And now I read it again :)
You wrote
"If all electrons have swollen due to de Broglie matter wave expansion (they are at rest with near to zero momentum) to "fill" the wire there is no center of attraction or repulsion that "our" lone internal electron can see.
All the electrons behave like "ghosts" and they merge their electric fields and pass through each other unopposed in the "sea" of the other electron fields"
This you might have to clarify.
If they are waves merging, what are you thinking of as 'passing through'?
By 'matter wave' I presume you are describing 'particles'
What would you consider differing a photon, as it also has momentum, from a matter wave?
You also write
" There is no absolute zero point in potential energy and there is no absolute zero level in kinetic or potential energy and by definition there also are no others either since all energy in all it's forms is either potential or kinetic.
Any idea that there are "absolutes in this area violate the Principle of Relativity ... both the Special Theory and the General Theory. "
When I think of zero energy I usually see it as when 'all internal/external movement has stopped', like f ex. when we create 'frozen light'.
And even though we are manipulating it between frames here.
To my eyes there still will be one specific frame where all movement have gone from.
And that frame would be as 'zero' without any other frame to compare it with.
(Hmm:) a 'hole' wcelliott?)
Where do you see me go wrong here GE?
"Somehow there is a possible hologram that might be produced that could include all four dimensions that could potentially capture all aspects of our "spacetime"...
I don't know how this might be produced in any consistent way but some technical devices are being made to approach this concept... though in a relatively primitive fashion as a "recording". "
I totally agree with you.
Time and the other three dimensions are a integrated whole.
Why we have an arrow of time is a very important question.
But we do, at least macro-wise and it's very real.
We actually die of it:)
To me there is still a clear difference between a hologram of an object and the object itself.
And its the difference that I would like to understand.
You could create as perfect a hologram as we possibly can of an scene/object.
You could say that standing some way from it there would be no possibility for me to see any difference between the hologram and the real ´thing.
Perhaps one could argue that the information flow from the hologram is as rich as from the original.
But that only counts as long as you don't try to touch the hologram.
Do you agree with me there?
:)
You are always well worth reading Good Elf.
And you do go the 'extra mile' to explain.
Thanks.
Hi bukh, yor_on, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, rethinker, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, Janus, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
I "promise" to try and keep these answers to a minimum... I become very "pedantic" and "picky" about details. Sorry!
I "promise" to try and keep these answers to a minimum... I become very "pedantic" and "picky" about details. Sorry!
QUOTE (bukh+)
Yes - I agree that Photon is the exchange energy - or I prefer to use the term Qubit - in our physical scale (again with due reference to the 3D Pixels universe) - but my question is more directed towards this very very essential about what a wave IS ? Can we imagine - can we describe - can we get a wave to function without having said wave defined out from discrete "particles" - or "dimensionality" - and I see no way to escape this particular question - because everything become - according to my thinking - very abstract if we avoid that question. And I am not happy at all by this saying that some waves - EM's - can appear and live and interact and transform and - and - just out from no-where - So YES I find it mandatory to include a very very exactly defined MEDIUM. So to put it short - there cannot be a wave without a discrete medium.
We are dealing with "spacetime". In that respect the de Broglie Einstein Equation and Special and General Relativity are not working in "nothing" but in something that is not an aether. The aether "is/was" a universal medium like a gas which in some frame is stationary. I have discussed the nature of special relativity with an analogy concerning sound and the medium of the air and how the propagation of sound in air is different from the motion of a bullet in air by comparing the sound from a gun and the simultaneous motion of it's bullet both emitted from the rear of a "bullet train" traveling at the same speed of the bullet away from a station (at which there is an observer). While the sound "carries" in the still air at the speed of sound always regardless of the velocity of the train... the bullet (in this special case) drops harmlessly to the rails exactly under the point from where it was fired (due to the law of composition of velocities). There lies the basic difference between the velocity of a "wave" and the velocity of a "projectile".
In a similar way "light" is not a projectile and regardless of the motion of the source (in the general case a photon emitted from an atom in some state of relative motion) the emission and reception of light is similar in that respect to sound in that the apparent speed is always measured as being C. The main difference being to the case of sound... there is no medium "like air" to convey it. Regardless of the state of motion of sources or sinks there is no apparent frame in which a relative motion of something equivalent to air can be detected. This is not "theory" this is the experimental fact. The air is a gas, aether was conjectured to also be a "very fine" substance "like air" but possibly a lot finer or subtle in which the influence of it's relative movement would affect the time that light's waves took to cross some space.
While no material "substance" is required for light's progress, it is certain that spacetime is certainly required in order that light has someplace to go and mass is also required to provide this "extension" in space and time. The existence of so called empty space is dependent on the existence of time and space which rely on a pre-existent mass someplace to provide for its extension. If a particle were robbed of mass then any energy would result in a momentum and the existence of momentum would instantly accelerate the object to the speed of light unopposed. This happens to photons... photons always travel at the speed of light because their "wavepackets" have nonzero energy and because they are massless. Check out "four-momentum"...
Wikipedia: Four Momentum
Clearly massless particles have a problem standing still. Now check out the de Broglie Einstein Equation...
de Broglie Einstein Equation
Clearly when there is some momentum for a matter wave particle the wavelength is finite. If a matter wave particle is "at rest" the particle's wavelength expands to fill the confining space becoming a quasi-static field. In our frame of reference this is "conspicuous" with matter particles on/of the earth. These are "almost" in our frame of reference everywhere and a near universal inertial frame of reference exists for us all here that exists on the earth and for any comoving matter particle in the universe (that are also in our rest frame). Because these matter wave particles have almost always existed this "frame" is well established throughout our universe for the earth and the rest of the matter that exists "out there". This is just another way to state Mach's Principle... the properties of mass, charge, energy are in some way dependent on the distant parts of the Universe. Don't get too excited yet... this is a way of restating Einstein's Theory of Relativity not a way to break it.
These are the "interferences" I keep speaking about. These are the same interferences Carver Mead says Richard Feynman was always speaking about. Unfortunately Feynman did not want to rock the boat and who would being a card carrying member of the Nobel Prize Laureate Club. The only "renegade" in that society I know of is Brian David Josephson and he has been sent to 'Coventry' for his statements... well Cambridge actually.
Professor Brian Josephson Web Page
His studies in superconductivity has led him to a form of "religion", or a a cheap facsimile of my Gaea theory (Mind-Matter Unification Project - "intelligent processes in nature, associated with brain function or with some other natural process" )... he he he! Sorry about that dig but I think he is also engaged in a kind of Pantheism as well along with David Bohm and his Holographic Universe. I do not subscribe to actual "religion" but to a reverence for the natural universe and it's ability to create beings like us that want to know about itself. This is not a g*d but a "principle".
So what we have is spacetime in which light always finds itself at rest. Without an aether wind the light expands on perfect spheres according to the inverse square law according to all observers and the way they all reckon their internal time and space measurements.
PhysOrg: "Relativity" Speaking
A new kind of "medium" whose basic attribute appears to be a reluctance to move in any inertial frame in "relative" motion... no frame is "moving" relative to this "spacetime" (or more precisely has any momentum relative to it). All "moving inertial frames" move only relative to each other and not relative to this background "relativistic aether". In some way the proposition that this "background" actually exists leads to the properties being unique and like some kind of superfluidity in which any particle can move freely at constant speed but will not spontaneously accelerate resisting this acceleration through some universal "reluctance" due to mass. If this aether can be "sensed" at all it is through the acceleration frame in which all acceleration frames exert a "drag" which is proportional to the mass of what is being accelerated. Maybe that is what you want to express??... Hmm?
The idea that waves can't be understood without the idea of particles seems strange in relation to the fact that the waves of light we are speaking about are waves in a "medium composed entirely of time and space" somehow the result of matter not of particles of matter itself. This casts back to the idea above that there is a difference between the sound produced by a gun (a wave) and it's projectile (particle). What particles do you need in that "stuff". We must extract logically the idea of these solitons embedded in this "elastic membrane" from the membrane itself. By the way... this is not "String Theory" here.
In a similar way "light" is not a projectile and regardless of the motion of the source (in the general case a photon emitted from an atom in some state of relative motion) the emission and reception of light is similar in that respect to sound in that the apparent speed is always measured as being C. The main difference being to the case of sound... there is no medium "like air" to convey it. Regardless of the state of motion of sources or sinks there is no apparent frame in which a relative motion of something equivalent to air can be detected. This is not "theory" this is the experimental fact. The air is a gas, aether was conjectured to also be a "very fine" substance "like air" but possibly a lot finer or subtle in which the influence of it's relative movement would affect the time that light's waves took to cross some space.
While no material "substance" is required for light's progress, it is certain that spacetime is certainly required in order that light has someplace to go and mass is also required to provide this "extension" in space and time. The existence of so called empty space is dependent on the existence of time and space which rely on a pre-existent mass someplace to provide for its extension. If a particle were robbed of mass then any energy would result in a momentum and the existence of momentum would instantly accelerate the object to the speed of light unopposed. This happens to photons... photons always travel at the speed of light because their "wavepackets" have nonzero energy and because they are massless. Check out "four-momentum"...
Wikipedia: Four Momentum
Clearly massless particles have a problem standing still. Now check out the de Broglie Einstein Equation...
de Broglie Einstein Equation
Clearly when there is some momentum for a matter wave particle the wavelength is finite. If a matter wave particle is "at rest" the particle's wavelength expands to fill the confining space becoming a quasi-static field. In our frame of reference this is "conspicuous" with matter particles on/of the earth. These are "almost" in our frame of reference everywhere and a near universal inertial frame of reference exists for us all here that exists on the earth and for any comoving matter particle in the universe (that are also in our rest frame). Because these matter wave particles have almost always existed this "frame" is well established throughout our universe for the earth and the rest of the matter that exists "out there". This is just another way to state Mach's Principle... the properties of mass, charge, energy are in some way dependent on the distant parts of the Universe. Don't get too excited yet... this is a way of restating Einstein's Theory of Relativity not a way to break it.
These are the "interferences" I keep speaking about. These are the same interferences Carver Mead says Richard Feynman was always speaking about. Unfortunately Feynman did not want to rock the boat and who would being a card carrying member of the Nobel Prize Laureate Club. The only "renegade" in that society I know of is Brian David Josephson and he has been sent to 'Coventry' for his statements... well Cambridge actually.
