certain that it is, but I could be wrong.
If the mirror is an observer, what does this say about the round-trip measurement done on the "photon's" journey? Is the second "gate", or re-emission point any different from the first? All journeys of light will be measured @ c regardless of changing parameters like distance and speed.
I would prefer a measurement of the ONE-WAY journey of light over distances greater than 299,792,458 meters, compared to another similar set up (orthogonal).
And, in order to rule out self-interference, it MUST be absolutely monochromatic.
(at least for the DSE)
yours,
T.Roc
Why Not?
21st October 2006 - 02:51 AM
Hey C2, Good Elf, yq, et al.
C2 - I think you may be talking about a version of a Franson Interferometer. Maybe this will help, at least with the background. GE and yq will need to discuss the implications.
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~howell/mysit...nterference.pdfQUOTE
The photons from the EPR source are then each sent to imbalanced Mach-Zehnder interferometers as shown in Fig. 1. The imbalanced interferometers are designed such that there is no single-photon interference. Typically, only 100 micron imbalances are needed to insure this. There are also two more constraints. In order to see the fourth order temporal interference, the imbalance must be long enough so that it is possible to postselect out events in photon 1 took the short path and photon 2 took the long path and vice versa.
Also, you might find this interesting...
Cancellation of laser noise in an unequal-arm interferometer detector of gravitational radiationQUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The photons from the EPR source are then each sent to imbalanced Mach-Zehnder interferometers as shown in Fig. 1. The imbalanced interferometers are designed such that there is no single-photon interference. Typically, only 100 micron imbalances are needed to insure this. There are also two more constraints. In order to see the fourth order temporal interference, the imbalance must be long enough so that it is possible to postselect out events in photon 1 took the short path and photon 2 took the long path and vice versa. |
Also, you might find this interesting...
Cancellation of laser noise in an unequal-arm interferometer detector of gravitational radiationIf, however, the two arms have different lengths ~as will necessarily be the case with space-borne interferometers, the laser noise experiences different delays in the two arms and will hence not directly cancel at the detector. In this paper we present a method for exactly canceling the laser noise in a one-bounce unequal-arm Michelson interferometer.
Best!
Confused2
21st October 2006 - 11:37 AM
Hi Good_Elf, Troc, Ron, Why Not, yquantum et al,
As already mentioned .. I don't feel we've got a good analysis of even the basics of the DSE .. if one peak is 'equal length paths' then clearly any other peak is the result of unequal path lengths .. does light (photons) 'hang about' to make these other peaks or something else?
With particular reference to the modified MM experiment I have outlined above (bear in mind that there may be no interference when the path lengths are radically different .. the case is not proven)
1/ This
looks like the Kennedy Thorndike ( experiment.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy-Thorndike_experiment ) but without a photon by photon accouny of the KT I am no further forward. To say "A modified MM (ModifiedMM) experiment" takes us back to the essential elegance of the original experiment.
2/
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The reciprocal relationship "connects" with the spatial relationships through the evanescent region and the property of quantum tunneling. This behaves like a very small zone in which the different "Universes" mingle. The speed of processes there are supraluminal but fade rapidly with distance from the zone as does those "matter waves". The low speed end of particles that lead to this relationship for de Broglie's theory and an ultimate "delocalization" of the particles world line lead with increasing speed to the high velocity end of Special Relativity and a rapidly thinning world line of high energy particles. These properties wrap in reciprocal space and are the one physics. This process occurs in the limit as relative velocity approaches zero or the mass approaches zero. The "conjecture" is this process can be encapsulated "holographically" any number of times leading successively to Quantum Electrodynamics of Atoms and then immediately to Quantum Chromodynamics at the next "twist".
Can this be used to predict the result of the simple ModifiedMM experiment?
3/ Troc..
Does a single "photon" constitute only ONE frequency? IE. is 1 "photon" monochromatic. Here I mean, as usual, ABSOLUTELY monochromatic, not the kind of monochromatic thrown around in the labs, that are derived from statistics & probabilities. Assuming no relative movement (it's complicated enough already without it) -as far as I know a photon always arrives with the same momentum that it left the source ..
since E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4 (and m=0 for a photon)
E= pc
and unless the photon gains or loses energy
we get f = E/h = k from source to detection.
The real object of the experiment is to
test our assumptions about 'c', f and lambda.
3/ Why Not .. many thanks ..
The Franson Interferometer - EPR - overly complicated ?.. Just the speed of light would keep me happy for the present and help us to get a 'proper' analysis of the DSE in the region between the slits and the screen.
http://elmer.caltech.edu/ph237/week18/AET1.pdfQUOTE
The time signature of the noise C(t)in y 1 (t), for instance, can be understood by observing that the frequency of the signal received at time t contains laser frequency fluctuations transmitted 2L 1 seconds earlier.
Same paper .. a second analysis ..The time signature of the noise
C(t)in y 1 (t), for instance, can be understood by observing
that the frequency of the signal received at time t contains
laser frequency fluctuations transmitted 2L 1 seconds earlier.
These EM analysises (?) do not adddress EM as photons or the single photon case.
-C2.
TRoc
21st October 2006 - 04:26 PM
C2 & all,
It's hard to have faith in the equation if you don't have faith in the lab equipment that you've been told is "A", when it is not.
So, I'm probably in a one-man parade, when I say that we are NOT producing absolute monochromatic light in the equipment, therefore, our simple and absolute equation, one like E=hf , is not giving us an answer that holds an absolute truth.
There is no duality in a wave, and a particle. That is a misnomer; incorrect of the definition.
There IS a dualistic result in the DSE: it's called interference, and shows up as fringes/bands of light & dark. In this context, perhaps I should say
self-interference, since we are ASSUMING that there is a monochromatic "photon" going through the slits.
Does anyone agree that the correct definition of single "photon" should be that it has just ONE frequency?
Can anyone imagine the "shape" of a small group of
incoherent photons would have? If not, would you at least say that the chances are, that the shape is NOT symmetrical?
Can you imagine the results of a non-symmetric shape,
slowed down so that not more than one "part of the shape" went through the slits at a time, would have on the trajectories of the impact locations?
Wouldn't it "seem" random, that is, until the non-symmetrical parts are "whittled" down, and the pattern then becomes the predictably symmetric dualistic light/dark bands?
Can anyone see that this is the reverse of the process that is supposed to be making monochromatic light? Both are being misunderstood.
This is why I have said so often, that "slowing down" the wave, that is, lessening the INTENSITY, can not effect the underlying pattern that is inherent in the "not-so-monochromatic" light that is being produced. It does, however, allow us to see the "whittling down" process of resonance in the act, which is actually pretty cool.
How does "Science" forget its' own rules??
In several other key experiments, it has been established that the NUMBER of photons does not effect the ENERGY of the interaction. HOW, then, can we trust the DSE mantra, when they are telling us the the CHANGE in ENERGY is regulating the NUMBER of "photons" present in the experiment??
How does any Scientist give in to the "lab equipment salesman", and believe that monochromatic light is being produced when ALL the evidence proves otherwise???
Soon, this will change!
ciao!
T.Roc
Why Not?
21st October 2006 - 07:37 PM
Hey C2, TRoc, GE, yq, at al,
I think this may all come down to the problem of defining uncertainty with respect to a single photon. Since time and frequency are conjugate variables, there is a limit to defining the monochromatic nature of a single photon. As a result, I do not think you can look at a photon in an environment with "no movement." A photon must move and one cannot define the frequency of a single photon in any time-frame less than the time-frame which defines that frequency.
C2 - An interpretation of your experiment (possibly incorrect, but what the hell), A single photon would either travel through the half-silvered mirror or be reflected by it. By setting the detector to measure the delta t between emission of a photon and detection at the detector, we can determine the "which path" information the photon took (either 1/c or 1000/c). If we collect the results from a large number of single photon runs through the experiment, we have detailed "which path" data from each event and "noise" (read - no interference) when combining the data at the detector. But if we then run the "noise cancellation" equation (from the second link in my previous post) across all photon measurements, we lose the "which path" information for each event and generate an interference pattern.
As a final thought, what would happen if the distance between the slits and the screen were less than the minimal wavelength of the photons being sent through the slits?
Good Elf
22nd October 2006 - 01:19 AM
Hi Ron, Yquantum,
Confused2, TRoc, Why Not? et al,
Please look at the images I have included... I have linked to them diectly rather than shown them embedded here, this is because the Forum crushes the images soo small they are usually no benefit. Others may not be able to understand that these can be viewed full size using a right click and choosing to view it full size... so bear with me please...
QUOTE
Clarification of the problem ..
For simplicity we re-use 'old' equipment but on this occasion we are looking at the speed of light itself .. detection of Aether drift is not what is being analyzed.
Full image here :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9...lson-morley.png (thanks Wiki)
The semi-silvered mirror has many of the properties of a double slit in that it allows (forces) the light into two paths. The light detector is normally a screen, this will suffice for a start. By moving the mirrors we make the total blue path length one metre and the total green path length 1000 metres. Classical analysis assures us that we still see interference at the screen. Quantum analysis (Dirac?) assures us that a photon can only interfere with itself .. so does the photon 'probability pattern' arrive at the screen after 1/c, 1000/c or something else? To me it seems that the 'speed of light' cannot be consistent over both paths.
If we use a laser and reduce the light intensity it should be possible to scan a detector over the interference pattern and actually measure the time delay between the photon emission and detection. I feel this should be a 'classic' QM demonstration experiment .. but I can't find anything like it.
This might or might not shed some light on the 'instant' nature of solutions which Good Elf has described in his last post.
I agree totally, it will shed some light on the problem. This reference may assist in dealing with your particular question...
Wolfram Research:Fourier Transform Spectrometer The speed of light is indeed constant but the paths differ in length. This should not pose a conceptual block to understanding the nature of propagation. You can see these effects when you are in a TV reception area where it is subject to two different paths at the same time. You end up with a "ghost" image that may be delayed or advance of the stronger main beam image. With digital signals of course ghosts are a thing of the past but this phenomena is explained by having two separate paths to the receiver. In the Michelson-Morely Experiment (with unequal arms), the important factor is the resonant nature of "empty space". Now how many photons actually are used is important to the original concept of the quanta. You seem unable to resolve the idea that these waves are
spreading for photons, or at least for most cases of radiation. This is the nature of this basic bosonic field within our Universe. I did answer this question here...
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elfthis was a follow on from here...
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elf... earlierI try and think of this "spreading effect" in a similar way to the way we think of our shadows cast by a "lonely" street lamp as we walk away from it into the darkling gloom. There is a distortion of perspective. That which is casting the shadow remains small and intact... me... while the shadow lengthens grossly and dramatically across the flat landscape as the angle between the streetlight and my head reduces to ever lower angles.... Eventually my shadow covers everything in front of me out to "infinity", my feet are normal but the distortion of my head is "extreme". However when I arrive home and pass into my house through my door that "big" shadow does not need to fit... My presence in the house means that the shadow outside is now "gone".
Mobius Transformation Stereographic projection of a Riemann Sphere
Of course this is a low dimensional representation and the reality is far more complex involving the quantum harmonics that dance on the Riemann sphere as the principal quantum numbers... at least for particle domains. What these "superpositions " are should be left for another discussion. We will stay with the geometry of the Michelson-Morley Experiment and the original question which is only the projection onto our flatspace in spacetime.
You had a question about the quote you have there.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Clarification of the problem ..
For simplicity we re-use 'old' equipment but on this occasion we are looking at the speed of light itself .. detection of Aether drift is not what is being analyzed.
Full image here : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9...lson-morley.png (thanks Wiki)
The semi-silvered mirror has many of the properties of a double slit in that it allows (forces) the light into two paths. The light detector is normally a screen, this will suffice for a start. By moving the mirrors we make the total blue path length one metre and the total green path length 1000 metres. Classical analysis assures us that we still see interference at the screen. Quantum analysis (Dirac?) assures us that a photon can only interfere with itself .. so does the photon 'probability pattern' arrive at the screen after 1/c, 1000/c or something else? To me it seems that the 'speed of light' cannot be consistent over both paths.