Professor Brian Josephson Web Page
His studies in superconductivity has led him to a form of "religion", or a a cheap facsimile of my Gaea theory (Mind-Matter Unification Project - "intelligent processes in nature, associated with brain function or with some other natural process" )... he he he! Sorry about that dig but I think he is also engaged in a kind of Pantheism as well along with David Bohm and his Holographic Universe. I do not subscribe to actual "religion" but to a reverence for the natural universe and it's ability to create beings like us that want to know about itself. This is not a g*d but a "principle".
So what we have is spacetime in which light always finds itself at rest. Without an aether wind the light expands on perfect spheres according to the inverse square law according to all observers and the way they all reckon their internal time and space measurements.
PhysOrg: "Relativity" Speaking
A new kind of "medium" whose basic attribute appears to be a reluctance to move in any inertial frame in "relative" motion... no frame is "moving" relative to this "spacetime" (or more precisely has any momentum relative to it). All "moving inertial frames" move only relative to each other and not relative to this background "relativistic aether". In some way the proposition that this "background" actually exists leads to the properties being unique and like some kind of superfluidity in which any particle can move freely at constant speed but will not spontaneously accelerate resisting this acceleration through some universal "reluctance" due to mass. If this aether can be "sensed" at all it is through the acceleration frame in which all acceleration frames exert a "drag" which is proportional to the mass of what is being accelerated. Maybe that is what you want to express??... Hmm?
The idea that waves can't be understood without the idea of particles seems strange in relation to the fact that the waves of light we are speaking about are waves in a "medium composed entirely of time and space" somehow the result of matter not of particles of matter itself. This casts back to the idea above that there is a difference between the sound produced by a gun (a wave) and it's projectile (particle). What particles do you need in that "stuff". We must extract logically the idea of these solitons embedded in this "elastic membrane" from the membrane itself. By the way... this is not "String Theory" here.
QUOTE (bukh+)
QUOTE: "These "composite particles" then apparently partially violate "space quantization laws". Some waves can be knotted as I have referred to previously. These form spacetime "defects" and exhibit some of the properties of mass and that includes "topological charge"."
Sorry - I am a bit lost as to what You are hinting at.
Sorry - I am a bit lost as to what You are hinting at.
I am not trying to be subtle here... this is not hinting I think I have been brow beating all of you with this idea that these "topological defects" are similar to your particles. The influence of mass they may have is undoubted...
Kondo Phantoms...IBM Almalden Labs
This "primitive" optical system for matter waves can produce that "ghost" particle on the right. It has all the properties of the particle (atom) on the left ... just "attenuated". it could not form molecules with real matter if that image had no "charges" or no "mass" or no "quarks" or no "electrons". As far as a real atom is "concerned" this "ghost" is a real atom even though it is like a reflection in a mirror (... which is what it really is... Part of a "Through the Looking Glass Universe" made entirely of matter waves). A little optics tells us this is a left right reversed and inverted real image but capable of chemical combination nevertheless... that means "bonds". There are no electrons in this "ghost" and no "real electrons" went in the making of this "image" so what is this effective charge. This is "topological charge"... the electromagnetic wave of a powerful photon "dances" around in a loop inside creating this electron trapped in it's own space and held there by conservation laws. It will not dissipate like a photon can in "flatspace". This "electric "field" is "alternating" + - + - + - + - etc... sinusoidally with time (or maybe this is actually frequency... the reciprocal of time... it's transform.. depends how it is measured doesn't it?)
Twisted toroidal strip model of the electron - taken from "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" one of the reference above
If I draw with a pencil this continuous wave on a long strip of paper for two cycles what happens is one of the long edges of this strip "appears" to always be charged positively and the other long edge "appears" to be charged negatively (because the peak fields always go positive there or negative on the other side). The authors have chosen to use the convention of an arrow without a tail indicating the direction of the magnetic field (sourceless) with the electric field perpendicular... the dot point indicating the direction of negative "charge" and the plus sign tail of the arrow for "charge" without a tail indicating the direction positive sign. The electromagnetic wave of photons carries absolutely no charge (I repeat... photons have no charge... they are wavelets which carry electric and magnetic "fields") they are "acceleration stresses" in spacetime that cause this phenomenon so what is this "charge"? Actually it is "field" or "potentials" and not actual "charge" which is supposed to be "fundamental" and essential to the Standard Model particle theory... so then I take this strip of paper and give it one complete twist (2pi radians) joining the negative edges of the strip together and sticky tape along the two short edges (making a complete loop) and naturally also brings the positive sides together and "lo and behold" this "twisted ball of paper" has wrapped all the negative fields to the outside (or the positive charges to the outside ) and all the complementary charges are wrapped on the inside hidden from view (former is a positron and the latter is an electron... see that simplified "mud map" I posted last time and the way fields connect through connecting space mimicking Falaco solitons). What is also seen is a positive magnetic dipole moment for this topological electron which is experimentally determinable... that magnetic tailless arrow always pointing up?... if there is an "up". Now hte electron matches the experimental facts that we can measure and the electron can't dissipate but it can expand because it is internally a trapped photon subject to "de Broglies matter waves".
This dual phenomenon exists as long as that photon continues to travel around that toroidal loop forever held in place by conservation laws which prevent it dissipating. It is clear that on the "other side of this particle in it's core it appears "inside out and if you were rash you might believe that is how all the antimatter in the universe exists in that connecting string space connecting the two solitons together. Just "flatten it out and move your furniture in"... there is "potentially" another universe there... but watch out that is a Universe composed entirely of anti-matter created at the instant of the Big Bang and still exists in this way today as a reciprocal copy of our Universe. There is a static charge on the outside which is positive or negative and the symmetry of this "bundle" also leads to a dipole moments as well. This is the picture ....
Twisted toroidal strip model of the electron - taken from "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" one of the reference above
here is the toroid mapped as a "momentum space connection" not as a physical space...
Internal energy flow of an electron after Williamson and van der Mark
This is topological charge. By this means sources of charge of all kinds can be removed from "particles" (at least conceptually) leaving Maxwell's Equations in all their glory "source free". For years we have known that either there exists the magnetic monopole or the electric charge is not "fundamental". Topological charge occur everywhere in nature and also in certain of our electromagnetic generators in the near field. Ask any old Radio Tech that has worked on relatively low frequency high power transmitters and he will attest that this "fictitious charge" really exists and can zap you. This charge is not due to any electrons it is "floating free in space" in "twisted and knotted electromagnetic fields", they can lift you up and "bang your head" on the walls if you are not careful and the power is sufficiently high. They are "real folks". No state secrets here... "everyone knows this who has worked with it". Today's transmitters are tiny by comparison with those many years ago ... the kind that Nicola Tesla "played" with... he would have known this but the digital era has bypassed these "old technologies" in favor of more elegant and energy efficient solutions.
Kondo Phantoms...IBM Almalden Labs
This "primitive" optical system for matter waves can produce that "ghost" particle on the right. It has all the properties of the particle (atom) on the left ... just "attenuated". it could not form molecules with real matter if that image had no "charges" or no "mass" or no "quarks" or no "electrons". As far as a real atom is "concerned" this "ghost" is a real atom even though it is like a reflection in a mirror (... which is what it really is... Part of a "Through the Looking Glass Universe" made entirely of matter waves). A little optics tells us this is a left right reversed and inverted real image but capable of chemical combination nevertheless... that means "bonds". There are no electrons in this "ghost" and no "real electrons" went in the making of this "image" so what is this effective charge. This is "topological charge"... the electromagnetic wave of a powerful photon "dances" around in a loop inside creating this electron trapped in it's own space and held there by conservation laws. It will not dissipate like a photon can in "flatspace". This "electric "field" is "alternating" + - + - + - + - etc... sinusoidally with time (or maybe this is actually frequency... the reciprocal of time... it's transform.. depends how it is measured doesn't it?)
Twisted toroidal strip model of the electron - taken from "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" one of the reference above
If I draw with a pencil this continuous wave on a long strip of paper for two cycles what happens is one of the long edges of this strip "appears" to always be charged positively and the other long edge "appears" to be charged negatively (because the peak fields always go positive there or negative on the other side). The authors have chosen to use the convention of an arrow without a tail indicating the direction of the magnetic field (sourceless) with the electric field perpendicular... the dot point indicating the direction of negative "charge" and the plus sign tail of the arrow for "charge" without a tail indicating the direction positive sign. The electromagnetic wave of photons carries absolutely no charge (I repeat... photons have no charge... they are wavelets which carry electric and magnetic "fields") they are "acceleration stresses" in spacetime that cause this phenomenon so what is this "charge"? Actually it is "field" or "potentials" and not actual "charge" which is supposed to be "fundamental" and essential to the Standard Model particle theory... so then I take this strip of paper and give it one complete twist (2pi radians) joining the negative edges of the strip together and sticky tape along the two short edges (making a complete loop) and naturally also brings the positive sides together and "lo and behold" this "twisted ball of paper" has wrapped all the negative fields to the outside (or the positive charges to the outside ) and all the complementary charges are wrapped on the inside hidden from view (former is a positron and the latter is an electron... see that simplified "mud map" I posted last time and the way fields connect through connecting space mimicking Falaco solitons). What is also seen is a positive magnetic dipole moment for this topological electron which is experimentally determinable... that magnetic tailless arrow always pointing up?... if there is an "up". Now hte electron matches the experimental facts that we can measure and the electron can't dissipate but it can expand because it is internally a trapped photon subject to "de Broglies matter waves".
This dual phenomenon exists as long as that photon continues to travel around that toroidal loop forever held in place by conservation laws which prevent it dissipating. It is clear that on the "other side of this particle in it's core it appears "inside out and if you were rash you might believe that is how all the antimatter in the universe exists in that connecting string space connecting the two solitons together. Just "flatten it out and move your furniture in"... there is "potentially" another universe there... but watch out that is a Universe composed entirely of anti-matter created at the instant of the Big Bang and still exists in this way today as a reciprocal copy of our Universe. There is a static charge on the outside which is positive or negative and the symmetry of this "bundle" also leads to a dipole moments as well. This is the picture ....
Twisted toroidal strip model of the electron - taken from "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" one of the reference above
here is the toroid mapped as a "momentum space connection" not as a physical space...
Internal energy flow of an electron after Williamson and van der Mark
This is topological charge. By this means sources of charge of all kinds can be removed from "particles" (at least conceptually) leaving Maxwell's Equations in all their glory "source free". For years we have known that either there exists the magnetic monopole or the electric charge is not "fundamental". Topological charge occur everywhere in nature and also in certain of our electromagnetic generators in the near field. Ask any old Radio Tech that has worked on relatively low frequency high power transmitters and he will attest that this "fictitious charge" really exists and can zap you. This charge is not due to any electrons it is "floating free in space" in "twisted and knotted electromagnetic fields", they can lift you up and "bang your head" on the walls if you are not careful and the power is sufficiently high. They are "real folks". No state secrets here... "everyone knows this who has worked with it". Today's transmitters are tiny by comparison with those many years ago ... the kind that Nicola Tesla "played" with... he would have known this but the digital era has bypassed these "old technologies" in favor of more elegant and energy efficient solutions.
QUOTE (bukh+)
PS I forgot to ask why we can see our surroundings when we switch on the light ?
Evolution my friend!!... Gaea wants us to find out about her... he he he! We have been in the dark for an awful long time but not "forever". 
Cheers
PS: "Mommy... where does the sun go at night?"
"Go to sleep or the bogyman will get you!"
Cheers
PS: "Mommy... where does the sun go at night?"
"Go to sleep or the bogyman will get you!"
Good Elf
hmmm
I can only handle one wave of thought at a time.
If light is not projected how can it move?
I don't seem to understand this.
QUOTE
In a similar way "light" is not a projectile
hmmm
I can only handle one wave of thought at a time.
If light is not projected how can it move?
I don't seem to understand this.
Hi rethinker, bukh, yor_on, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, Janus, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
QUOTE (rethinker+)
Good Elf
In a similar way "light" is not a projectile
hmmm
I can only handle one wave of thought at a time.
If light is not projected how can it move?
I don't seem to understand this.
It is said that light "travels" at a constant speed... the speed of light. A projectile travels at speed as well... can any projectile travel at the same speed as light and effectively "catch up with it" so that the light is now in the same inertial frame as the projectile? Now you can churn out the mathematical reasons why this is not possible but there is an underlying physical reason behind all this. The projectile obeys the law of composition of vectors. Starting from an inertial frame you may add velocities to a projectile (in a certain way observing special relativity) such that the velocity of the projectile always increases it's "speed". Light does not obey this law. Light is an electromagnetic 'disturbance" that is "propagating" and spreading in space with a single velocity. Lets say I made a really slow bullet that I could fire from a gun which beeped every thousandth of a second. The speed of the bullet was less than the velocity of sound. After I fired the bullet back in the direction of a second observer these beeps which travel in air (which we can assume in this case is stationary) will always travel faster than the bullet and arrive at the observer before the bullet. The order of these beeps would be retained since the bullet is always slower than sound. Once a "beep" was emitted this atmospheric disturbance travels out and away from that source as a spherical wave impulse centered on the point where the beep was emitted. The interesting fact is the sound still expands on the surface of a sphere no matter what the speed of the bullet (less than the velocity of sound). What is changed is this "beep", because it is emitted over a short period of time and the bullet is moving this translates to a length in space across the ground. Measured when it was at rest this length in the direction of motion foreshortens the distance this beep "occupies" in the direction of motion making it. It "appear that this beep was emitted in a shorter period than it really was. The tone "drops" in the forwards direction relative to the motion of the source because the vibrations in that direction appear "foreshortened" increasing the tone's frequency. This is Doppler shift. Conversely in the reverse direction to the direction of motion of this source the distance this same beep was emitted is actually lengthened relative to the surface of the ground compared with that same beep emitted in a rest frame. The tone this time "drops" in the backwards direction relative to the motion of the source.
Thus we have a compression of the "vibrations" relative to the solid surface of the earth in one direction of motion and a reduction in the frequency of vibrations in the other direction. At the same time we just said that the speed of sound is the same in both directions so what has happened is the wavelength of these "vibrations" is different in the forward direction (short) compared with the backward direction (long). In either case "in time" the oscillations are identical since they are the one source.... while "in space" they are different being executed as movements over different spatial distances.
By this means there are Doppler Shifts in the "tone" or "pitch" of the sound. This is the reason why a siren from an emergency vehicle is higher in pitch as it moves toward you than it is when it moves away from you it is due to the movement of the "source". The case of the projectile which is that slow bullet we started talking about... it always arrives on time based on its speed over the ground (in still air). Sound also will also reach the observer for the same reason "on time" moving as a spherical influence over the surface of the ground. The motion of the bullet cannot influence the speed at which sound can reach the observer (it can't add its velocity to a sound wave or subtract it's velocity from that wave). A bullet is different ... it has the possibility to change velocity or begin at a higher or lower velocity thus altering the time of flight. What we understand is the bullet is a projectile while sound is a wave and travels every way possible in all directions at the speed of sound in still air... no faster nor slower than the speed of sound. I can speed the bullet up or slow it down and it will reach the observer earlier or later simply because it is a projectile. This cannot happen with the sound because it is a wave propagating in the medium.
Aside from the frequency that is recorded by the observer the reception of sound is independent of the motion of the source. If the air is moving all these figures are relative to the velocity of the air and not the ground. Movement in the air can carry sound to the observer faster than if the observer was in still air. That is the only "major" difference between sound and light. There is no carrier for light like there is for sound so there can be no relative velocity between the "aether" and the observer (adding or subtracting an aether wind from the velocity of the light waves in the direction of the observer). In every other aspect it is "almost" the same. The bullet must remain at a velocity less than the speed of light but otherwise there is an equivalent Doppler Shift in the frequency of the light... this affects the color of the light... changes it from blue shift to red shift depending on if the source is approaching or receding. To be sure there are "other effects" that occur when you compare the times and distances "between" reference frames but in the one frame this general process remains the same.
Light "moves" in a similar way to the way sound "moves"... it is a wave. The main differnce is sound is a compressional wave and light is a transverse wave ... but still a wave. Does it move... actually what the sound does is sound "resonates" in cavities and this could be interpreted as solving for boundary conditions along the infinite number of paths it travels. The waves sum and cancel in various places and times leading to nodes and antinodes in space that change with time and the speed and position of the source. These are "solutions" to the wave equation in space. That is something a projectile does not need to have done. At normal velocities and energies we do not see these sums and differences in any wave equation causing the projectile to be "canceled" in some directions and "amplified" in others. In quantum processes this is a non-sequitur and quantum "particles" must also be part of the solution of wave equations. In particular Schrodinger's wave Equation is a sort of solution of this special version of the wave equation for various shaped "boxes" with "projectiles" in them.
In the end light is not "projected" like a particle from a gun. Light propagates as a wave. Does a wave "move"?... Probably not... it appears to spread. Particles "ultimately" also travel as waves but for the world of trains and bullets this effect is not seen because the wavelength is far too short. This effect "can" be seen if the velocity is vanishingly small for incoherent objects which is for any "normal" object we can see (I mean a centimeter per million years or so) or if the object is a quantum object such as a Bose Einstein Condensate or a SQUID both macroscopic quantum objects. It all depends on the wavelength of the associated de Broglie Matter Wave. The movement of waves is through a succession of stationary states called eigenstates. With Real "macroscopic" waves these eigenstates are "almost" but not quite forming a continuum of progressive states, an infinite number of "lines" (each line represents a state). It is impossible to measure the tiny "jumps" between one stationary state to the next when the particle is "free" (spread way out) and in the limit this appears as a "continuum" of movement. Things appear to move as a smooth progression. When we deal with quantum objects these states at the scale of the quantum become very significant, there may be only a handful of spectral states and the object must move from one to the next to go anywhere as a series of "jumps". Have a look at that illustration I have prepared regarding a simple train of "impulses" (see below)... the equivalent of a "one dimensional array of particles". The Fourier transform of this is a set if line spectra which make a ladder function spatially. If we increase the spacing between these impulses and continue to take the Fourier transform the various line spectra "change" from discrete spectra to become a continuous spectrum of an infinity of frequencies that merge into a continuous function at the bottom.
Spatial spreading and the influence on the Fourier Transform of a train of "impulses"
... click to enlarge...
This is an analogy of how "compact" arrays of matter result in line spectra depending on spacing of the coherent elements which may be single particles in a crystal for instance. This leads to Bragg's Diffraction Laws for incoherent X-Rays. In photo-emulsions and using a single coherent radiation source it leads to Holograms. Spreading this out in space increasing the period to infinity leads to the case where the particle takes on the wave character and the line spectra disappear until the particle is once more "crowded" at or around the spacing between separate particles. This theory works well with de Broglie matter waves.
So summarizing ... light "resonates" in cavities and the solutions lead to a succession of stationary states that can be contrived to indicate successive states of coherent spreading photons. These states are called eigenstates and they represent stationary states of the wavefunction. The classical phenomenon is called "movement" but in actual fact it is "non-movement" based on a large series of progressive steps starting at the source and ending at the sink in a mutual resonance. Ur... does this answer it??
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
In a similar way "light" is not a projectile
hmmm
I can only handle one wave of thought at a time.
If light is not projected how can it move?
I don't seem to understand this.
It is said that light "travels" at a constant speed... the speed of light. A projectile travels at speed as well... can any projectile travel at the same speed as light and effectively "catch up with it" so that the light is now in the same inertial frame as the projectile? Now you can churn out the mathematical reasons why this is not possible but there is an underlying physical reason behind all this. The projectile obeys the law of composition of vectors. Starting from an inertial frame you may add velocities to a projectile (in a certain way observing special relativity) such that the velocity of the projectile always increases it's "speed". Light does not obey this law. Light is an electromagnetic 'disturbance" that is "propagating" and spreading in space with a single velocity. Lets say I made a really slow bullet that I could fire from a gun which beeped every thousandth of a second. The speed of the bullet was less than the velocity of sound. After I fired the bullet back in the direction of a second observer these beeps which travel in air (which we can assume in this case is stationary) will always travel faster than the bullet and arrive at the observer before the bullet. The order of these beeps would be retained since the bullet is always slower than sound. Once a "beep" was emitted this atmospheric disturbance travels out and away from that source as a spherical wave impulse centered on the point where the beep was emitted. The interesting fact is the sound still expands on the surface of a sphere no matter what the speed of the bullet (less than the velocity of sound). What is changed is this "beep", because it is emitted over a short period of time and the bullet is moving this translates to a length in space across the ground. Measured when it was at rest this length in the direction of motion foreshortens the distance this beep "occupies" in the direction of motion making it. It "appear that this beep was emitted in a shorter period than it really was. The tone "drops" in the forwards direction relative to the motion of the source because the vibrations in that direction appear "foreshortened" increasing the tone's frequency. This is Doppler shift. Conversely in the reverse direction to the direction of motion of this source the distance this same beep was emitted is actually lengthened relative to the surface of the ground compared with that same beep emitted in a rest frame. The tone this time "drops" in the backwards direction relative to the motion of the source.