If we use a laser and reduce the light intensity it should be possible to scan a detector over the interference pattern and actually measure the time delay between the photon emission and detection. I feel this should be a 'classic' QM demonstration experiment .. but I can't find anything like it.
This might or might not shed some light on the 'instant' nature of solutions which Good Elf has described in his last post. |
I agree totally, it will shed some light on the problem. This reference may assist in dealing with your particular question...
Wolfram Research:Fourier Transform Spectrometer The speed of light is indeed constant but the paths differ in length. This should not pose a conceptual block to understanding the nature of propagation. You can see these effects when you are in a TV reception area where it is subject to two different paths at the same time. You end up with a "ghost" image that may be delayed or advance of the stronger main beam image. With digital signals of course ghosts are a thing of the past but this phenomena is explained by having two separate paths to the receiver. In the Michelson-Morely Experiment (with unequal arms), the important factor is the resonant nature of "empty space". Now how many photons actually are used is important to the original concept of the quanta. You seem unable to resolve the idea that these waves are
spreading for photons, or at least for most cases of radiation. This is the nature of this basic bosonic field within our Universe. I did answer this question here...
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elfthis was a follow on from here...
Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later: Good Elf... earlierI try and think of this "spreading effect" in a similar way to the way we think of our shadows cast by a "lonely" street lamp as we walk away from it into the darkling gloom. There is a distortion of perspective. That which is casting the shadow remains small and intact... me... while the shadow lengthens grossly and dramatically across the flat landscape as the angle between the streetlight and my head reduces to ever lower angles.... Eventually my shadow covers everything in front of me out to "infinity", my feet are normal but the distortion of my head is "extreme". However when I arrive home and pass into my house through my door that "big" shadow does not need to fit... My presence in the house means that the shadow outside is now "gone".
Mobius Transformation Stereographic projection of a Riemann SphereOf course this is a low dimensional representation and the reality is far more complex involving the quantum harmonics that dance on the Riemann sphere as the principal quantum numbers... at least for particle domains. What these "superpositions " are should be left for another discussion. We will stay with the geometry of the Michelson-Morley Experiment and the original question which is only the projection onto our flatspace in spacetime.
You had a question about the quote you have there. The reciprocal relationship "connects" with the spatial relationships through the evanescent region and the property of quantum tunneling... [..]
That does help when you are considering other kinds of particles and their de Broglie Matter Waves. If you see what I mean it is the de Broglie Matter Waves that are the same "essence", that is electromagnetism, of the quantum penetrating from within the electron or other particle. Naturally that is a reciprocal space noted there ... at least relative to our space. The fermion tries to penetrate our space through tunneling... it cannot because it is "causally knotted" via CPT. The internal radiation can leak marginally from the space as waves but cannot dissipate in particle interactions, the advanced and retarded potentials are dynamically balanced. A more instructive quote was the one on virtual photons I made above.
"Virtual Photons" quote from above... near endThe origin of all known forces except for a tiny contribution from the weak force as radioactivity. Of course I think that "gravity" is only a pseudo-force and that leaves the other three "forces" to pick up the tab for everything else.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Does a single "photon" constitute only ONE frequency? IE. is 1 "photon" monochromatic. Here I mean, as usual, ABSOLUTELY monochromatic, not the kind of monochromatic thrown around in the labs, that are derived from statistics & probabilities.
Secondly, and also very important to understanding this "phenomenon", (IMHO) I will ask this:
Is the "half-silvered" mirror an observer? Is it composed of electrons, like all other matter? I'm certain that it is, but I could be wrong.
If the mirror is an observer, what does this say about the round-trip measurement done on the "photon's" journey? Is the second "gate", or re-emission point any different from the first? All journeys of light will be measured @ c regardless of changing parameters like distance and speed.
I can't indicate here an entire course in Fourier Transforms and their uses (I wish I could) but I will try and get you up to speed on just some aspects of it, the rest you may be able to "Google". Nothing in the Universe can exist as one frequency unless it extends to + and - infinity in time (consider this as a convergence at T = 0 of two waves one moving forward in time and the other time reversed (advanced and retarded waveforms shown above when discussing Wheeler and Feynman's Emitter-Absorber Theory (see diagram a few posts ago). If you truncate this "perfect sinusoid" by emitting and absorbing you have automatically introduced the extra frequencies. Every event in time must have a finite duration, this is the natural way to express this. Photons experimentally can be considered to exist in approximately 1/2 a wavelength of distance in the direction of propagation, a narrow "packet". Classically the packet is an impulse function (the response of a system to an event of finite duration) which is a single rectangular "pulse" of almost infinite height and extremely narrow extension (like a blow from a hammer) in time with conventionally unit area when integrated + to - infinity in time... the Dirac delta function. This is in the time domain... the same function can also be expressed as a "sync function" in the frequency domain, a harmonic packet that contains an infinite number of frequencies in the frequency domain (please note that the diagrams are "complex" and have "complex" sign). Usually instruments cannot record this "complex" part and displays something like the energy density... the normalized square of the amplitude. The same "impulse" in the frequency domain is a single frequency (as TRoc suggested) of near infinite amplitude and also nearly absolute zero frequency bandwidth. If we then express this in the time domain it is a "sync function" only this instance in the time domain... a sinusoid (mechanical oscillation) that is attenuated in the time domain but extends to + or - infinity running forward and back along the time axis. You cannot get around that. These are not theoretical idealizations they are used in practical signal processing and image reconstruction as well as the principle behind so many instruments I could not begin to describe. You can closely simulate a perfectly sinusoidal waveform in the time domain.... this is an undulation that starts slowly at first at some time and continues for a period of time at constant amplitude then stops by tapering off in time. the wider you make this "oscillation" in time the representation in the frequency domain looks more and more like that single line TRocs ideal single frequency "spectra". The more you try and simulate a single harmonic frequency... The longer the duration in time that you will need to "purify the frequency". A "pure" frequency which is a single line in the spectrum of infinite narrowness correctly extends from + infinity to - infinity in time. The nearest we can approach this is the Continuous Wave LASER. To be a "continuous" wave you must leave it "stimulate" forever, to + and - T = infinity, only then will it be a true single line.
Transform PairThis image shows the "pair" in the frequency and the time domain of the way a boxcar (truncation) of a perfect sine wave results in extra frequencies. I have shown this before. Here is a new image that I have not shown before... transform pairs.
Fourier Transform Pairs See this link for detail...
On the left side is the "Time" Domain and on the right side is the "Frequency" domain. The left side is a "time series" with time increasing to the right and T = 0 in the middle and the right side is a frequency spectrum (including the phase and frequency) with frequency increasing to the right and f = 0 in the middle. Note the negative frequencies.... There is a double arrow in the center between the two representations. This indicates absolute equivalence (they are the same in different domains... what I mean by saying this is you could choose to show the same events either as a time series or as a complex frequency spectrum... the same). I should also point out that except for the naming conventions the left and right hand sides could be seamlessly exchanged without any change in "graphs". This means a "sync function" in the 'time" domain is identical to an "impulse" in the frequency domain (delta function or Dirac function of infinite narrow width but area under of the curve noralized to one). Perfect "reciprocity". The top diagram is your function TRoc... a single line (impulse) in the time domain is equivalent to an infinite continuum of frequencies in the frequency domain. But more importantly you can also reverse this picture such that a single line in the frequency domain is equivalent to to a DC offset in the time domain. So if you want to have a single "real" frequency this consists of two DC offsets in time... one up followed by one down. with as near to zero interval between them as possible. The third series shows a single truncated sine wave which stops where it is shown at + and - T. This is equivalent to two impulses in the frequency domain at the positive and negative frequencies shown. These may also be represented by Euler's Equation as well using the functions i = square root of minus 1 and pi. One of these "starts" the oscillation in time and the other stops the oscillation in time in harmonic systems. This is the function shown in the previous image above. Now consider that the sync function in time is a packet where if you were considering photons... that central 1/2 wavelength "hat" sits squarely at the center of the propagating wavefront around a 1/2 wavelength period. The next 1/2 wavelength "bump" differs in phase by 180 degrees and sits 1/2 a wavelength away from the first. The trailing bits to + and - infinity overlay and "cancel" in amplitude and phase where they coincide. Being on different wavefronts they cannot exchange any energy with each other being "causally" disconnected in time but they do contribute to the wave "picture". Thus ends the elven view of Fourier Transform Pairs and their relation to the entire universe.
What I have omitted to say is that this time vs frequency "picture" is equally disposed to the space and spatial frequency picture... it is absolutely idential (all maps and pictures are the same)... these spatial frequencies are reciprocal space in the same way as reciprocal time is the frequency. This leads to holographic imagery not only in time but through all space. Thus all the Universe is "Holographic" in all dimensions and for all space and time coordinates ... the link is to reciprocal space and reciprocal time through resonances and spatial and temporal cavities. We have always been dealing with these "indirectly" though primitively as Radio Frequency Technology and to Optics.
We know that light is made up of "packets"... immediately this tells us that the photons "individually" though predominantly of a single frequency
MUST be composed of a spectra to exist with those sidebands in space and in time. It so happens that the energy of the bosonic state can be reduced to a least action if in general a number of these photons share the same state and allow those "sidebands" to mutually cancel through overlap since the main frequency cannot cancel. These extra frequencies that the packet contains "kicks" the particle (photon) from the orbitals during "stimulated emission". Think of the packets "merging" in the one boson state on the one wavefront pairing up to minimize those sidebands by choosing to allow them to be "conjugate phases".... just in those additional frequencies. These effects are like "Cooper Pairs" for the electron (fermion)... there is a strong correlation but that is another story.. we will stick with bosons for now.
Now TRoc's last question... does the beam splitter act as an observer... not really. Observer's collapse superimposed states. This refers back to when does the wave-function collapse (just ignore any photons that do not contribute to the final interference pattern). The contributing photons all carry a qubit, when they lose the qubit through any process they no longer contribute to the picture It collapses (in our time) when a particular photon is involved in an absorption or scattering event. This does not occur (in this case) in the beam-splitter but on the screen. A photon ideally can reflect, diffract, interfere, tunnel any number of times without penalty (sure some of them will be destroyed but they will not take part in the final interference pattern). Only particle interactions detect the photon and "localize" it. Otherwise it is off "exploring all paths" way out to infinity as "waves"... all these functions extend to infinity in both the positive and negative frequency directions completely enveloping our Universe wherever it can go. This is the events "foreknowledge" of future things and also describes all that went before the event reaching even to the end of time and back to the big bang. The photon is freed from the temporal restrictions we all experience as Time but the penalty is that it cannot experience time either. This is conventional Wheeler Feynman Theory (as explained by elves of course). So what part does an observer really play in Wheeler Feynman Theory... nothing at all... it is a classical theory of causality in a non-local Universe.
Cheers
Confused2
22nd October 2006 - 10:22 AM
Hi
Good Elf, Ron, Yquantum, TRoc, Why Not? et al,
I think what you are suggesting is that you take the frequency response H(w) of the DSE considered (somehow) as a network.. If we could model a photon as a function of frequency to get F1(w) we can say that that the output should be
Eq (1) F2(w) = F1(w) x H(w).
Looking at a real analysis of a somewhat similar situation (
http://elmer.caltech.edu/ph237/week18/AET1.pdf [thanks Why Not] ) either these JPL guys have got it wrong or what turns up at the receiver is simply the FT of laser signal noise delayed by the path length.
From Eq 3.1 is a time domain analysis and from Eq A1 is a frequency domain analysis .. both with the same result.
Clearly their 'arms' are very much longer than the wavelength of interest whereas our arms are relatively short compared to the wavelength .. even so, I think caution is appropriate here. To confirm or refute the validity of my Eq(1) I see no reason to avoid expressing the intensity at a particular point on the screen as a function of frequency (using classical EM analysis) to get H(w). We know the F2(t) at the screen so we can get the F2(w) from that .. we then look at the implied F(w) of a photon and see if it's plausible. Does that seem fair and reasonable?
If you are happy with the process (or can suggest a better one).. state your assumptions clearly and we can try to zap it with some maths.