Thus we have a compression of the "vibrations" relative to the solid surface of the earth in one direction of motion and a reduction in the frequency of vibrations in the other direction. At the same time we just said that the speed of sound is the same in both directions so what has happened is the wavelength of these "vibrations" is different in the forward direction (short) compared with the backward direction (long). In either case "in time" the oscillations are identical since they are the one source.... while "in space" they are different being executed as movements over different spatial distances.
By this means there are Doppler Shifts in the "tone" or "pitch" of the sound. This is the reason why a siren from an emergency vehicle is higher in pitch as it moves toward you than it is when it moves away from you it is due to the movement of the "source". The case of the projectile which is that slow bullet we started talking about... it always arrives on time based on its speed over the ground (in still air). Sound also will also reach the observer for the same reason "on time" moving as a spherical influence over the surface of the ground. The motion of the bullet cannot influence the speed at which sound can reach the observer (it can't add its velocity to a sound wave or subtract it's velocity from that wave). A bullet is different ... it has the possibility to change velocity or begin at a higher or lower velocity thus altering the time of flight. What we understand is the bullet is a projectile while sound is a wave and travels every way possible in all directions at the speed of sound in still air... no faster nor slower than the speed of sound. I can speed the bullet up or slow it down and it will reach the observer earlier or later simply because it is a projectile. This cannot happen with the sound because it is a wave propagating in the medium.
Aside from the frequency that is recorded by the observer the reception of sound is independent of the motion of the source. If the air is moving all these figures are relative to the velocity of the air and not the ground. Movement in the air can carry sound to the observer faster than if the observer was in still air. That is the only "major" difference between sound and light. There is no carrier for light like there is for sound so there can be no relative velocity between the "aether" and the observer (adding or subtracting an aether wind from the velocity of the light waves in the direction of the observer). In every other aspect it is "almost" the same. The bullet must remain at a velocity less than the speed of light but otherwise there is an equivalent Doppler Shift in the frequency of the light... this affects the color of the light... changes it from blue shift to red shift depending on if the source is approaching or receding. To be sure there are "other effects" that occur when you compare the times and distances "between" reference frames but in the one frame this general process remains the same.
Light "moves" in a similar way to the way sound "moves"... it is a wave. The main differnce is sound is a compressional wave and light is a transverse wave ... but still a wave. Does it move... actually what the sound does is sound "resonates" in cavities and this could be interpreted as solving for boundary conditions along the infinite number of paths it travels. The waves sum and cancel in various places and times leading to nodes and antinodes in space that change with time and the speed and position of the source. These are "solutions" to the wave equation in space. That is something a projectile does not need to have done. At normal velocities and energies we do not see these sums and differences in any wave equation causing the projectile to be "canceled" in some directions and "amplified" in others. In quantum processes this is a non-sequitur and quantum "particles" must also be part of the solution of wave equations. In particular Schrodinger's wave Equation is a sort of solution of this special version of the wave equation for various shaped "boxes" with "projectiles" in them.
In the end light is not "projected" like a particle from a gun. Light propagates as a wave. Does a wave "move"?... Probably not... it appears to spread. Particles "ultimately" also travel as waves but for the world of trains and bullets this effect is not seen because the wavelength is far too short. This effect "can" be seen if the velocity is vanishingly small for incoherent objects which is for any "normal" object we can see (I mean a centimeter per million years or so) or if the object is a quantum object such as a Bose Einstein Condensate or a SQUID both macroscopic quantum objects. It all depends on the wavelength of the associated de Broglie Matter Wave. The movement of waves is through a succession of stationary states called eigenstates. With Real "macroscopic" waves these eigenstates are "almost" but not quite forming a continuum of progressive states, an infinite number of "lines" (each line represents a state). It is impossible to measure the tiny "jumps" between one stationary state to the next when the particle is "free" (spread way out) and in the limit this appears as a "continuum" of movement. Things appear to move as a smooth progression. When we deal with quantum objects these states at the scale of the quantum become very significant, there may be only a handful of spectral states and the object must move from one to the next to go anywhere as a series of "jumps". Have a look at that illustration I have prepared regarding a simple train of "impulses" (see below)... the equivalent of a "one dimensional array of particles". The Fourier transform of this is a set if line spectra which make a ladder function spatially. If we increase the spacing between these impulses and continue to take the Fourier transform the various line spectra "change" from discrete spectra to become a continuous spectrum of an infinity of frequencies that merge into a continuous function at the bottom.
Spatial spreading and the influence on the Fourier Transform of a train of "impulses"
... click to enlarge...
This is an analogy of how "compact" arrays of matter result in line spectra depending on spacing of the coherent elements which may be single particles in a crystal for instance. This leads to Bragg's Diffraction Laws for incoherent X-Rays. In photo-emulsions and using a single coherent radiation source it leads to Holograms. Spreading this out in space increasing the period to infinity leads to the case where the particle takes on the wave character and the line spectra disappear until the particle is once more "crowded" at or around the spacing between separate particles. This theory works well with de Broglie matter waves.
So summarizing ... light "resonates" in cavities and the solutions lead to a succession of stationary states that can be contrived to indicate successive states of coherent spreading photons. These states are called eigenstates and they represent stationary states of the wavefunction. The classical phenomenon is called "movement" but in actual fact it is "non-movement" based on a large series of progressive steps starting at the source and ending at the sink in a mutual resonance. Ur... does this answer it??
Cheers
Technical error:
Well after the slow bullet stopped ricocheting around in my mind, it came back around the room and hit me direct in the brain.
What about when light begins? Where light begins when a match is lit. This seems like it should have some source of force.
Most people say I am good at dodging things that make sense,so you can understand when it takes simple explanations (as in your writing) to sink in
Thanks that was very helpful.
Where were you when I was a lad and wanted to know as much as I could about science.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
It "appear that this beep was emitted in a shorter period than it really was. The tone "drops" in the forwards direction relative to the motion of the source because the vibrations in that direction appear "foreshortened" increasing the tone's frequency.
Oops... the tone "rises" in that direction. The rest is OK though.
Cheers
Cheers
QUOTE
Ur... does this answer it??
Well after the slow bullet stopped ricocheting around in my mind, it came back around the room and hit me direct in the brain.
What about when light begins? Where light begins when a match is lit. This seems like it should have some source of force.
Most people say I am good at dodging things that make sense,so you can understand when it takes simple explanations (as in your writing) to sink in
Thanks that was very helpful.
Where were you when I was a lad and wanted to know as much as I could about science.
Hi yor_on, rethinker, bukh, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, Janus, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
QUOTE (yor_on+)
As for the one about dimensions I was just wondering how many dimensions there was to this theory. And also how it looked at time.
Somewhere i got the impression that there was four dimensions, not counting time.
If we are talking of waves, then how many dimensions do they need?
two?
Is that why people refer to graphene consisting of one layer of atoms as two-dimensional?
Anyway, you gave a very good explanation and I think I see some more of your thinking here.
But I will have to read it again, as always:)
Somewhere i got the impression that there was four dimensions, not counting time.
If we are talking of waves, then how many dimensions do they need?
two?
Is that why people refer to graphene consisting of one layer of atoms as two-dimensional?
Anyway, you gave a very good explanation and I think I see some more of your thinking here.
But I will have to read it again, as always:)
The questions about dimensions... Theoretically I really do not know.. that is the bottom line here. I can speculate on possibilities and "of course" I will but you must be aware that whatever the speculation is we really do not have enough information about all these points and it will probably be "some time" before an internally consistent Physics is developed to be such an acute tool that would allow us to make even the most simple tentative guesses about "how everything connects with everything else".
The idea of dimensions incorporate two opposing ideas... the first one is a "dimension" can be just a mathematical artifice placed there to simplify the problem. These are sometimes called "parameters". Alternatively it could have some relationship to "real dimensional spaces" in addition to the four conventional dimensions in a similar way to the Kaluza-Klein sense of "dimension"... it could be either curled up, more compact or truly in other "higher" planes.
Wikipedia: Kaluza–Klein theory
The size of the dimension may be internally defined so it could be bigger on the inside than on the outside due to the relativistic property of spin (see the Ehrenfest Paradox) where the external circumference of the disk is related to this equation... C′ = 2 π r (√(1−v²/C²)).. While the internal radius of the rotating "disk" r remains unaltered as noted by an internal observer positioned at the center. The single point of view of this phenomenon does not lead to "paradox" and only to a scale change and rotation which is not visibly perceptible. Observers on the "rim" of such a rotating system would need to be frame dragged along such that an exchange of viewing perspective retains the radius dimension "in that direction" but the length contraction in the other dimensions along the direction of travel would be similarly "warped" into a sphere that was changed in scale and rotated through a rotation. This is "possibly" supported by the data from WMAP where the connection of space in our Universe has mainly one or another form of toroidal connectivity.
Cosmic Hall of Mirrors - WMAP data interpretation
In particular this graph...
Angular power spectrum
.. watch out for this link it is a little "flaky" you may have to try it a couple of time or reach it from the main article.... Angular power spectrum is indicating the "best fit" of data is a Universe which is closed in one form or another with a toroidally connected spherical space. In particular a toroidally connected Poincaré dodecahedral "spherical" space. This geometry has no particular center so a rotation of this body leads to a closed geometry whose outer surface shrinks as V -> C.