-C2
Good Elf
22nd October 2006 - 04:39 PM
Hi
Confused2, Ron, Yquantum, TRoc, Why Not? et al,
The simplest form of photon is the atomic system response to a "primitive" impulse and that is it. The foregoing was all about that kind of description. More complex phenomena such as OAM may be "added" as we have discussed in the past. Intrinsic spin is essentially part of all photons. There is no simple way to model a complete real MM Interferometer. Simple mathematics using optical construction give a very good practical picture though wrong in the level of detail we are discussing here (as we both know). The DSE can be modeled with the standard Feynman Approach to Quantum Electrodynamics (without the Emitter Absorber Theory) that I pointed you to since that instrument is "linear" and does not retrace any paths. I am sure that a similar piece of software "could" be constructed for a MM Interferometer but not everything is readily available.
The article you have placed here on Gravity Wave Detectors bears no import on the matters under discussion.
JPL have presented a classical description of an interferometer that would have been perfectly understood by Huygens in his day. It does not discuss the shape or nature of the quantum phenomena since it is not required for this analysis. It deals with signal noise in a more sophisticated manner though. Unequal arms in MM Interferometer does influence the ability to invoke noise cancellation in GW detectors (noise is just noise) but it is just a side issue which is only of interest to those who need to measure such things. A little system noise does not cause any problems with the standard MM Interferometer nor will it be any deciding factor in the Double Slit Interference Experiment or Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. Interference will still occur within single photons regardless of the lengths of the arms in the MM Interferometer... the noise mentioned will always be there with electronics but the systems we are discussing are not that sensitive to that level of influence. What we are supposed to be debating is the shape of the extended wavefronts of single packets in (and about) the MM Interferometer for single spreading photons. You must keep on the subject matter I am not about to discuss the state of pixidust in Neverland.
As to assumptions, I do not make any, I rely on mostly existing experiments and their results for evidence, and I have researched what I am discussing as well as I can without any research materials other than the Internet and my own "ingenuity". I am not about to simply waste time on irrelevant papers without some real justification ... I see absolutely no connection with the experiments we are discussing or any need to reduce the noise by such a factor required to measure distortions in spacetime of the order of 1/1000 the width of an atomic nucleus over several kilometers. Gravity Waves represent one of the most feeble influences that man could possibly measure ... if we ever finally do.
I have shown that my statement is standard theory that photons only interfere within themselves and not with other photons... they are bosons. That is essentially why pictures from Hubble deep space can travel those vast distances without any distortions at all and still produce crisp and bright images after 13 billion years of travel. If they were able to be interfered with by other photons you think they could get here with so much clarity if they picked up "noise" along the way? Now if this interference can be accounted for by semi-classical non-local methods or that only a local quantum explanation derived through some throw of the dice is required... is the subject I think. There are excellent experimental grounds for the former and I have previously presented the information in this thread. There is no significant noise in the results of any of these interference experiments... the results are the same regardless of the photon flux. Every photon through an interferometer that undergoes interference and is detected results in a flash on the screen. All other inadvertent flashes throughout the instrument can be reduced to as low a level as you like with correct design. All flashes on the screen can be arranged to be the result of the laser source. All flashes not on the screen are not recorded.
Obviously you do not see what the significance of the article on Fourier Transform Spectrometer has to this discussion and why the scanning of that arm length actually performs the transform required to visualize a "packet" filtered by the response function of an instrument if you use a "pure" CW Laser. The numerical value of the response function is not required. Go work it out with a pencil if you like but these devices sit on workbenchs as diagnostic instruments.
By your reckoning the unequal arm MM Interferometer could not work if the photon flux was reduced to single photon events as shown in other experiments like the DSQE or the DSE. Why would the Universe have a different answer for the same kind of problem? Purely "classical" interpretations of reflections will not work in the real world as you already know.
If you have some theoretical objections to this proposition, you put your case and I will consider it. Please stay on the subject at least a little... No criticism intended just testing to my patience.
I do not "like" to use maths as you probably realize, I prefer visual and physical understanding with references from relevant papers (by authors who incidently have done all the "mathematical legwork" for me, I am not about to simply "copy" their work but I am happy to quote it), but that does not mean that I do not understand mathematics and recognize a "red herring" when I see it. Not only that I have very limited server space to "publish" and make generally available.
Cheers
TRoc
22nd October 2006 - 11:31 PM
All,
I feel I should reiterate my main question:
"Does anyone agree that the correct definition of single "photon" should be that it has just ONE frequency?"
Why Not? - "what would happen if the distance between the slits and the screen were less than the minimal wavelength of the photons being sent through the slits?"
Nothing, or at least, not the results of the experiment.
That is why, given that the wave going through the slit is NOT one frequency, it vibrates differently at each meeting with the slit. This results in the pattern being "random" at first, and then, as the "noise" (meaning the UNACCOUNTED FOR parts of the wave) is reduced, through beat frequency reductions, to its' ground resonance, which is derived simply by the resonant ratio of the wave to the slit.
This is exactly the opposite of the way that the wave is created in the laser. Essentially, we are limited in the energies that we can produce/control, so there is always "leftovers" from the quantum transition. These are reduced through Bf reductions in the cavity, and then filters, to get the beam "focused". The almost-monochromatic light has a definite PHASE, which is what, in the end, is being translated onto the screen.
GE,
I think, given your tendency toward the wave approach, that you should consider the "switch". I felt much better after having done so. From Fourier to Wavelet Transforms. You must remember always: the rule does not define the phenomenon, it explains it. You can not offer the limitations of Fourier Transforms, and the "sine-wave" model, as an argument against the experiment.
This is exactly what I mean about Science over-focusing on the shape of the wave, when we have no good, hard evidence (in the books) of what shape it is. We all (here) seem to agree that the spiral/helical shape is, at least better, than the sine.
The part they never took a good enough look at is the interactions of resonance. There are no real rules, or clear definition. Think about the color wheel for visible light, and the chord in music. They never (had) any mathematical derivation; what a shame! I have shown these before.
So, I will also add, that I disagree about ONLY self interaction of the photons. That contradicts the visible light color mixing experiments, that are accepted, and "in the book".
regards,
T.Roc
Good Elf
23rd October 2006 - 03:00 PM
Hi TRoc,
Color addition is actually a psychological phenomenon. The Universe does not care what we individually "see". The single frequency is only realized in totally "coherent" radiation. This is when all photons can "inhabit" the one state in the one place at the one time as a bosonic wave... Bose-Einstein Statistics. LASER's also have a natural tendency toward "coherency" as does monochromatic light from a metal halide lamp. For interference to work the light waves have a phase organizing capacity for each frequency of light from a source. Better to be a LASER source but not "absolutely" essential. Coherency does not automatically mean parallelism either.
While there is plenty of random "noise" in the Universe photons retain their "eternal youth" forever or they "die" instantly. There is no evidence in the practical universe that photons pick up noise as they travel through space as I have said above. I have always thought that there is no ceaseless disturbance at the quantum limit. That would necessarily disturb this calm medium of the vacuum to transmit all that phase information about distant stars without any break-up or blurring of the source image. My view is the smaller we look the greater the energy needs to disturb the "surface" of the Universe's "pool". The noise is totally reduced to events in that "pools" surface which embed in a surface that is "eternally calm" due to the energy that is needed to disturb it. I may not be right about that and it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. So this seems to be strong evidence for interference only being able to disturb the one photon. All photons in the one boson state will undergo the same self interference. What I would add is "conventional wisdom" has no proof that their view is correct either. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence... he he he!
QUOTE (TRoc+)
I think, given your tendency toward the wave approach, that you should consider the "switch". I felt much better after having done so. From Fourier to Wavelet Transforms. You must remember always: the rule does not define the phenomenon, it explains it. You can not offer the limitations of Fourier Transforms, and the "sine-wave" model, as an argument against the experiment.
Sorry I am not arguing against any experiment... you must have me wrong there? The Fourier series is the only "natural" process used by our Universe as evidenced by electromagnetism and by circuit theory and also Electrodynamic Quantum Theory are spherical harmonics... Fourier on the surface of a sphere. The existence of the dual nature of particles are only truly symmetric using Fourier theory and the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory works only with the existence of that interpretation of time and frequency in a complex domain. Wavelet Transforms are only 1/2 the picture (real transforms... using only 1/2 plane in time)... a useful tool but is an underachiever in this regard. It lacks the full symmetry.
Cheers
Aireal
23rd October 2006 - 04:18 PM
Please forgive my ignorance, I did not major in physics. But why the surprise that the electron would show an interferance pattern when subjected to the two slit experiment?
A couple of days ago, I was reading the paper wrote by Feynman for his Noble Prize. In it he relates the story of how he came to discover that a moving electron interacts with its own waves. This of course would cause an interferance pattern to be detected if you looked for it. These views were shared by many others and gave rise to modern physics and the particle/wave duality of matter. Other work based on his also show why, as Confused2 pointed out "The number of maxima indicate (to me) that a single electron is effectively in more than one 'wave' of de Broglie wavelength... the same as with a photon," An interferance pattern would be expected from the electron, I would be more surprised if one was not detected. I thought this matter was resolved over a generation ago, and this experiment just provided final experimental proof for what was proved mathematically long ago. Only a view that takes only a particle approach or only a wave approach should be surprised at the results of the electron in a two slit experiment, and I thought we were past such limited views.
Now granted, as I said at the start, I did not major in physics, so my knowledge of advanced physics is limited, but if someone could explain this, I would be grateful. Did we depart form the views held by Feynman and others?
TRoc
23rd October 2006 - 05:58 PM
GE,
First, you still didn’t answer my question:
“Does anyone agree that the correct definition of single "photon" should be that it has just ONE frequency?"
QUOTE
“Color addition is actually a psychological phenomenon. The Universe does not care what we individually "see".”
Well, that seems contradictory to me. Saying it is a psychological phenomenon is saying that humans are at the center of the Universe. It is only our interpretation that counts? No, we and all other forms of life, have evolved to take advantage of the signals that are readily available, and advantageous to survival. This means that the 3 cones evolved to pick out the natural energy of resonance that occurs in the triad.
Regardless, I can give many other examples of waves mixing together, without reference to color and sound, it is just that those are the most basic, and common to us all.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “Color addition is actually a psychological phenomenon. The Universe does not care what we individually "see".” |
Well, that seems contradictory to me. Saying it is a psychological phenomenon is saying that humans are at the center of the Universe. It is only our interpretation that counts? No, we and all other forms of life, have evolved to take advantage of the signals that are readily available, and advantageous to survival. This means that the 3 cones evolved to pick out the natural energy of resonance that occurs in the triad.
Regardless, I can give many other examples of waves mixing together, without reference to color and sound, it is just that those are the most basic, and common to us all.
“There is no evidence in the practical universe that photons pick up noise as they travel through space as I have said above.”
The truth is, they don’t HAVE to “pick up noise”, but, they CAN. The rules of resonance automatically come with rules for dissonance. The Universe, and all that it contains, is set up to be harmonics of a small set of numbers. Without going fully into that right now, it suffices to say that the electron, and all possible “photon” resonances, have that relationship. The same relations that allow the electron to be stable allow the photon to travel at the speed limit, and relatively unimpeded. Red shift, gravitational bending, reduction/absorption by plasma clouds, etc. all change the apparent properties of the “photon” while in flight.
QUOTE
“Sorry I am not arguing against any experiment... you must have me wrong there?”
I am talking about the next to last post.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “Sorry I am not arguing against any experiment... you must have me wrong there?” |
I am talking about the next to last post.
“Nothing in the Universe can exist as one frequency unless it extends to + and - infinity in time (consider this as a convergence at T = 0 of two waves one moving forward in time and the other time reversed .. Usually instruments cannot record this "complex" part and displays something like the energy density... the normalized square of the amplitude .. You can closely simulate a perfectly sinusoidal waveform in the time domain.... “
Now those are just snips, but my point was (is) that you are taking inherent limitations of the Fourier process, and attaching them to the phenomenon being described. Much the same for your “psychological” argument against color mixing. I too, would add that “I can't indicate here an entire course in Fourier Transforms and their uses”, nor the full description of all of the many Wavelet Transform methods. I will just say that it has come a long way in 20 years, and MOST of the people “in the front lines”, have made the switch. This is where “theories” end, and reality sets in. Whatever works, works, and people will tend to drop ideas and methods that are not easy and correct all the time.
One of the biggest differences is that the Fourier works against nature, and Time. Time exist in one direction; no proof to the contrary exists. Indications because of the method used do not give useful information of the process itself. The Fourier Transforms are integral transforms in both directions, the Wavelet series is an integral transform in one direction, and a series in the other.
Thus, Wavelets are localized in BOTH time and frequency; Fourier only by frequency.
Another big difference: the scaling ability of the Wavelets. This allows the same method to be used for many purposes other than QM, like molecular dynamics, climatology, astrophysics, geophysics, etc. Exactly what the doctor ordered, right?
This does give a better picture.
QUOTE
“The Fourier series is the only "natural" process used by our Universe..”
Totally wrong, my friend. It is the least natural.
Is the Em wave a sphere?
Is the EM wave a sinusoid?
Is the EM wave a point?
Do both “phases” of a wave appear to a stationary observer? To a co-moving observer?
This is the duality. At relativistic speeds, the duality changes from one to the other. For all other experiences, they do not exist at the same time. This is hard to reconcile with a sphere, point, or sinusoid.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “The Fourier series is the only "natural" process used by our Universe..” |
Totally wrong, my friend. It is the least natural.
Is the Em wave a sphere?
Is the EM wave a sinusoid?
Is the EM wave a point?
Do both “phases” of a wave appear to a stationary observer? To a co-moving observer?
This is the duality. At relativistic speeds, the duality changes from one to the other. For all other experiences, they do not exist at the same time. This is hard to reconcile with a sphere, point, or sinusoid.
“The existence of the dual nature of particles are only truly symmetric using Fourier theory and the Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory works only with the existence of that interpretation of time and frequency in a complex domain.”
That is exactly what I mean by the limitations of the theory used to describe a phenomenon. How will this “only true symmetry” translate across the scales of size? The true symmetry will exist all the way from the smallest, to the largest thing we can observe. The “infinities” don’t matter, because we exist in a Hubble reality; the infinitesimals don’t matter because of the Planck limit. We only need a scale that describes what is in between them.
Regards,
T.Roc
Zephir
23rd October 2006 - 07:49 PM
QUOTE (TRoc+Oct 23 2006, 08:58 PM)
...Totally wrong, my friend. It is the least natural...
Totally right, the GE's Fourier transform extrapolations are incredibly naive and bring no understanding/explanations, the predictions the less.
Good Elf
24th October 2006 - 09:12 AM
Hi
Confused2, TRoc, Zephir, Yquantum,
Aireal et al,
QUOTE (Aireal+)
Please forgive my ignorance, I did not major in physics. But why the surprise that the electron would show an interferance pattern when subjected to the two slit experiment?
A couple of days ago, I was reading the paper wrote by Feynman for his Noble Prize. In it he relates the story of how he came to discover that a moving electron interacts with its own waves. [...]An interferance pattern would be expected from the electron, I would be more surprised if one was not detected. I thought this matter was resolved over a generation ago, and this experiment just provided final experimental proof for what was proved mathematically long ago. Only a view that takes only a particle approach or only a wave approach should be surprised at the results of the electron in a two slit experiment, and I thought we were past such limited views.
It really goes back to the 1920's with Prince Louis de Broglie and the idea of Matter Waves. In the years before the 20th Century, the idea that wave phenomena were "constructed" using the Huygen's Principles from "ripples" in the Aether.
Wikipedia: Huygens-Fresnel principle Please look at this page and consider it carefully.
This principle of construction is a principle used to this day to describe the nature of Light when it propagates. Of course in Huygen's day (1629 - 1695) the analogy of light spreading like waves on water was a very strong metaphor. Construction of such "pictures" was on the basis of constructive and destructive interference of single phase monochromatic sources. The question today is how big is a single photon... do photons themselves "spread" or do they behave like tiny particles? Do they interfere with themselves only or can they interfere with many other photons leading to the picture that Huygens once thought appropriate? The quantum particle nature of light has led to a dual theory. "Particles" of everything have a wave and a particle nature at the same time. The proposition is that a single photon seems to pass through both slits at once and thus interferes with itself. This has been shown by experiments with very weak sources of light where only one photon at a time is used to construct the interference patterns on a screen. What we also find is the screen is "exposed" to tiny single flashes of light and not a very weak low level of light and dark bands as may be expected from "construction" and builds up from of millions of such single events.
Single Photon InterferenceThe same phenomenon occurs with particles of matter such as electrons as well, only that the wavelengths are very much shorter than for light. The question is... is all this a act of chance and totally unpredictable or is there an underlying determinism about this we are failing to notice? The next question is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment has shown that events that happen after an entangled photon is "destroyed" determine what will have been recorded "in the past" to it's entangled twin.
"A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" How is this possible? That is were we stand at the moment... what is an explanation for all of this?
I think you all should know me by now that I really do not accept the argument that just because everyone else believe something that I should too. I am not a “me too” type of guy! I accept only what we know is demonstrated by experiment, and by the results of those experiments alone. What I am saying is that there is absolutely no evidence for the propositions put forward that Fourier Transforms are not the way, that time is not symmetrical when viewed from “beyond” our current dimensional context, that a reciprocal domain does not answer all the questions that the linear dimensional context fails to address.
QUOTE (Confused2+)
First, you still didn’t answer my question:
“Does anyone agree that the correct definition of single "photon" should be that it has just ONE frequency?"
I thought that I definitively indicated an answer to that question in the previous posts. It seemed to me this question could not be addressed to me but a request addressed to others. Surely when I posted….
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
QUOTE (TRoc+)
Does a single "photon" constitute only ONE frequency? IE. is 1 "photon" monochromatic. Here I mean, as usual, ABSOLUTELY monochromatic, not the kind of monochromatic thrown around in the labs, that are derived from statistics & probabilities.
Secondly, and also very important to understanding this "phenomenon", (IMHO) I will ask this:
Is the "half-silvered" mirror an observer? Is it composed of electrons, like all other matter? I'm certain that it is, but I could be wrong.
If the mirror is an observer, what does this say about the round-trip measurement done on the "photon's" journey? Is the second "gate", or re-emission point any different from the first? All journeys of light will be measured @ c regardless of changing parameters like distance and speed.
I can't indicate here an entire course in Fourier Transforms and their uses (I wish I could) but I will try and get you up to speed on just some aspects of it, the rest you may be able to "Google". Nothing in the Universe can exist as one frequency unless it extends to + and - infinity in time (consider this as a convergence at T = 0 of two waves one moving forward in time and the other time reversed (advanced and retarded waveforms shown above when discussing Wheeler and Feynman's Emitter-Absorber Theory (see diagram a few posts ago). If you truncate this "perfect sinusoid" by emitting and absorbing you have automatically introduced the extra frequencies. Every event in time must have a finite duration, this is the natural way to express this. Photons experimentally can be considered to exist in approximately 1/2 a wavelength of distance in the direction of propagation, a narrow "packet". Classically the packet is an impulse function (the response of a system to an event of finite duration) which is a single rectangular "pulse" of almost infinite height and extremely narrow extension (like a blow from a hammer) in time with conventionally unit area when integrated + to - infinity in time... the Dirac delta function. This is in the time domain... the same function can also be expressed as a "sync function" in the frequency domain, a harmonic packet that contains an infinite number of frequencies in the frequency domain (please note that the diagrams are "complex" and have "complex" sign). Usually instruments cannot record this "complex" part and displays something like the energy density... the normalized square of the amplitude. The same "impulse" in the frequency domain is a single frequency (as TRoc suggested) of near infinite amplitude and also nearly absolute zero frequency bandwidth. If we then express this in the time domain it is a "sync function" only this instance in the time domain... a sinusoid (mechanical oscillation) that is attenuated in the time domain but extends to + or - infinity running forward and back along the time axis. You cannot get around that. These are not theoretical idealizations they are used in practical signal processing and image reconstruction as well as the principle behind so many instruments I could not begin to describe. You can closely simulate a perfectly sinusoidal waveform in the time domain.... this is an undulation that starts slowly at first at some time and continues for a period of time at constant amplitude then stops by tapering off in time. the wider you make this "oscillation" in time the representation in the frequency domain looks more and more like that single line TRocs ideal single frequency "spectra". The more you try and simulate a single harmonic frequency... The longer the duration in time that you will need to "purify the frequency". A "pure" frequency which is a single line in the spectrum of infinite narrowness correctly extends from + infinity to - infinity in time. The nearest we can approach this is the Continuous Wave LASER. To be a "continuous" wave you must leave it "stimulate" forever, to + and - T = infinity, only then will it be a true single line.
Transform PairThis image shows the "pair" in the frequency and the time domain of the way a boxcar (truncation) of a perfect sine wave results in extra frequencies. I have shown this before. Here is a new image that I have not shown before... transform pairs.
Fourier Transform Pairs See this link for detail...
On the left side is the "Time" Domain and on the right side is the "Frequency" domain. The left side is a "time series" with time increasing to the right and T = 0 in the middle and the right side is a frequency spectrum (including the phase and frequency) with frequency increasing to the right and f = 0 in the middle. Note the negative frequencies.... There is a double arrow in the center between the two representations. This indicates absolute equivalence (they are the same in different domains... what I mean by saying this is you could choose to show the same events either as a time series or as a complex frequency spectrum... the same). I should also point out that except for the naming conventions the left and right hand sides could be seamlessly exchanged without any change in "graphs". This means a "sync function" in the 'time" domain is identical to an "impulse" in the frequency domain (delta function or Dirac function of infinite narrow width but area under of the curve normalized to one). Perfect "reciprocity". The top diagram is your function TRoc... a single line (impulse) in the time domain is equivalent to an infinite continuum of frequencies in the frequency domain. But more importantly you can also reverse this picture such that a single line in the frequency domain is equivalent to to a DC offset in the time domain. So if you want to have a single "real" frequency this consists of two DC offsets in time... one up followed by one down. with as near to zero interval between them as possible. The third series shows a single truncated sine wave which stops where it is shown at + and - T. This is equivalent to two impulses in the frequency domain at the positive and negative frequencies shown. These may also be represented by Euler's Equation as well using the functions i = square root of minus 1 and pi. One of these "starts" the oscillation in time and the other stops the oscillation in time in harmonic systems. This is the function shown in the previous image above. Now consider that the sync function in time is a packet where if you were considering photons... that central 1/2 wavelength "hat" sits squarely at the center of the propagating wavefront around a 1/2 wavelength period. The next 1/2 wavelength "bump" differs in phase by 180 degrees and sits 1/2 a wavelength away from the first. The trailing bits to + and - infinity overlay and "cancel" in amplitude and phase where they coincide. Being on different wavefronts they cannot exchange any energy with each other being "causally" disconnected in time but they do contribute to the wave "picture". Thus ends the elven view of Fourier Transform Pairs and their relation to the entire universe.
What I have omitted to say is that this time vs frequency "picture" is equally disposed to the space and spatial frequency picture... it is absolutely identical (all maps and pictures are the same)... these spatial frequencies are reciprocal space in the same way as reciprocal time is the frequency. This leads to holographic imagery not only in time but through all space. Thus all the Universe is "Holographic" in all dimensions and for all space and time coordinates ... the link is to reciprocal space and reciprocal time through resonances and spatial and temporal cavities. We have always been dealing with these "indirectly" though primitively as Radio Frequency Technology and to Optics.
We know that light is made up of "packets"... immediately this tells us that the photons "individually" though predominantly of a single frequency MUST be composed of a spectra to exist with those sidebands in space and in time. It so happens that the energy of the bosonic state can be reduced to a least action if in general a number of these photons share the same state and allow those "sidebands" to mutually cancel through overlap since the main frequency cannot cancel. These extra frequencies that the packet contains "kicks" the particle (photon) from the orbitals during "stimulated emission". Think of the packets "merging" in the one boson state on the one wavefront pairing up to minimize those sidebands by choosing to allow them to be "conjugate phases".... just in those additional frequencies. These effects are like "Cooper Pairs" for the electron (fermion)... there is a strong correlation but that is another story.. we will stick with bosons for now.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=136062I think I tried to answer that point as clearly as I can with as much detail as I could be expected to offer in this cramped Forum format. I then immediately went on to answer the second part of your question.