If this was the case then there really are extra dimensions. This spin would be a mapping from a two dimensional spin on some "outer surface" to three internal dimensions .... the two dimensions would be the "surface" of the "quantum particle" or "closed universe" whatever... and the three dimensions are the three dimensional "rotation" internally perturbed by a "Berry Phase" into additional higher dimensions effectively freeing a particle to rotate in more than one plane simultaneously. I would quote the Wikipedia Article but it is technically wrong and provides the wrong conceptual answer to the problem as stated. Here is an alternative "interpretation".
The Curvature of the Relativistic Rotating Disk - KeatingB
... which would also be wrong but I think it is a better mathematical analysis of a rotating disk. Lets say the Universe was 14 Billion light years across then it would have a radius of 7 Billion light years. Some estimates of the actual size of the Universe exceed 70 Billion light years but assume the conservative figure. The circumference of an object of that size is around 43 Billion light years and if this took just 43 billion years to rotate once (which is several times the age of our universe already) then it's periphery would "spin" at the speed of light which would cause an Ehrenfest Paradox such that the outer size was tending to "zero" as V -> C while retaining an inner diameter if 14 Billion light years across. Just taking a few clicks off the speed of light would lead to an arbitrary size of around an atomic particle. As long as there was no actual matter involved in that periphery moving at that speed and it was confined to only light itself such universes could be very possible. Who would doubt that our Universe is not rotating at such a small angular velocity when confronted with all that rotation we already see in those billions of galaxies out there. A rotation once in several ages of our universe is not that much to ask for is it? If it is toroidally connected (like a child's Asteroids game) then the outer edge is "everywhere" and there is no absolute center of our Universe anywhere. In every direction we look we can potentially "see the Big Bang" everywhere anyway... that is what WMAP means. The small anisotropy in the microwave spectra only indicates the spatial connections which makes for an interesting place to live eh?
The idea about Graphene being "two dimensional" refers to the atomic structure being "two dimensional planar with very little thickness"... in actual fact this material is still one carbon atom thick and the space of the graphene is not defined to the sheet. What the guy is referring to is the sheet structure is closely approximating a two dimensional structure. What are true dimensional spaces are defined as being closed off in those dimensions. Above I mentioned the surface of a sphere "connecting" with our spacetime via an "event horizon" (no black hole here though... just the event horizon. This closes the space inside and creates an additional space over and above the "space" of our 4 dimensions. There is a serious problem with this idea and it is the embedding. This is where Juan Maldacina and his Anti-DeSitter Space Conformal Field Theory (AdS-CFT). This is a universe on the inside of a hypersphere. This is a good start in embedding additional dimensions. Most additional dimension theories simply add the dimensions to the outside of a sphere which has embedding problems. I think this idea needs to add one further topological trick the phenomenon of the Fourier Transform where this space is not simply "additional" but also "orthogonal". This "connection" then becomes realistic since spacetime is already an orthogonal set of measurables it is "natural" to add an orthogonal space... a reciprocal spacetime. If you are following what this is all about this extra step is more or less essential for the theory to embed it "naturally". This makes it more like the idea of the Fourier Optical Processor and naturally connects the spaces together.
Fourier Optical Processor showing the natural optical process of embedding spaces using simple optical elements
Relative to our spacetime this reciprocal spacetime would be a universe of frequency and "reciprocal space" or "wavenumbers" but I would suppose this space would "appear normal to anyone living in there".... the equivalent of time there is our frequency and the equivalent of frequency there is related to our time here. I do not know how many times this operation could be performed it might be possible to place many of these higher dimensions within a single compact space, and then do it all over again like a hall of mirrors only with matter waves not with light. As we have already discussed this matter wave holographic twin and all successive twins repeat the physics of our Universe potentially without any end. It may also mean that there is some "ring" that repeats after a fixed number of times.
There are other ways to embed extra spaces such as Rindler Foliations and possibly the insides of "Black Holes" but I don't think we actually need these entities or they could be in addition to these other dimensions. I have already spoken of our Universe "splitting" at T=0 into two parallel Universes one traveling forward in time and the other traveling backward in time which might be physically indistinguishable from each other but relatively the universe of matter and antimatter... which one we might be is impossible to say. In general though these objects often lead to an extra embedded six spatial dimensions (or is that reciprocal spatial dimensions and possibly a reciprocal time dimension as well which may be "parametric"?). Who knows we may be surrounded by "thousands" of extra hidden dimensions, additional to the four we can see and know, hidden from our view by technical barriers that one day we might be able to "pass" or at least "inspect"... one of these barriers may be time itself as I have already discussed earlier on in this thread. After all we are a young species just making our first attempts to understand the Universe and I am sure that this current effort is 99% wrong (as previous attempts have been) when "viewed in the fullness of time" and a lot of "temporal" hindsight.
I now "wax lyrical again with William Blake's Poem...
The idea of dimensions incorporate two opposing ideas... the first one is a "dimension" can be just a mathematical artifice placed there to simplify the problem. These are sometimes called "parameters". Alternatively it could have some relationship to "real dimensional spaces" in addition to the four conventional dimensions in a similar way to the Kaluza-Klein sense of "dimension"... it could be either curled up, more compact or truly in other "higher" planes.
Wikipedia: Kaluza–Klein theory
The size of the dimension may be internally defined so it could be bigger on the inside than on the outside due to the relativistic property of spin (see the Ehrenfest Paradox) where the external circumference of the disk is related to this equation... C′ = 2 π r (√(1−v²/C²)).. While the internal radius of the rotating "disk" r remains unaltered as noted by an internal observer positioned at the center. The single point of view of this phenomenon does not lead to "paradox" and only to a scale change and rotation which is not visibly perceptible. Observers on the "rim" of such a rotating system would need to be frame dragged along such that an exchange of viewing perspective retains the radius dimension "in that direction" but the length contraction in the other dimensions along the direction of travel would be similarly "warped" into a sphere that was changed in scale and rotated through a rotation. This is "possibly" supported by the data from WMAP where the connection of space in our Universe has mainly one or another form of toroidal connectivity.
Cosmic Hall of Mirrors - WMAP data interpretation
In particular this graph...
Angular power spectrum
.. watch out for this link it is a little "flaky" you may have to try it a couple of time or reach it from the main article.... Angular power spectrum is indicating the "best fit" of data is a Universe which is closed in one form or another with a toroidally connected spherical space. In particular a toroidally connected Poincaré dodecahedral "spherical" space. This geometry has no particular center so a rotation of this body leads to a closed geometry whose outer surface shrinks as V -> C.
If this was the case then there really are extra dimensions. This spin would be a mapping from a two dimensional spin on some "outer surface" to three internal dimensions .... the two dimensions would be the "surface" of the "quantum particle" or "closed universe" whatever... and the three dimensions are the three dimensional "rotation" internally perturbed by a "Berry Phase" into additional higher dimensions effectively freeing a particle to rotate in more than one plane simultaneously. I would quote the Wikipedia Article but it is technically wrong and provides the wrong conceptual answer to the problem as stated. Here is an alternative "interpretation".
The Curvature of the Relativistic Rotating Disk - KeatingB
... which would also be wrong but I think it is a better mathematical analysis of a rotating disk. Lets say the Universe was 14 Billion light years across then it would have a radius of 7 Billion light years. Some estimates of the actual size of the Universe exceed 70 Billion light years but assume the conservative figure. The circumference of an object of that size is around 43 Billion light years and if this took just 43 billion years to rotate once (which is several times the age of our universe already) then it's periphery would "spin" at the speed of light which would cause an Ehrenfest Paradox such that the outer size was tending to "zero" as V -> C while retaining an inner diameter if 14 Billion light years across. Just taking a few clicks off the speed of light would lead to an arbitrary size of around an atomic particle. As long as there was no actual matter involved in that periphery moving at that speed and it was confined to only light itself such universes could be very possible. Who would doubt that our Universe is not rotating at such a small angular velocity when confronted with all that rotation we already see in those billions of galaxies out there. A rotation once in several ages of our universe is not that much to ask for is it? If it is toroidally connected (like a child's Asteroids game) then the outer edge is "everywhere" and there is no absolute center of our Universe anywhere. In every direction we look we can potentially "see the Big Bang" everywhere anyway... that is what WMAP means. The small anisotropy in the microwave spectra only indicates the spatial connections which makes for an interesting place to live eh?
The idea about Graphene being "two dimensional" refers to the atomic structure being "two dimensional planar with very little thickness"... in actual fact this material is still one carbon atom thick and the space of the graphene is not defined to the sheet. What the guy is referring to is the sheet structure is closely approximating a two dimensional structure. What are true dimensional spaces are defined as being closed off in those dimensions. Above I mentioned the surface of a sphere "connecting" with our spacetime via an "event horizon" (no black hole here though... just the event horizon. This closes the space inside and creates an additional space over and above the "space" of our 4 dimensions. There is a serious problem with this idea and it is the embedding. This is where Juan Maldacina and his Anti-DeSitter Space Conformal Field Theory (AdS-CFT). This is a universe on the inside of a hypersphere. This is a good start in embedding additional dimensions. Most additional dimension theories simply add the dimensions to the outside of a sphere which has embedding problems. I think this idea needs to add one further topological trick the phenomenon of the Fourier Transform where this space is not simply "additional" but also "orthogonal". This "connection" then becomes realistic since spacetime is already an orthogonal set of measurables it is "natural" to add an orthogonal space... a reciprocal spacetime. If you are following what this is all about this extra step is more or less essential for the theory to embed it "naturally". This makes it more like the idea of the Fourier Optical Processor and naturally connects the spaces together.
Fourier Optical Processor showing the natural optical process of embedding spaces using simple optical elements
Relative to our spacetime this reciprocal spacetime would be a universe of frequency and "reciprocal space" or "wavenumbers" but I would suppose this space would "appear normal to anyone living in there".... the equivalent of time there is our frequency and the equivalent of frequency there is related to our time here. I do not know how many times this operation could be performed it might be possible to place many of these higher dimensions within a single compact space, and then do it all over again like a hall of mirrors only with matter waves not with light. As we have already discussed this matter wave holographic twin and all successive twins repeat the physics of our Universe potentially without any end. It may also mean that there is some "ring" that repeats after a fixed number of times.