When referring to your question on color addition, what is "primary" about the universe are the various frequencies of light, not the psychological effect of "color". Remember there are no "primary colors" in nature since what you have identified there are individual wavelengths or frequencies such as red, green and blue of television or the photo emulsion process or the CMYK (Cyan Magenta Yellow black) model subtractive scheme used in printing.
CMYK color modelThese are are single frequency "snapshots" that are stripped of phase and all the other frequencies that we know are also there. With just these few individual wavelengths you can construct a "color" picture of almost everything we can see apparently "restoring" all the other frequencies we have not specifically recorded. A very useful technique but based on the human mind to "add" and "subtract". Yet this is a fiction. The real world deals in infinitely more frequencies than just these few and it is our brain that is forming the complete pictures formed from those infinite number of different wavelengths and we interpret them as colors. Of course the Universe deals with those different photon frequencies one at a time as each frequency resonantly tests the spaces they are exploring. Nature is the most powerful parallel quantum computer ever realized and its "calculations" are the laws of Physics as we interpret them, working according to a fixed algorithm locked by laws of time and space (CPT). I am not trying to make what our minds do seem "trivial" but compared with the real Universe in all the frequencies and all the phases dynamically interacting... humans are one stop short of "blind" to the true depth of information there and we rely on our artificial "sensors" to try and capture a little more of that wonder that surrounds us.
QUOTE (TRoc+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
“There is no evidence in the practical universe that photons pick up noise as they travel through space as I have said above.”
The truth is, they don’t HAVE to “pick up noise”, but, they CAN. The rules of resonance automatically come with rules for dissonance. The Universe, and all that it contains, is set up to be harmonics of a small set of numbers. Without going fully into that right now, it suffices to say that the electron, and all possible “photon” resonances, have that relationship. The same relations that allow the electron to be stable allow the photon to travel at the speed limit, and relatively unimpeded. Red shift, gravitational bending, reduction/absorption by plasma clouds, etc. all change the apparent properties of the “photon” while in flight.
"Noise" is unneeded information... to change information that a single photon carries (Qubit) requires the original information to be totally erased and supplanted with new information. Part of the information is the phase information that is carried by the photon's "position" on the wavefront it is traveling on. The processes you are referring to are all "particle interactions" if they alter the information the photon is carrying. Once a photon is involved in a particle interaction (absorbed or scattered) as far as the original source of that photon is concerned it has become "noise". When we peer through telescopes at the distant stars, the "signal" are those pretty pictures of stars that contain all that phase and frequency information carried to us at the speed of light by remarkably stable information carriers... the photons. If something happens to them along the way (an interaction) they become part of the "noise"... unwanted signal. They will still carry information about that intermediate process they were involved in but we are not specifically interested in that "new" Qubit are we? If we were focused on that "intermediate" process that would be the signal and the picture of the stellar background simply becomes the "noise". While acting as a wave the particle properties of photons are entirely suppressed.
Your "sphere, point, sinusoid" view of electromagnetism indicate a single perspective point of view. Mine is a wave-particle view... both at the same time. No separation and perfect symmetry in both space and in time through both the spatial frequencies and temporal frequencies respectively. While we understand spatial frequencies and temporal frequencies we are highly chauvinistic about the space and time description of the events in our spacetime and refuse to accept that this has "missing data". From another perspective these spacetime events and wave phenomena are only "frequencies" in a reciprocal description of the Universe. It is simply a "mechanical impediment" that we are causal in our perspective regarding this point of view. Naturally this point of view enforces a direction in time. When we are referring to photons though, in the frame of reference that they are in is without time and so does not care about a direction in time. In the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment we see a dramatic demonstration of this phenomenon where causality paints a "flat" picture that does not contain the dimension of time. The static "painting" reaches and paints "all paths" for a single photon event. Time then seems to be a map of all these "paintings" like layers on an onion. It is only that this "natural Rembrandt" actually uses time to paint each individual event into our history. A completely "transaction" based Universe.
QUOTE (Zephir+)
QUOTE (TRoc @ Oct 23 2006+ 08:58 PM)
...Totally wrong, my friend. It is the least natural...
Totally right, the GE's Fourier transform extrapolations are incredibly naive and bring no understanding/explanations, the predictions the less.
I accept that my Theory is naive... My only question is... Is it naive enough?
Cheers
Confused2
24th October 2006 - 10:21 AM
Good Elf,yquantum, Troc, Ron, Why Not,Aireal, Zephir (!) et al
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
What I am saying is that there is absolutely no evidence for the propositions put forward that Fourier Transforms are not the way
So far no evidence whatsoever has been produced to support this view.
---------------------
I'm not sure to whether anyone apart from me accepts the modified MM experiment as a sort of inline two slit experiment .. it has two paths, it produces interference and it eliminates many of the complexities of the classic DSE.
The modified MM experiment has the advantage that we can take Feynmans wheel with a circumference equal to the classical ('de Broglie') wavelength of the light and walk the wheel along both paths. With a well collimated laser source there will be little or no contribution from any path other than the straight line. If the wheel ends up at the same angle via both paths then there will be a a maximum and if the wheels are 180 degrees out of phase then there will be a minimum (total destructive interference).
The same logic applied to the classic DSE explains the multiple maxima and minima.
Does anyone feel the actual experimental result (either case) will not be in precise agreement with the Feynman's prediction?
As Aireal alone seems to have followed .. the photon does not seem to be localised in any particular 'wave' or path, the concept of 'wavefront' looks pretty meaningless and as a result the speed of light looks pretty indeterminate.
Since we already know the result .. we can test any theory against it. I am at a loss to see where Fourier transforms apply, particularly in the case of the MM expriment where all paths are effectively straight. Rather than dive off into Big Bang theory I hope GE will (usefully) address this point.
--------------------
Troc, I agree that a photon has only one 'frequency' .. we've been here before .. for the sake of completeness I repeat my view that wavelength and frequency can only be interpreted in the light of Feynman's analysis (as above) of such phenomenon.
The point where some discussion by GE become appropriate is in consideration of whether the interference pattern is truly random or whether a photon is born with some extra quality that (if known) would enable us to predict the precise probabilty of intereference at a particular point - This might take us on to EPR type experiments which seem a bit advanced while we do not appear to know or agree the experimental evidence from the classic DSE.
-C2.
Zephir
24th October 2006 - 10:56 AM
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 24 2006, 12:12 PM)
I accept that my Theory is naive... My only question is... Is it naive enough...
The question isn't whether such theory is naive, but if it's sufficiently causal, i.e. whether it contains the sufficient density of logical consequences and extrapolations. The world is full of analogies, but some there are so distant, so they're homologies instead without internal causality. I'm afraid, the model of yours is homological, not analogical. For example, the
AWT is pretty simple too, but it works by the following way:
The space is formed by recursive foam. The introducing of energy into foam leads to local increasing of foam inertia. from this reason, each the energy wave is spreading inside the dense area of foam, having tendency to bounce and interfere with its own energy density profile (so called probability function). It leads to the well know quantum mechanic phenomena. It can even lead to the formation of another foam level.By such way, the causality loop remains closed like Uroboros, it can explain itself, remains simple & predictable and here are no substantial gaps in logic. Can you demonstrate such causality loop in your model based on Fourier transform?
Good Elf
24th October 2006 - 11:13 AM
Hi Confused2,
I think nobody ever reads my posts.... that is why I get this kind of answer... I present as clearly as possible and you can read things in well written English from apparently reputable alternative sources but still no one will believe me.
QUOTE (C2+)
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
What I am saying is that there is absolutely no evidence for the propositions put forward that Fourier Transforms are not the way
So far no evidence whatsoever has been produced to support this view.
I have discussed these propositions carefully and if you do not accept that instruments are based on Fourier Techniques not on something else that is proof to me that Fourier Techniques are the process that nature is using to describe "herself". See these previous references to Fourier Techniques that are the natural expression in which the Universe uses to operate (all examples have been presented previously)...
Wikipedia: Huygens-Fresnel principleThis example is an unequal arm Michaelson-Morley Interferometer... cannot get much closer than that... just spend a penny and look at the Fourier deconvolution illustrated there.
Wolfram Research:Fourier Transform Spectrometer Delayed Choice Quantum EraserD0 is a special Fourier Plane detector.
Look at the simplicity that our Universe harnesses the Optical Fourier Transform...
An Optical Fourier Transform Instrument using image processingYet another simple example of Optical Fourier analysis using "the Universe"Simple "spatial filtering" using pure optics... Look folks... no moving parts... it is "natural" and a basic principle of the Universe. Your claim that you have not been given any proof means you can see one sitting on a bench and yet you do not think it could exist.
These are not some other form of transform... it is
ONLY the Fourier Transform that will perform this operation in both the Spatial and the Frequency domain and it does it "naturally" in both directions "reversibly". Show me something other than a computer that does Wavelet Transforms... no such "instrument". I feel a little like Galileo when he faced the Cardinals of the Inquisition when he showed them the moons of Jupiter through the telescope and after peering for a few minutes the cardinal said..."I see nothing".
QUOTE (C2+)
As Aireal alone seems to have followed .. the photon does not seem to be localized in any particular 'wave' or path, the concept of 'wavefront' looks pretty meaningless and as a result the speed of light looks pretty indeterminate.
Since we already know the result .. we can test any theory against it. I am at a loss to see where Fourier transforms apply, particularly in the case of the MM experiment where all paths are effectively straight. Rather than dive off into Big Bang theory I hope GE will (usefully) address this point.
What about the example above... the Fourier Transform Spectrometer with unequal arms?... For goodness sake it is a modified MM Interferometer. The idea of a wavefront may seem meaningless to you but I suggest you could easily acquaint yourself with it without much trouble.
Wikipedia: WavefrontThe wavepacket extends to infinity... check your sources... but "obviously" a wavepacket can't "jump" to the next wavefront or lag behind on the previous wavefront... light travels at only the speed of light... not above nor below. This is what a simplified wavepacket looks like.....
Wave PacketCheck out the little blue blips at the front and behind. The advanced and retarded components of a packet we can conveniently "forget about" but exists throughout all space. They also extend to the sides as well. Now when we speak of "coherent light" and collimated sources we have to account for other "modes"... for now just "keep it simple".
Cheers
Confused2
24th October 2006 - 11:26 AM
HiGood Elf et al,
Much better!
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The wavepacket extends to infinity... check your sources... but "obviously" a wavepacket can't "jump" to the next wavefront or lag behind on the previous wavefront... light travels at only the speed of light... not above nor below. This is what a simplified wavepacket looks like.....
(regret wavepacket link seems broken but I can imagine it)
I don't understand how you explain the existence of
1/ At the very least .. Multiple maxima/minima
2/ Single photon interference when the path lengths are clearly wildly different .. what speed of light do you use?
Is it the experimental results you dispute?
-C2.
More to follow..
Good Elf
24th October 2006 - 12:15 PM
Hi
Confused2, yquantum, Troc, Ron, Why Not,Aireal, Zephir et al
It is very regrettable that your browser has not enabled Java or you have just forgotten to install it. You may be one click away from Java enabling. The link is not broken. You may need to download Java and install it. Java is absolutely essential for the Internet. Since the dispute with Sun, Microsoft will no longer package Java with the browser. Long and bitter story.
QUOTE (C2+)
Is it the experimental results you dispute?
Umm... now you really lost me. I certainly will never dispute any experimental result. What I am saying is there is a way to explain all results without resulting to quantum "mumbo jumbo" double speak. I thought that is what I was doing. As all the sources I have used have stated ... each photon interferes with itself. The next point I have tried to make was ... a photon resides on a wavefront. The wavefront "seeks out all paths".... this is the same as saying each photon "seeks out all paths" since geometrically they are one and the same. As you have noted with Feynman.... "all really means all".
QUOTE (C2+)
I don't understand how you explain the existence of
1/ At the very least .. Multiple maxima/minima
2/ Single photon interference when the path lengths are clearly wildly different .. what speed of light do you use?
1/ Photons are simpler than the generalized wave packet. They will not contain several wavelengths like the wave structure of electrons or other fermions. If you carefully examine the production of each "wavefront" above (animated Gif)... what you will notice is that the spreading photons are "truncated" and "released" when the field lines "cross". This is "snipping off" a short length of the wave in the time domain. This is where there is an imposed "temporal node" in the photon wavepacket as opposed to the spatial nodes in the axial directions. Each photon is an "event".
2/ The speed of light is ©. The spreading wavefront may reflect from multiple "mirrors" or it may simply spread out to infinity. Velocity is a vector and not a scaler so it depends on direction as well. Easily interfere with itself... these "pancakes" can fit any "frying pan".... folded or not. Where is the photon? You really must understand that the core of that spin entity can only exist in one location in the end... you will not know where or when until it strikes the screen in the MM Interferometer. Any attempt to determine "which way" information will collapse that packet as it should and that individual photon will no longer will play any role in any diffraction pattern.
Let me state again... the paths of that one photon will actually explore all paths all the way out to infinity and to the end of time and back to the big bang.... the painting in time is a frozen pattern, a single event, that already knows where everything will be "forever". It has no knowledge about time since photons travel at the speed of light and "never age", they are "timeless" objects and they are not in anyway a form of "motion". Only objects in time can experience that. These are the force carriers of our Universe... the "Bosons"...
Earlier Post on Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory linked here
Between the red and blue line are "events" but in actual fact the full story extends to the "left and to the right" in space and "up and down" in time.... "forever" spatially and temporally.... confined only by the boundaries of our Universe. It is a spacetime diagram... One dimension in space and one dimension in time.
To those with crippled browsers (Internet Explorer) you can view any crushed image shown on these pages by right clicking on it then click on properties and copy the location into the browser location box. For others you simply right click and select "view image".
QUOTE (Zephir+)
Can you demonstrate such causality loop in your model based on Fourier transform?
Causality is "forced" simply by the process above and the laws of Charge Parity and Time (CPT). Thus these "loops" (particles!) can't spontaneously "unravel" because of "causality" and the inability of photons to "destroy" each other. Loops , twists, knots are possible... all (even the existence of our Universe) are sustained by the simplest of conservation laws. The obvious exception is something "outside" of our causal time... an antiparticle to our particle can completely unravel all loops and knots resulting in all information being "lost" and releasing the photons through "external" reciprocal spatial and temporal frequency and phase cancellation. Particle - antiparticle annihilation.
Standard Model built on D6 "Strings"P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach
There you go ... you can construct an entire Universe with that...
Cheers
Confused2
24th October 2006 - 01:44 PM
Hi Good Elf,
Yes, still better, thank you.
This is starting to seem a bit more like Feynman.
Looking at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Fo...ectrometer.htmlThe advantage of the MM over the DSE is that we can use a well collimated laser and all paths are straight. Arguably the 'odd' paths are unlikely and all except the straight path will cancel out rather nicely. Can we assume no losses?
For the next few lines an understanding of the beam-splitter is vital .. 'light' has a 50-50 chance of going straight on OR being reflected.
Let us make the path lengths very different but both an integer multiple of the wavelength of the light.
Photon in .. photon detected ..
every time (except for losses.. which we can make arbitrarily small). If the result is correct then we must agree that the sum of all the paths considered separately and/or together are bringing the photon to the point where we expect it .. can we say how long it will take to get there using Maxwell's equations or in any other way? Can we agree that it is slightly surprising that (apparently) two 'halves' of a photon have independently inspected the universe from the Big Bang to beyond the end of the Universe and they still come back to the right place with pretty much 100% probability.. quite remarkable.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Photons are simpler than the generalized wave packet. They will not contain several wavelengths.
Er, please forgive me for expressing the sentiment that photons (as described above) seem rather more remarkable than any 'wavepacket' that has ever been explained to me.
If we felt strong enough we could shift one of the path lengths by a quarter wavelength .. 50% probability of detection .. where do the rest go?
And another quarter wavelength .. 0% probability of detection .. where have all the photons gone?
I think your bubble drawing is intended to describe the birth of a wavepacket .. may I be forgiven for suggesting a photon might be a completely different beast?
Feynman goes on to predict the probability of detection of a photon at any point .. can Good Elf do the same except using the means described by Feynman?
So far we have only used three dimensions .. (I'm not even sure we still
have 'time')
-C2.
Good Elf
24th October 2006 - 02:52 PM
Hi
Confused2, yquantum, Troc, Ron, Why Not,Aireal, Zephir et al.
QUOTE (C2+)
For the next few lines an understanding of the beam-splitter is vital .. 'light' has a 50-50 chance of going straight on OR being reflected.
I of course do not want to talk about 50 - 50 anythings ..... the flash on the screen will decide where and when the center of the photon eventually ends up... it will have two possible times for it to arrive... sooner or later. It is in the lap of the "gods".
QUOTE (C2+)
Can we agree that it is slightly surprising that (apparently) two 'halves' of a photon have independently inspected the universe from the Big Bang to beyond the end of the Universe and they still come back to the right place with pretty much 100% probability.. quite remarkable.
Yes ... this is because it travels via the outside of our Universe (relative to our perspective) along the extra dimensions of the bounding lightcone (the dual... Calabi-Yau Space Superposition... fuzzball). This is the shortest path and it is only the size of a single sub-atomic particle. The information about all of time and space is encoded as "strings" as spatial and temporal phase in the Holographic surface of the Universe... our "Dreamtime"... he he he! This is a reciprocal space relative to our space... spatial frequencies and reciprocal time relative to our time... which is temporal frequency. What happens then is inside our Universe causality forces the event to be processed in "time", our "artist" then paints this frozen event out in time on the "instant" canvas of an unchanging universe, at the finite speed of light. The "full picture" will not be entirely complete until all the lights in the sky blink out and we are at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe waiting for the Great Zarquon to arrive having a very nice meal with Zaphod, Ford, Trillian and Arthur and a very dead Rock Star (for tax purposes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhike...e_to_the_GalaxyThis is also the way entanglement occurs linking particles along that wavefront via the "outer dimensional spaces"... the quantum space. This is also the way the Aharanov-Bohm Effect knows about all of space and time as well (check out the interpretations for that in the standard texts). It can peer inside "forbidden areas" beyond the normal reach of internal processes from the higher dimensional perspective. This is where all the "spooky physics" lives.
It is also the way in which a particle can tunnel through certain thicknesses of matter by traveling through those higher dimensions. All that must be maintained is that no
particle interactions are to occur. As long as you obey that one rule our photon waves can go almost anywhere. The same can go for other particles as well like electrons for instance.
QUOTE (C2+)
Feynman goes on to predict the probability of detection of a photon at any point .. can Good Elf do the same except using the means described by Feynman?
Well the principle is the same one used by that software (a 3D version). Feynman would say that we need the statistics to be able to determine the probability of any outcome. However we could work back from any single flashes of light (events) and determine afterward what may have originally happened as simple "dynamics". Why do we always have a need to predict the outcome... isn't it enough to establish after the event what may have occurred like Sherlock Holmes would do? It is simply the square of the amplitude of that phase vector divided by the nominated volume of space (a probability density), the position of any flash can be recorded. I would want to associate this with the Complex Electromagnetic Phase Vector. I would need to project this into a Bohmian Configuration Space to get some real Universe numbers. Feynman Rules! I could not and would not want to do any "real" calculations without a Cray Computer and a very intelligent Computer Program modeling Quantum Electrodynamics.
none of which do I have presently... We already know all this works very well mathematically, this contribution is simply "interpretation". The additional physics must only begin when we consider the additional dimensions. Time to do some more workbench experiments.
Cheers
Confused2
24th October 2006 - 03:48 PM
Hi Good Elf, yquantum, Troc, Ron, Why Not,Aireal, Zephir et al,
Sorry (all) to have made this such a painful struggle just to get past the first two slits.
The point of the 50-50 mirror in the MM experiment is that a single photon seems to go both ways .. just as in the Double Slit Experiment.
What happens in the MM experiment when the paths are arranged to cancel .. do the photons just get trapped or do they turn up somewhere else? Can we know anything about the DSE without being able to answer such questions?
-C2.
TRoc
24th October 2006 - 07:03 PM
Hi everyone,
I didn't mean to create such a large "sidebar", which is where the Fourier/Wavelet comparison is. Maybe another time? It sounds to be a good topic, if there are differences of opinion.
Basically, I'm at the same stage as C2:
"Can we know anything about the DSE without being able to answer such questions?"
My question is:
How can we get anything but ambiguity from an ambiguous experiment?
I think we have established that there is no such thing as a single frequency "photon", not even is vacuo, where "virtual particles" are likely to pop up, and (as always) gravity waves of some form are present, unless you think we have "turned them off". I won't go into all the possible sources for "noise", but we all agree that it is ever-present to at least a degree, say a reasonable degree of Uncertainty.
So, the next step, in my logic, is to reassess the assumptions, and equations. My argument is pure and simple math. "More than 1 does not equal 1". Let's forget about the equipment, and methods for a minute.
Definition (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html):
"Any single- frequency traveling wave will take the form of a sine wave."
We are left with the inescapable conclusion (regardless of the method needed/used) that the real sine wave does not need further synthesis. Only if more than 1 frequency is present, will we have something to synthesize.
The quantum postulate says, simply E = hf .
That "f" means one frequency. You can not throw "several" into that slot, and have a sensible, quantitative statement.
The same goes for all equations that dictate a mathematical manipulation involving "f". It will always mean one frequency.
The next step is then, to check the output of the laser. Is it monochromatic, thereby satisfying the definitive "f" value? The answer is NO. If you can't, or don't believe me, check your ASTM manual specifications for the "last" filter in place in the laser set-up.
What do we have now? Not much of an experiment, in my estimation. I certainly will not entertain the comical interpretation of QM. There is no duality. The slits are always smaller than the wavelength estimated, and the distance from the slit to the screen always allows for enough time for interference (theoretically, "self-interference"; but actually this is the interferences of the different frequencies present). The different parts of the wave go through different slits, at different angles. That's it. Shut one slit down, no interference. "Collapse" one part of the wave, through observing one slit, no interference. Resonance is cumulative, over time. This is demonstrated by the building up of the pattern, which is always the same. The way it gets there is not, but that is obviously explained by the fact that the experiment does not account for more than one frequency.
There is also the small "wiggle factor" of the screen. It is made up of atoms containing electrons. There is some reaction by this screen in the direction back to the slits. Again, these harmonics and overtones are not accounted for in the experiment.
This experiment is like watching children playing with a 2-hole kazoo. They are "amazed" at the results because they don't understand resonance.
regards,
T.Roc
Edit:
BTW, just because there are no single frequency "photons" observed (due to the interconnected Universe) does NOT mean that there is not a simple mathematical formula to describe resonance. Using this simple formula, the light and dark fringes are derived by the beats of interference. The geometry is not necessary.
yquantum
24th October 2006 - 09:06 PM
Good Elf, yquantum, Troc, Ron, Why Not, Aireal, et al,
C2 you mentioned the double slit experiment here is something to think about.
Just
adding to the already full plate consider the geometry of this experiment. I have preformed this one so many years ago.
In the process the greater the spacing between the slits, the smaller is the spacing between the bright bands of the interference pattern.
POINT: the interference pattern spacing depends on the slit spacing thus you could do the experiment and see the light waves reaching each point on the screen must come from both slit.
Is Young's experiment complete in it's assumptions I do not think so.
ciao_
yquantum
Why Not?
25th October 2006 - 12:20 AM
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 24 2006, 03:48 PM)
What happens in the MM experiment when the paths are arranged to cancel .. do the photons just get trapped or do they turn up somewhere else? Can we know anything about the DSE without being able to answer such questions?
Hey C2,
I asked this question some time ago and it took me a while to find the answer.