There are other ways to embed extra spaces such as Rindler Foliations and possibly the insides of "Black Holes" but I don't think we actually need these entities or they could be in addition to these other dimensions. I have already spoken of our Universe "splitting" at T=0 into two parallel Universes one traveling forward in time and the other traveling backward in time which might be physically indistinguishable from each other but relatively the universe of matter and antimatter... which one we might be is impossible to say. In general though these objects often lead to an extra embedded six spatial dimensions (or is that reciprocal spatial dimensions and possibly a reciprocal time dimension as well which may be "parametric"?). Who knows we may be surrounded by "thousands" of extra hidden dimensions, additional to the four we can see and know, hidden from our view by technical barriers that one day we might be able to "pass" or at least "inspect"... one of these barriers may be time itself as I have already discussed earlier on in this thread. After all we are a young species just making our first attempts to understand the Universe and I am sure that this current effort is 99% wrong (as previous attempts have been) when "viewed in the fullness of time" and a lot of "temporal" hindsight.
I now "wax lyrical again with William Blake's Poem...
QUOTE (To see a world... :William Blake+)
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
[..]
A truth that’s told with bad intent
Beats all the Lies you can invent.
It is right it should be so;
Man was made for Joy and Woe;
And when this we rightly know
Thro’ the World we safely go.
Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are Born.
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.
Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.
To see a world - Fragments from "Auguries of Innocence" :William Blake
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
[..]
A truth that’s told with bad intent
Beats all the Lies you can invent.
It is right it should be so;
Man was made for Joy and Woe;
And when this we rightly know
Thro’ the World we safely go.
Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are Born.
Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.
Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.
To see a world - Fragments from "Auguries of Innocence" :William Blake
Which reminds me I need to go to bed... otherwise I will not wake to "sweet delight" and I will only endure "endless night". Ciao! 
Hi yor_on, rethinker, bukh, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, Janus, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
QUOTE (rethinker+)
What about when light begins? Where light begins when a match is lit. This seems like it should have some source of force.
Keeping it as simple as possible light has a similar origin to sound. When you speak a word this word in not "sleeping in your throat waiting to come out" it is generated on demand by vibrating your vocal cords by expelling air over them. That "force" of the air moving over your vocal cords is like plucking a string on a violin and it's energy is converted into vibrating sound in your voice box. In a like manner photons which are the elementary wavepackets of light are also generated like sound "on demand" and are (like sound) dissipated just as easily. They also have a similar origin. You take one electron and "strike it" like hitting a brass bell and it vibrates/resonates emitting a single compound "tone" of light which spreads like sound as a wave to be absorbed "someplace else".
As previously explained this is a single line spectrum when it is emitted and this line needs to be "maintained" using a continuous supply of photons. One atom at a time is excited and when it returns to the ground state releases one photon. Millions of these atoms all act together to produce the light of a "fire" which is composed of many thousands of lines all incoherently generated at random times and at different places in the source of the fire. After the act of resonance the electron just returns to it's state of "rest" prior to this excitation. The release of chemical energy is a one shot source of energy and usually other atoms need to combine and form and break bonds to produce more light until all the chemical energy is used up (a charred and burnt stick for instance). The excited state is a different and higher eigenstate to when it is in it's lowest eigenstate. The transition is accompanied by the emission of the photon. Gunpowder is an obvious source of chemical energy. As explained earlier this excitation can only exist in just a few superimposed "overtones" and when the quantum of energy is released it spreads away like the sound wave. A simple beam of light from a flashlight has trillions of photons emitted each second so it appears like a continuous stream of light... actually it is composed of many different frequencies and in stupendous numbers that make it appear virtually continuous. In the case of a torch the light is caused by simply heating a wire till it glows white hot (see picture below). Striking a match is a similar phenomenon. Billions of atoms are involved and chemical energy in the match is released in the form of radiant energy as a continuous spectrum. The source of the energy in a match is the chemicals... Red Phosphorus and Potassium Chlorate... that will react and burn igniting the matchstick. The match continues to burn quietly using the oxygen in the atmosphere as the oxidizing agent and providing light. The energy of those chemical reactions creates photons as a means of dissipating that stored energy as burning gases and other materials such as wood.
There are actually several ways light can be emitted, mostly it is one atom at a time being excited emitting the photon as energy (a line spectrum). One line per photon, several lines may be emitted by a single incandescent gas but only one photon at a time each line representing a different transition of an electron releasing different energy photons. But sometimes there are more complex processes involved such as these creating different types of spectra...
Spectroscopic sources
The sources are shown on the left. The spectra of the sun is a mixture of these sources and we see a continuous spectrum with some absorption lines due to the cool outer layers of the sun's atmosphere absorbing some lines and then re-emitting them at different frequencies leaving a "hole". The thermal motion of atoms in incandescent condensed matter sources spread the spectrum lines sufficiently to make them all overlap, this is mostly like the result of the process I mentioned previously. There is really "ultimately" only discrete emission lines as shown in the top diagram.
If you take a spectrometer and disperse the frequencies in the light from various sources you get this array of frequencies.
Spectrometer producing these spectra
The odd man out (not shown) is the "technological source" of LASERS which are "coherent sources"... This is the most important source of all for understanding light. It wasn't until the possibility of LASERS that suddenly some quantum theory "fell into a heap" showing that quantum processes are not all random and incoherent. Bohr refused to believe it until he was actually shown it "personally". They are contrived to be a single line source and are excited so that the "origin" is as close to being equivalent to a single point or line in space utilizing a process of "population inversion" generated using a kind of cascade effect. The parallel beam is usually another useful artifact but not an essential part of the concept of a LASER. Source coherent LASERS replicate the properties of every photon perfectly. Each photon is able to partake in the same interference pattern simply because they are all in phase at source when they are produced and so exactly "trace the footsteps" of previous photons as they spread and self interfere.
As previously explained this is a single line spectrum when it is emitted and this line needs to be "maintained" using a continuous supply of photons. One atom at a time is excited and when it returns to the ground state releases one photon. Millions of these atoms all act together to produce the light of a "fire" which is composed of many thousands of lines all incoherently generated at random times and at different places in the source of the fire. After the act of resonance the electron just returns to it's state of "rest" prior to this excitation. The release of chemical energy is a one shot source of energy and usually other atoms need to combine and form and break bonds to produce more light until all the chemical energy is used up (a charred and burnt stick for instance). The excited state is a different and higher eigenstate to when it is in it's lowest eigenstate. The transition is accompanied by the emission of the photon. Gunpowder is an obvious source of chemical energy. As explained earlier this excitation can only exist in just a few superimposed "overtones" and when the quantum of energy is released it spreads away like the sound wave. A simple beam of light from a flashlight has trillions of photons emitted each second so it appears like a continuous stream of light... actually it is composed of many different frequencies and in stupendous numbers that make it appear virtually continuous. In the case of a torch the light is caused by simply heating a wire till it glows white hot (see picture below). Striking a match is a similar phenomenon. Billions of atoms are involved and chemical energy in the match is released in the form of radiant energy as a continuous spectrum. The source of the energy in a match is the chemicals... Red Phosphorus and Potassium Chlorate... that will react and burn igniting the matchstick. The match continues to burn quietly using the oxygen in the atmosphere as the oxidizing agent and providing light. The energy of those chemical reactions creates photons as a means of dissipating that stored energy as burning gases and other materials such as wood.
There are actually several ways light can be emitted, mostly it is one atom at a time being excited emitting the photon as energy (a line spectrum). One line per photon, several lines may be emitted by a single incandescent gas but only one photon at a time each line representing a different transition of an electron releasing different energy photons. But sometimes there are more complex processes involved such as these creating different types of spectra...
Spectroscopic sources
The sources are shown on the left. The spectra of the sun is a mixture of these sources and we see a continuous spectrum with some absorption lines due to the cool outer layers of the sun's atmosphere absorbing some lines and then re-emitting them at different frequencies leaving a "hole". The thermal motion of atoms in incandescent condensed matter sources spread the spectrum lines sufficiently to make them all overlap, this is mostly like the result of the process I mentioned previously. There is really "ultimately" only discrete emission lines as shown in the top diagram.
If you take a spectrometer and disperse the frequencies in the light from various sources you get this array of frequencies.
Spectrometer producing these spectra
The odd man out (not shown) is the "technological source" of LASERS which are "coherent sources"... This is the most important source of all for understanding light. It wasn't until the possibility of LASERS that suddenly some quantum theory "fell into a heap" showing that quantum processes are not all random and incoherent. Bohr refused to believe it until he was actually shown it "personally". They are contrived to be a single line source and are excited so that the "origin" is as close to being equivalent to a single point or line in space utilizing a process of "population inversion" generated using a kind of cascade effect. The parallel beam is usually another useful artifact but not an essential part of the concept of a LASER. Source coherent LASERS replicate the properties of every photon perfectly. Each photon is able to partake in the same interference pattern simply because they are all in phase at source when they are produced and so exactly "trace the footsteps" of previous photons as they spread and self interfere.
QUOTE (rethinker+)
Where were you when I was a lad and wanted to know as much as I could about science.
Probably sitting in the back of your classroom "getting clipped around the ear" for goofing off!
Cheers
PS: Hi fairy - -Please ask a question if you feel inclined.
Cheers
PS: Hi fairy - -Please ask a question if you feel inclined.
I think it's worth adding a perspective that Douglas Adams contributed in one of his books (he's famous for "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") on the point of figuring out how the universe works.
His point was that every time someone figures out how the universe works, it collapses and starts over with rules more mysterious than the previous universe. It might look exactly like the prior universe, but with one extra leaf on the tree in your backyard.
He said that this process has repeated itself many, many times already.
I highly recommend all his works to anyone interested in this sort of discussion.
His point was that every time someone figures out how the universe works, it collapses and starts over with rules more mysterious than the previous universe. It might look exactly like the prior universe, but with one extra leaf on the tree in your backyard.
He said that this process has repeated itself many, many times already.
I highly recommend all his works to anyone interested in this sort of discussion.
Hi yor_on, rethinker, bukh, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, Janus, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
I think it's worth adding a perspective that Douglas Adams contributed in one of his books (he's famous for "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") on the point of figuring out how the universe works.
His point was that every time someone figures out how the universe works, it collapses and starts over with rules more mysterious than the previous universe. It might look exactly like the prior universe, but with one extra leaf on the tree in your backyard.
He said that this process has repeated itself many, many times already.
I highly recommend all his works to anyone interested in this sort of discussion.