QUOTE (from link below+)
The answer is that the light is reflected back to the source (the laser) and the entire optical path of the interferometer acts like a high-Q resonator in which the energy can build up as a standing wave.
http://www.eio.com/repairfaq/sam/laserlia.htmScroll down to the "Where Does All the Energy Go" section for more...
Confused2
25th October 2006 - 12:44 AM
Hi Why Not et al,
Nice one. Problemette is that a good detector is not a reflector .. on a good day it's a black body absorber with a counter attached. Am I wrong? If this was easy they'd all be doing it.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Why Not?
25th October 2006 - 02:31 AM
Hey C2,
What do you have in mind for a black body absorber that will not also destroy the interference pattern?
This is the last I have to offer - short of reverting back to Dirac. If you can't open the pdf, let ne know and I will try and email to you in a different format.
http://galahad.elte.hu/~geszti/ifm/ifm.pdfQUOTE (from the link above+)
In conclusion we note that interaction-free measurement is but an unusual combination of familiar features of quantum mechanics. Our description in terms of forward scattering follows in a way unavoidably from the principles of superposition and causality: nothing can extinguish an incoming wave except a forward scattered one, destructively interfering with it. The forward scattered wave is indeed there, being a by-product of absorption.
Why Not?
25th October 2006 - 06:32 AM
Hey C2, et al.
I should have read your experimental set up more carefully.
So, using your set up...
QUOTE (Confused 2+)
The semi-silvered mirror has many of the properties of a double slit in that it allows (forces) the light into two paths. The light detector is normally a screen, this will suffice for a start.
Since a "screen" will no longer suffice, lets say that the detector is a perfect black body and the only thing we are looking for is an event, the detection of a photon. We offset the mirrors 1/4 of the lights wavelength. The point of the interference will be at the semi-silvered mirror, not at the detector. We are not determining which path a single photon will take, so it will travel (possibly can travel) both paths and will thus destructively interfere, reflecting off the semi-silvered mirror, back to the emitter. We will register no event at the detector. As soon as we detect or force the "which path" information, we will see an event at the detector and we will be able to verify the "which path" information based on the elapsed time between emission and detection.
Please feel free to poke holes in the thin spots.
Confused2
25th October 2006 - 10:49 AM
Hi Why Not,
Many thanks for your patience .. both references you gave are fine .. my brain just rejected the idea of 'nothing' being reflected by something black. The diagram is pretty much 'what you expect' .. no hidden tricks. It would heve been best if the beam splitter had only made one appearance in the paths .. I just picked this drawing because it showed a general sort of setup for discussion.
Troc,
We've discussed this before and made no progress but..
We get light from stars (we think) umpteen billion light years away .. and can still resolve the spectrum well enough to determine 'red shift'. The light has travelled a LONG way without getting lost or changing frequency.
eg
http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/proj/basic/spectraltypes/ My own 'view' remains that the photon carries a certain amount of energy (and angular momentum) which stays until the photon is detected (destroyed) .. no half measures. Since it is the energy that determines the apparent frequency (if lots of photons) or probability distribution (if only one) .. 'frequency' can't change.
-C2
Good Elf
25th October 2006 - 04:30 PM
Hi
Troc, Confused2, yquantum, Ron, Why Not,Aireal, Zephir et al,
What I am trying to show is for the more well understood phenomena such
as EM propagation in free space this has an explanation that does
not include measuring the length of single paths along which a single photon "ray" travels, and that calculation is the whole story. What we can see is the Feynman construction providing is a causal wavefront construction based on "seek all paths" approach for every and each photon, resulting in a wave picture constructed from the actual shape of the space it is "exploring". The photon also appear to spread in a similar way to that shown in the animated gif. This gif picture coincides with the classical picture of billions of photons all "flying" in formation (with a phase relationship determined by the wavefront). What I believe that is not classical is that if it is one photon or a billion photons, this geometry is defined by the open "cavity", this represents a "snapshot" of the "cavity" in a strange way almost identical to a photographic "snapshot" using a flashgun that illuminates any cavity including one the size of our Universe, the one wavefront is "painted" into every accessible nook an cranny of space... the "exposure" is effectively like having the iris of the "camera" open for the entire exposure of an "otherwise" dark Universe except for this one single flash. It is also able to not only work all the way back and forward in time but the resonant "solutions" to this problem is fixed permanently for this one single wavefront event. Each photon will ultimately be involved in a particle interaction event which localizes it
To a single flash on the screen (if that is its final destination). It "knows" the position of everything in the cavity even if everything was/is in motion ... that is it's future position of all components "exposed" to this wavefront event. It is not that different from a motion picture in that each frame in a motion picture is a snapshot or slice in time... in this case the photon's wavefront is effectively working in a very dark room in which the individual photons are the illumination used to "see" what is there. The one photon at a time view "freezes" the dynamic nature of the ever moving universe as a single timeless frame "exposure" that is fixed when it was first launched from the "transmitter". You can't fool this "camera" and think that by moving between when a photon is emitted and when it is absorbed you can "rearrange" the volume or position of stuff in that space to change the outcome or the "tune" of the cavity. What is actually happening is the "picture" that the photon is painting already knows where everything will finally be and does not represent where they are as a succession of instants in our time frame strung together as we like to envision the process. On the contrary... it represents a zero thickness slice of time picture from the inertial frame of the photon... it is truly "timeless" and "changeless". Events after the emission of the single photon event or events before this single event cannot affect this one event. They are totally independent, individual transactions made by each of the photon with the entire Universe.
While there is no such thing as perfect reflection events, a well constructed mirror will "process" all non-absorbed photons "perfectly". Other photons that are involved in absorption processes (particle events) no longer partake in the interference pattern in any constructive way. Of course even those photons "paint" a restricted picture of our Universe everywhere even if they are stopped almost within centimeters of the source.
QUOTE (C2+)
We've discussed this before and made no progress but..
We get light from stars (we think) umpteen billion light years away .. and can still resolve the spectrum well enough to determine 'red shift'. The light has traveled a LONG way without getting lost or changing frequency.
eg
http://cas.sdss.org/dr5/en/proj/basic/spectraltypes/My own 'view' remains that the photon carries a certain amount of energy (and angular momentum) which stays until the photon is detected (destroyed) .. no half measures. Since it is the energy that determines the apparent frequency (if lots of photons) or probability distribution (if only one) .. 'frequency' can't change.
Aside from Hubble shift (Relativistic Doppler Shift due to the recession of distant parts of the visible Universe) we can have excellent images of objects nearly 13 billion light years away courtesy of Hubble Deep Field Infra-Red. This image represents the Universe not long after the Big Bang (the exposure time was several days)...
Hubble Deep Field Infra RedIt is difficult to explain why these rapidly receding sources do not show more "noise". The photons are arguably "pristine"... preserved as they were in the instant they were "launched" towards the Earth all those billions of years ago. The minimal blurring you see is because the exposure was made not over hours but over several days and stability of an orbiting spacecraft is an issue.
Why Not is spot on with that observation about how Laser's operate, they are affected by the cavity, not just the resonant cavity but the external cavity as well. I think we are too entrenched with the Huygen's approach to wave construction to see this bigger picture. My suggestion is any "cavity" no matter how big or small, open or closed, is itself an electromagnetic phenomenon and we should not think of it as "matter" that is "reflecting rays of "light". The sub-atomic particles that make everything up are "optical systems" with natural optical barriers which relate to the actual minute geometry of the space itself. Everyone is "looking for the photon". If the photon is the geometric central point around which the packet "revolves", it is possible to deflect this "core" very easily with any attempt at measurement. There is a geometric reason for this...
Single slit diffraction - Uncertainty PrincipleIt is tied to the fact that the transverse momentum of any photon is made uncertain by this process of localization and every photon carries spin (angular momentum) which crudely behaves like a spinning top or gyroscope. Ordinary spin has a center around which it must circulate, that "node" is very easy to disturb as it reacts to the "refractive index" of the regions of space it is confined to travel through, calculated at the frequency of the affected photon. Blocks of transparent glass have dielectric properties and so do other forms of matter, even opaque ones. The only difference is the mean path light can travel without being absorbed in a particle interaction. The refractive index of light is a simple relationship between the electric permittivity and the magnetic susceptibility. This is also the ratio of the velocity of light in the "medium" compared with the velocity in the vacuum. These are properties of the space. Lately these properties have been manipulated to extremes and anything is possible regarding the way some space may be "constructed" using various artificial materials. For instance "invisibility cloaks" at a hand picked microwave frequency is possible already.
Experts create invisibility cloakCollege physics shows that when light travels in a block of transparent glass a quick experiment with a couple of pins and the use of parallax will show that the distances light thinks it is traveling in the glass does not relate to the distance light would travel outside the glass and thus the "apparent" volume of space in the glass can be dramatically different to the same space without the glass. For instance distances in normal glass is "foreshortened". We call this property "refractive index" but we could have just as easily chosen to measure distances in those "natural units" and then everything would have a RI of 1 but internal and external distances will have different wavelength photons travel differently through materials and would depend on the frequency, and internal and external dimensions would sometimes (as demonstrated in the case of glass) mean some things are "bigger" on the inside than on the outside (or the scale is different on the inside than the outside). Is it too much to expect that our entire Universe may be a "pebble" that is much "bigger" on the "inside" than the outside? It would depend on who is doing the observing, an internal or external observer! You just got to ask yourself what the bounding "walls" of sub-atomic particles are made of and then be confident that you carry through with the physics.
Cheers
TRoc
25th October 2006 - 05:40 PM
C2,
I don't recall discussing red-shift with you, you'll have to refresh my memory.
All I can say, or perhaps have said, is, if something (a medium) can change the velocity of an EM wave, then by definition, either the wavelength, or frequency must also change.
Why Not,
Thanks for the back-up, those are good links.
..
I think that the points that I brought up are valid enough to invalidate the DSE interpretation currently held.
1. The equipment, being shielded from stray light (why would they bother if it wouldn't interfere?
), creates a cavity. We all know what happens to waves in a cavity.
2. The source is not monochromatic. (Fourier synthesis wouldn't be needed for a pure sine wave having one frequency.)
3. The screen is, like everything, electron based. No surface is a perfect absorber (for all f ), and "forward scattering" is present.
4. The geometry of the slit size to wave size ratio, and the distance to the screen, are all that is necessary for standing waves (self interference) and/or nodes & anti-nodes being created by the other frequencies present. (Doppler shifts)
5. (this one I didn't mention in the last few posts) The "particle" interpretation: A particle (IE a BB) CAN NOT / WILL NOT go through a hole (slit) that is half its' size (or less). The end.
If you take the MME, it has many of the same details as I've just shown above. The mirrors reflect 1/2 the wave, and transmit 1/2 the wave. A broad sampling of frequencies will contain the same ratio of resonant f , and dissonant f , 1/2.
Equal arm lengths means = time. Therefore, the only other change is the direction (vector, or phase). Whatever it was, it is symmetrically the opposite now. Cancellation is what you get.
Change the arm lengths, and you change the time taken. This too is symmetrically offset, because of the fixed speed of c .
ciao!
T.Roc
yquantum
25th October 2006 - 07:16 PM
Good Elf, C2, Ron, Why Not, Areal, T.roc, et AL,
After all is said there is one issue that cannot be denied, holding on to the particle / wave mentality will just leave you in frustration and in bewilderment.
On a quantitative level it is all waves and the duality referred to to often is just a way we can deal with the weirdness that is not intuitive of the experiment using, ©, -e, or atoms.
We know the atom is mostly empty space so that tells you at least what we know our world is made of.
The truth of it is we do not have a word to describe the weirdness of the behavior of this experiment or do we even understand the QM world in which makes up what we call reality.
Good Elf, knows of what I speak, and in the effort of what GE has said in trying to show in his reply is for the more well understood phenomena as he has stated I am behind Good Elf, 100%.
I just have not found a way to describe the micro world to my satisfaction as of today.
T.Roc, and C2 I truly wish we could deal with this phenomena on a scientific level only and in laboratories we do, but if we are not careful it will fall into philosophy's which is unacceptable in any lab around the world preforming viable and predictive experiment's needed.