His point was that every time someone figures out how the universe works, it collapses and starts over with rules more mysterious than the previous universe. It might look exactly like the prior universe, but with one extra leaf on the tree in your backyard.
He said that this process has repeated itself many, many times already.
I highly recommend all his works to anyone interested in this sort of discussion.
Please enumerate Professor Adam's "experimental papers" please... I don't accept "theory" without some experimental verification.... He he he!
Show me this errant leaf!! I "have a simple procedure" for dealing with it.
Show me this errant leaf!!
I "have a simple procedure" for dealing with it.
I can show you an irrelevant leaf lol. My two bi-girls with their two clit experiments are experiencing quantum delirium of 7 clits interference pattern like in the two slit experiment, This is proof that the interference pattern in the two slit experiment is cased by photons scent and flavor in two dimensions dimensions
I keep up with discovery Chanel fextell cable quantum physics documentaries and photons in two dimensions/universes can be the only possible explanation in the micro Schrodinger potential position universe
I keep up with discovery Chanel fextell cable quantum physics documentaries and photons in two dimensions/universes can be the only possible explanation in the micro Schrodinger potential position universe
Im glad you liked it Fairy, The two BiGirls like it bare foot all over every day.
I was going to say `co lol?', but then i read the previous post: my post.
I was going to say `co lol?', but then i read the previous post: my post.
Good Elf. Your rotating disk, I really liked it:)
And if matter can't obtain 'c' then there should either be an enormous alway increasing angular 'momentum' building out there, or a slightly less momentous momentum :) being created by our photons.
Shouldn't we then be able to observe reflections of the same.
Maybe not if our universe is expanding though.
And that momentum, what would it do to our space-times 'incasement'?
And that 'Kondo effect' was fascinating GoodElf.
And if the surroundings treat it exactly as it's being a real 'particle'?
Then it should be considered as being 'real too:)
If it will stay stable for a measurable 'time'.
But then again, it seems to be 'locked' to one specific state only?
I found this about 'mirror images'.
But I would like to read more about how much it can interact with its surroundings.
The article I found states that " When a single cobalt atom (purple peak) is placed at one of the two focus points of the elliptical ring, some of its properties suddenly appear at the other focus."
Which makes me wonder what 'properties' it is that's missing
And if matter can't obtain 'c' then there should either be an enormous alway increasing angular 'momentum' building out there, or a slightly less momentous momentum :) being created by our photons.
Shouldn't we then be able to observe reflections of the same.
Maybe not if our universe is expanding though.
And that momentum, what would it do to our space-times 'incasement'?
And that 'Kondo effect' was fascinating GoodElf.
And if the surroundings treat it exactly as it's being a real 'particle'?
Then it should be considered as being 'real too:)
If it will stay stable for a measurable 'time'.
But then again, it seems to be 'locked' to one specific state only?
I found this about 'mirror images'.
But I would like to read more about how much it can interact with its surroundings.
The article I found states that " When a single cobalt atom (purple peak) is placed at one of the two focus points of the elliptical ring, some of its properties suddenly appear at the other focus."
Which makes me wonder what 'properties' it is that's missing
Good Elf and all
So the protons in our world are reacting to the the chemical reaction of a match when lit.
Can this flow of protons have a relation to water as it boils? In other words using the action of flow from energy, can the expansion of water when it boils and light when started by a chemical reaction all come under the same theory of outward expansion from a source?
Is this a typo,or is a light bulb considered a torch?
I'm actually learning something.
So the protons in our world are reacting to the the chemical reaction of a match when lit.
Can this flow of protons have a relation to water as it boils? In other words using the action of flow from energy, can the expansion of water when it boils and light when started by a chemical reaction all come under the same theory of outward expansion from a source?
Is this a typo,or is a light bulb considered a torch?
QUOTE
In the case of a torch the light is caused by simply heating a wire
I'm actually learning something.
Good Elf
QUOTE: "PS I forgot to ask why we can see our surroundings when we switch on the light ?
Evolution my friend!!... Gaea wants us to find out about her... he he he! We have been in the dark for an awful long time but not "forever". "
Thanks - I take it for the short answer -
Anyhow - it is a bit weird isn't it ?
I have been pondering and come up with this explanation:
According to the 3D Pixel Universe -no please do not stop reading already here ! - any and all physical expressions - and now we are dealing with our physical universe - the scale of us humans - any and all physical expressions in this scale is via the 3D Pixel Screen - accomplished by the playings of the pixels - exacltly like a TV screen cinematographically is playing 2D movies - the 3D Pixel screen is playing 3D movies - physical world.
In order for a pixel to play - there must be a kind of initializing factor something to start the signal of said pixel.
So let us start to define the pixels. A pixel is a dimensionality - it is a 3D volume, and a pixel can best be defined as an accurate ratio of total space, and the dividing system is ex. the binary system. This implicate that a pixel is a very well defined size - and all pixels in a given scale is exatly the same size and shape ?
Now - when total space starts to segregate it is being filled up - or fillede out of the dimensions - but the fit is not perfect - there will popularly speaking be free void in between the dimensionalities. The "smaller" the dimensionalities the better the overall fit can be - but there will always be a certainn misfit - and universe strives for achieving the most optimal fit - which is achievable with a said size and shape of pixels -
The pixels will be in a dynamic arranging - re-arranging positioning relative to each other in order to get a better and better fit - like grain of sand being shaken will get a better and better fit.
So pixels in a said scale will likewise re-arrange to get such an optimal fit - and doing so they will constantly re-arrange with its neighbors - and such re-arranging "movements" will spread domino-like as a quakes through the system.
Now imagine that a cluster of pixels have arranged themselves in a stable repeating pattern - that is the equivalent of a particle - could be an electron - and electrons likewise can arrange themselves in like repetitive stable patterns - atoms - and atoms can -- and so on.
In order for a particle to moove - it has to be cinematographically played in 3D pictures that moove over the pixel-grid. Each and any new picture with a one-step moove over the grid - involves a re-arranging quake. And a longer step takes a longer quake-trajectory.
Every time such a quake propagates out in the system like a 3D spherical wave it will change the free void as it propagates out in the system. The quake will give rise to a wave-like change in the free void distribution in the system.
Now imagine that the pixel re-arranging signal is executed via change in the free void around the pixel - (one is wellcome to translate free void in relative vacuum within the pixel if one so prefers - it is the same) imagine that any shortlasting increase in the free void (decrease in relative pixel-vacuum) around the pixel triggers the pixel to re-arrange - and imagine that such a re-arranging wave is the equivalent to a photon - then photon can be seen as the initiator - the facilitator - the catalysator of re-arranging pixel-patterns.
When the pixels are mute - not re-arranging in any kind of stable patterns - there is no photon activity - no re-arranging waves being emitted - (at least not at distance - only this in-situ oscillations - the waves are not being propagated over any distance). And in areas with stable repeating pixels-playing (particle-mass) areas, the patterns are being repeatedly played in the said mass-area - circular repaeting waves not escaping their standing-wave areas. And now imagine that a photonic wave is coming from outside - something that disturbs this balance, this will immediately give rise to new-arrangements that will counter-spread to the surroundings.
A photonic wave coming from out-side will create a change in the distribution of free void which can initiate re-arranging counter waves.
So by emitting photons from a source will spread along the 3D grid with the speed of light as long as there are no stable repeating (particle playing patterns) on the grid - so-called vacuum (or the near equivalent - just a little air-molecule here and there) - and as soon as the photon wave enters an area of the grid where there exist more dense particle structures - it will initiate a cascade of re-arrangements in such particle structures - and this will result in the formation of counter wave-like arrangements that will spread as photon waves in patterns that communicate information about the said structures -
We emit a photon and we receive fingerprint photons from surrounding particle structures that are being hit -
Energy is equivalent to change - change is equivalent to re-arrangement of pixel-patterns - re-arrangement of pixel-patterns is being initiated of photons - we see photons as energy - but is is perhaps better to see photons as Initiators of energy - facilitators to create energy -
Energy - is potentially present in the medium - but need a facilitator to express the energy.
QUOTE: "PS I forgot to ask why we can see our surroundings when we switch on the light ?
Evolution my friend!!... Gaea wants us to find out about her... he he he! We have been in the dark for an awful long time but not "forever". "
Thanks - I take it for the short answer -
Anyhow - it is a bit weird isn't it ?
I have been pondering and come up with this explanation:
According to the 3D Pixel Universe -no please do not stop reading already here !
- any and all physical expressions - and now we are dealing with our physical universe - the scale of us humans - any and all physical expressions in this scale is via the 3D Pixel Screen - accomplished by the playings of the pixels - exacltly like a TV screen cinematographically is playing 2D movies - the 3D Pixel screen is playing 3D movies - physical world.In order for a pixel to play - there must be a kind of initializing factor something to start the signal of said pixel.
So let us start to define the pixels. A pixel is a dimensionality - it is a 3D volume, and a pixel can best be defined as an accurate ratio of total space, and the dividing system is ex. the binary system. This implicate that a pixel is a very well defined size - and all pixels in a given scale is exatly the same size and shape ?
Now - when total space starts to segregate it is being filled up - or fillede out of the dimensions - but the fit is not perfect - there will popularly speaking be free void in between the dimensionalities. The "smaller" the dimensionalities the better the overall fit can be - but there will always be a certainn misfit - and universe strives for achieving the most optimal fit - which is achievable with a said size and shape of pixels -
The pixels will be in a dynamic arranging - re-arranging positioning relative to each other in order to get a better and better fit - like grain of sand being shaken will get a better and better fit.
So pixels in a said scale will likewise re-arrange to get such an optimal fit - and doing so they will constantly re-arrange with its neighbors - and such re-arranging "movements" will spread domino-like as a quakes through the system.
Now imagine that a cluster of pixels have arranged themselves in a stable repeating pattern - that is the equivalent of a particle - could be an electron - and electrons likewise can arrange themselves in like repetitive stable patterns - atoms - and atoms can -- and so on.
In order for a particle to moove - it has to be cinematographically played in 3D pictures that moove over the pixel-grid. Each and any new picture with a one-step moove over the grid - involves a re-arranging quake. And a longer step takes a longer quake-trajectory.
Every time such a quake propagates out in the system like a 3D spherical wave it will change the free void as it propagates out in the system. The quake will give rise to a wave-like change in the free void distribution in the system.