Best to us all in a better understanding........
caio_
yquantum
Confused2
25th October 2006 - 09:53 PM
yquantum, Good Elf, Ron, Why Not, Areal, T.roc, et AL,
Clarification of my PoV..
My MM example was chosen to reduce the path to a very narrow beam .. the photon has only a very small probability to escape into 'the rest of the universe'. Whether this obscures or reveals anything depends on your PoV.
My cards on the table ..
If we turn on a source of EM radiation and leave it on for (say) a thousand years so everything settles .. we can calculate the amplitudes and interference in a reasonably dignified and sensible manner using the EM equation. The 'problem' as I understand it seems to be no more and no less than explaining how a single photon is able to get the same result all by itself.. possibly instantly.
Whether we look upon intensity as 'probability of detection' or something else .. it is pretty clear (to me) that the photon has two main tricks .. it can pretend to be a continuous Maxwellian type wave and if you find it in one place then .. careful choice of word here .. the
probability of finding it anywhere else falls to zero 'instantly'.
One of my problems with GE explanations is that they frequently precede the fact. The '
fact' I require before considering
any analysis is the amount of time that elapses when photon interference is detected after the photon has 'explored' two paths of wildly different lengths as in the modified MM experiment I introduced to this thread.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I of course do not want to talk about 50 - 50 anythings ..... the flash on the screen will decide where and when the center of the photon eventually ends up... it will have two possible times for it to arrive... sooner or later. It is in the lap of the "gods".
We may have to repeat the experiment many times to find out anything about "sooner or later" .. the result will determine the next step. In my opinion it is simply pointless to take a next step before we know more about 'sooner or later'.
I apologise if my attention to detail has become tedious.. I know no other way to proceed.
-C2.
Why Not?
26th October 2006 - 04:13 AM
Hey C2, Good Elf, TRoc, yquantum, et al.
C2, I very much appreciate your questions. They make me re-think what I thought I had already learned and then re-think it again! So I offer my
speculative response to you statement:
QUOTE
The 'fact' I require before considering any analysis is the amount of time that elapses when photon interference is detected after the photon has 'explored' two paths of wildly different lengths as in the modified MM experiment I introduced to this thread.
The amount of elapsed time does not matter! The best way that I can explain why I think so is by further re-defining your thought experiment and providing my suppositions of the expected results.
I suggest constructing the a perfect “C2” interferometer as follows: For a source we will use a down conversion device to create a pair of photons simultaneously and assume that the created photons will be perfectly coherent. Photon A will be sent into the interferometer. Photon B will be sent into a photon counting detector - B. The interferometer will be constructed with a beam-splitter that perfectly reflects 1/2 of the light and perfectly transmit 1/2 of the light. We place a mirror at the end of arm A, a small distance away from the beam splitter, say about one meter. We place a mirror at the end of arm B, a great distant away from the beam splitter, say, about 299,792,458 meters. We adjust the mirrors at arms A and B so that they are equal multiples of the wavelength of the light we are using apart, thus insuring constructive interference when they meet back at the beam splitter. Finally, we use a second photon counting detector - A, perpendicular to the beam splitter, to register the incoming photons after reflection from arms A and B.
With this configuration, when we energize the source, photons will be created in pairs. For each creation event, we will detect a photon at detector B, thus establishing the photon count (A) entering the interferometer. Since the beam splitter perfectly sends 1/2 of the photons to arm A and 1/2 to arm B, we can assume that, in any run with a duration of less than two years, for every two photons registered at detector B, one photon will be registered at detector A. Yes?
If we now move the mirror at the end of arm A exactly 1/4 of the wavelength of light further away form the beam splitter, thus insuring destructive interference at the beam splitter, what will be the percentage of events detected at detector A compared to the number detected at detector B?
Zero is my answer! The difference in distance (time) does not matter. What matters is that the mirrors are equal multiples of the wavelength apart, thus creating constructive interference, or 1/4 wavelength apart, thus creating destructive interference. Logic says that the individual photons must go to either the mirror at arm A or the mirror at arm B, but not both. But experiments show that the probability (constructive-vs-destructive) is what counts. We know that a photon cannot travel both paths in the same amount of time, and a photon can’t possibly “split in half” and travel both paths simultaneously. But somehow, the geometry of possible paths dictates the interference, constructive or destructive. We can say that 1/2 of the photon can travel faster then c, thus “experiencing” both paths, or we can say that the photons somehow “know” the distances of the geometry and act accordingly, without needing to travel both paths. I believe experiments continue to confirm this completely unintuitive nature of quantum mechanics. Pick your poison, non-causal violation of the speed of light (“spooky action at a distance”) or “intelligent” photons. Neither makes sense, but the experimental evidence does not lie…
Again, please (everyone feel free to jump in) poke holes in the thin spots. I have searched for such an extreme experimental setup but have been unsuccessful. If anyone knows of one, please provide a link!
Good Elf
26th October 2006 - 08:46 AM
Hi Confused2, yquantum, Ron, Why Not?, Areal, T.roc, Zephir et al,
QUOTE (C2+)
One of my problems with GE explanations is that they frequently precede the fact. The 'fact' I require before considering any analysis is the amount of time that elapses when photon interference is detected after the photon has 'explored' two paths of wildly different lengths as in the modified MM experiment I introduced to this thread.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I of course do not want to talk about 50 - 50 anythings ..... the flash on the screen will decide where and when the center of the photon eventually ends up... it will have two possible times for it to arrive... sooner or later. It is in the lap of the "gods".
We may have to repeat the experiment many times to find out anything about "sooner or later" .. the result will determine the next step. In my opinion it is simply pointless to take a next step before we know more about 'sooner or later'.
I apologies if my attention to detail has become tedious.. I know no other way to proceed.
Last point first... I too can think of no other way to proceed, we have to be deadly sure what we mean about all this so there are no shortcuts. We must not fall into
solipsism, please look at this reference.
Wikipedia: SolipsismOnce people read this you need to then state if you are going to accept evidence on its own merit, or are we going to see things through glasses of our own personal "hue". This explanation has two cases there that the word means... both of them apply to what we are doing at the same time. For most things in the world you may take the view that the position held is simply an opinion... it may be the majority opinion or it may be the minority opinion but according to classical theory "everyone is right or everyone is wrong" both at the same time. The difference with science is we have experimental evidence that can provide a single point of truth to the way the Universe operates. We may have our opinion but for any kind of plausible scientific argument it must sit with every other experimentally established fact that we can collectively agree can be performed without prejudice by anyone. The results must agree based on the established parameters of the experiment.
A practical example... I can claim that Newtons Theory of Gravitation is valid if we accept that the parameters of the defining experiments are confined to a strictly defined set of limits. In that definition, as long as we agree that the parameters are set, we will see that Newtons Laws are "correct". All experiments within those limits will satisfy the theory. If we widen the parameters of the experiments to encompass more phenomena and different regimes not originally part of the Theory that Newton held, we suddenly find that Newton is now "provisionally" wrong and Einstein is right. It is as clear as that... either right or wrong under the new ground rules. Because Einstein explains "more" experiments and all the previous experiments that Newton was able to explain, Einstein is considered "more correct". I can decide this
independently of any other "opinions" in the world provided I do the experiments and compare the two theories. The opinions of religious advisers or politicians or philosophers of historical or contemporary note make no difference to this decision if you choose to use the scientific method.
Is this new theory "absolute truth"?... of course not, it is the nature of Science to widen the the number of phenomena and regimes all the time , testing the boundaries of any and all theories. We cannot know any "absolute truth" but we appear to always be approaching something we can all hold "collectively" as the best possible Theory that explains all the experimental evidence. A single confirmed failure of any theory sets a boundary to the previous theory and sets new boundaries for the newer theory that will eventually come.
Now here is the payoff for our approach. At the particular frequency of the emitted photon from a particular point in space, this "map" drawn by this one photon as an "explore all paths" view of our Universe, with the additional Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber description, actually maps the extent of the entire Universe. This is a "snapshot" of the extent of all "three dimensional space" at that frequency and at that time as seen from that point (inertial frame of reference centered on that point). Another 'snapshot" at a different E=hf frequency will show a very similar map but it will differ in the fine details even if this was at the same time. At a different frequency some areas of our Universe will remain "undiscovered" and some other areas will be "revealed". These are two different overlapping descriptions of the same thing at the same time if the photons came from the same place. For instance a
specific photon wavelength that could be absorbed by a specific atom will "reveal" a different amount of space in regions of our Universe where those atoms have available empty "shells". At the same time all photons will also be "bound" by the "Big Bang" event and by events at the end of time that are unknown to us. The photons will also be bound within a large almost spherical space which is a major boundary of our Universe.
Naturally there are an infinite number of frequencies this overlapping picture of the Universe could describe and we will notice that to the photon of any specific frequency we have slightly different pictures of its extent. Given the discussion in the previous post about refractive index and its possible meaning and the nature of space, some "cavities" will exist that will allow photons into their space while excluding others. When excluded the space will be "seamless" and the mismatched photon will be unable to see "spatial extensions" there. These overlapping harmonic descriptions of the one space leave "holes" in our Universe where sub-atomic particles live and where associated quantum states in the space surrounding them have formed (electronic shells). We know already this
quantum space is not described by the same equations of spacetime as the flatter "empty" spaces outside them. For instance even a single proton (fermion), which is a combination of three quarks, will be surrounded by a "space" that will be "visible" to certain wavelength photons and not to others. This is because it is a also a simple hydrogen atom. This is a
hybridized space of those "shells" overlapping in that one place in three dimensional space... harmonically related through the notion of quantum numbers and spherical harmonics on a sphere. Feynman called this entire phenomenon "polarization"... I would call it a "String Theory".
For the first time we have a description of all of available space and a tool that it can be described with. The boundaries of this three dimensional "cavity", both large and small, are defined by conservative laws and processes (CPT). As long as we confine ourselves to wave phenomenon we are speaking of the one spacetime, as soon as we begin to speak of
particle interactions we are speaking of "transactions" in that space that locally break CPT through exchange of these properties. For instance matter anti-matter events are particle phenomena and so are all those particles of interest in HEP. The description will be found in this theory...
Wikipedia: AdS/CFT correspondenceSuddenly this takes on a completely different meaning and is freed of some of the limitations it formerly had. A reading of this important principle now assumes a much greater importance and provides great insight. For even greater insight read the link to The Illusion of Gravity by Juan Maldacena as the strong expression of the Holographic Principle.
The Illusion of Gravity: :Juan Maldacena Sci Am 2005This relates anti-de Sitter Space to the world we live in and I would "gamble" that the weak Holographic Principle is the way to view this exciting phenomena.
Interest would now be focused on this "cavity" physics on the overlapping lower dimensional boundaries of the "cavity", both internal and external, at different frequencies (spatial and temporal) which provide in detail information about those extra holographic dimensions. As described by a number of other descriptions this will include Black Holes and even aggregates of sub-atomic particles (the planets and rocks inside the space) right out to the "edge of our Universe" which must now be considered a "fuzzball" of overlapping quantum states on the hyper-surface of the next "Holographic Universe".
"Why Not?" is right with his conjecture (details are as above) and this is the surprising result. Light is so connected with the passage of time that it is the key to understanding what these frozen paintings of our Universe really mean. That is as long as we focus only on the wave phenomena and try to process the particle interactions separately. All the photon "snapshots" made by individual wavelength photons from the one point in space and time tells us "vital detailed information" about the nature of the "surface of our Universe" as a "hologram in higher dimensions" (see quote above on virtual photons).
Virtual PhotonsThese forces define the Electromagnetic "Walls" of our Universe that High Energy Physics is trying to force their way through. This also conforms to Fourier Theory if you accept the description above, in higher dimensions. The nature of this "resonant cavity" describes the space and time is only of consequence as event "snapshots". The "next level" are the particle processes and the suggestion is look carefully at the de broglie waves (matter waves) and not as closely at the interactions as being the whole picture. This "picture" is the world as we see and experience it. I have spoken of "Kondo Phantoms" and this is a whole new ballgame.
Cheers
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.