Now imagine that the pixel re-arranging signal is executed via change in the free void around the pixel - (one is wellcome to translate free void in relative vacuum within the pixel if one so prefers - it is the same) imagine that any shortlasting increase in the free void (decrease in relative pixel-vacuum) around the pixel triggers the pixel to re-arrange - and imagine that such a re-arranging wave is the equivalent to a photon - then photon can be seen as the initiator - the facilitator - the catalysator of re-arranging pixel-patterns.
When the pixels are mute - not re-arranging in any kind of stable patterns - there is no photon activity - no re-arranging waves being emitted - (at least not at distance - only this in-situ oscillations - the waves are not being propagated over any distance). And in areas with stable repeating pixels-playing (particle-mass) areas, the patterns are being repeatedly played in the said mass-area - circular repaeting waves not escaping their standing-wave areas. And now imagine that a photonic wave is coming from outside - something that disturbs this balance, this will immediately give rise to new-arrangements that will counter-spread to the surroundings.
A photonic wave coming from out-side will create a change in the distribution of free void which can initiate re-arranging counter waves.
So by emitting photons from a source will spread along the 3D grid with the speed of light as long as there are no stable repeating (particle playing patterns) on the grid - so-called vacuum (or the near equivalent - just a little air-molecule here and there) - and as soon as the photon wave enters an area of the grid where there exist more dense particle structures - it will initiate a cascade of re-arrangements in such particle structures - and this will result in the formation of counter wave-like arrangements that will spread as photon waves in patterns that communicate information about the said structures -
We emit a photon and we receive fingerprint photons from surrounding particle structures that are being hit -
Energy is equivalent to change - change is equivalent to re-arrangement of pixel-patterns - re-arrangement of pixel-patterns is being initiated of photons - we see photons as energy - but is is perhaps better to see photons as Initiators of energy - facilitators to create energy -
Energy - is potentially present in the medium - but need a facilitator to express the energy.
Oh come on Fairy - it is better than it might look - give it a re-read -
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 17 2008, 08:34 AM)
Good Elf
QUOTE: "PS I forgot to ask why we can see our surroundings when we switch on the light ?
Evolution my friend!!... Gaea wants us to find out about her... he he he! We have been in the dark for an awful long time but not "forever". "
Thanks - I take it for the short answer -
Anyhow - it is a bit weird isn't it ?
I have been pondering and come up with this explanation:
According to the 3D Pixel Universe -no please do not stop reading already here ! - any and all physical expressions - and now we are dealing with our physical universe - the scale of us humans - any and all physical expressions in this scale is via the 3D Pixel Screen - accomplished by the playings of the pixels - exacltly like a TV screen cinematographically is playing 2D movies - the 3D Pixel screen is playing 3D movies - physical world.
In order for a pixel to play - there must be a kind of initializing factor something to start the signal of said pixel.
So let us start to define the pixels. A pixel is a dimensionality - it is a 3D volume, and a pixel can best be defined as an accurate ratio of total space, and the dividing system is ex. the binary system. This implicate that a pixel is a very well defined size - and all pixels in a given scale is exatly the same size and shape ?
Now - when total space starts to segregate it is being filled up - or fillede out of the dimensions - but the fit is not perfect - there will popularly speaking be free void in between the dimensionalities. The "smaller" the dimensionalities the better the overall fit can be - but there will always be a certainn misfit - and universe strives for achieving the most optimal fit - which is achievable with a said size and shape of pixels -
The pixels will be in a dynamic arranging - re-arranging positioning relative to each other in order to get a better and better fit - like grain of sand being shaken will get a better and better fit.
So pixels in a said scale will likewise re-arrange to get such an optimal fit - and doing so they will constantly re-arrange with its neighbors - and such re-arranging "movements" will spread domino-like as a quakes through the system.
Now imagine that a cluster of pixels have arranged themselves in a stable repeating pattern - that is the equivalent of a particle - could be an electron - and electrons likewise can arrange themselves in like repetitive stable patterns - atoms - and atoms can -- and so on.
In order for a particle to moove - it has to be cinematographically played in 3D pictures that moove over the pixel-grid. Each and any new picture with a one-step moove over the grid - involves a re-arranging quake. And a longer step takes a longer quake-trajectory.
Every time such a quake propagates out in the system like a 3D spherical wave it will change the free void as it propagates out in the system. The quake will give rise to a wave-like change in the free void distribution in the system.
Now imagine that the pixel re-arranging signal is executed via change in the free void around the pixel - (one is wellcome to translate free void in relative vacuum within the pixel if one so prefers - it is the same) imagine that any shortlasting increase in the free void (decrease in relative pixel-vacuum) around the pixel triggers the pixel to re-arrange - and imagine that such a re-arranging wave is the equivalent to a photon - then photon can be seen as the initiator - the facilitator - the catalysator of re-arranging pixel-patterns.
When the pixels are mute - not re-arranging in any kind of stable patterns - there is no photon activity - no re-arranging waves being emitted - (at least not at distance - only this in-situ oscillations - the waves are not being propagated over any distance). And in areas with stable repeating pixels-playing (particle-mass) areas, the patterns are being repeatedly played in the said mass-area - circular repaeting waves not escaping their standing-wave areas. And now imagine that a photonic wave is coming from outside - something that disturbs this balance, this will immediately give rise to new-arrangements that will counter-spread to the surroundings.
A photonic wave coming from out-side will create a change in the distribution of free void which can initiate re-arranging counter waves.
So by emitting photons from a source will spread along the 3D grid with the speed of light as long as there are no stable repeating (particle playing patterns) on the grid - so-called vacuum (or the near equivalent - just a little air-molecule here and there) - and as soon as the photon wave enters an area of the grid where there exist more dense particle structures - it will initiate a cascade of re-arrangements in such particle structures - and this will result in the formation of counter wave-like arrangements that will spread as photon waves in patterns that communicate information about the said structures -
We emit a photon and we receive fingerprint photons from surrounding particle structures that are being hit -
Energy is equivalent to change - change is equivalent to re-arrangement of pixel-patterns - re-arrangement of pixel-patterns is being initiated of photons - we see photons as energy - but is is perhaps better to see photons as Initiators of energy - facilitators to create energy -
Energy - is potentially present in the medium - but need a facilitator to express the energy.
or fill a room with balls and add more to watch what happens
QUOTE: "PS I forgot to ask why we can see our surroundings when we switch on the light ?
Evolution my friend!!... Gaea wants us to find out about her... he he he! We have been in the dark for an awful long time but not "forever". "
Thanks - I take it for the short answer -
Anyhow - it is a bit weird isn't it ?
I have been pondering and come up with this explanation:
According to the 3D Pixel Universe -no please do not stop reading already here !
- any and all physical expressions - and now we are dealing with our physical universe - the scale of us humans - any and all physical expressions in this scale is via the 3D Pixel Screen - accomplished by the playings of the pixels - exacltly like a TV screen cinematographically is playing 2D movies - the 3D Pixel screen is playing 3D movies - physical world.In order for a pixel to play - there must be a kind of initializing factor something to start the signal of said pixel.
So let us start to define the pixels. A pixel is a dimensionality - it is a 3D volume, and a pixel can best be defined as an accurate ratio of total space, and the dividing system is ex. the binary system. This implicate that a pixel is a very well defined size - and all pixels in a given scale is exatly the same size and shape ?
Now - when total space starts to segregate it is being filled up - or fillede out of the dimensions - but the fit is not perfect - there will popularly speaking be free void in between the dimensionalities. The "smaller" the dimensionalities the better the overall fit can be - but there will always be a certainn misfit - and universe strives for achieving the most optimal fit - which is achievable with a said size and shape of pixels -
The pixels will be in a dynamic arranging - re-arranging positioning relative to each other in order to get a better and better fit - like grain of sand being shaken will get a better and better fit.
So pixels in a said scale will likewise re-arrange to get such an optimal fit - and doing so they will constantly re-arrange with its neighbors - and such re-arranging "movements" will spread domino-like as a quakes through the system.
Now imagine that a cluster of pixels have arranged themselves in a stable repeating pattern - that is the equivalent of a particle - could be an electron - and electrons likewise can arrange themselves in like repetitive stable patterns - atoms - and atoms can -- and so on.
In order for a particle to moove - it has to be cinematographically played in 3D pictures that moove over the pixel-grid. Each and any new picture with a one-step moove over the grid - involves a re-arranging quake. And a longer step takes a longer quake-trajectory.
Every time such a quake propagates out in the system like a 3D spherical wave it will change the free void as it propagates out in the system. The quake will give rise to a wave-like change in the free void distribution in the system.
Now imagine that the pixel re-arranging signal is executed via change in the free void around the pixel - (one is wellcome to translate free void in relative vacuum within the pixel if one so prefers - it is the same) imagine that any shortlasting increase in the free void (decrease in relative pixel-vacuum) around the pixel triggers the pixel to re-arrange - and imagine that such a re-arranging wave is the equivalent to a photon - then photon can be seen as the initiator - the facilitator - the catalysator of re-arranging pixel-patterns.
When the pixels are mute - not re-arranging in any kind of stable patterns - there is no photon activity - no re-arranging waves being emitted - (at least not at distance - only this in-situ oscillations - the waves are not being propagated over any distance). And in areas with stable repeating pixels-playing (particle-mass) areas, the patterns are being repeatedly played in the said mass-area - circular repaeting waves not escaping their standing-wave areas. And now imagine that a photonic wave is coming from outside - something that disturbs this balance, this will immediately give rise to new-arrangements that will counter-spread to the surroundings.
A photonic wave coming from out-side will create a change in the distribution of free void which can initiate re-arranging counter waves.
So by emitting photons from a source will spread along the 3D grid with the speed of light as long as there are no stable repeating (particle playing patterns) on the grid - so-called vacuum (or the near equivalent - just a little air-molecule here and there) - and as soon as the photon wave enters an area of the grid where there exist more dense particle structures - it will initiate a cascade of re-arrangements in such particle structures - and this will result in the formation of counter wave-like arrangements that will spread as photon waves in patterns that communicate information about the said structures -
We emit a photon and we receive fingerprint photons from surrounding particle structures that are being hit -
Energy is equivalent to change - change is equivalent to re-arrangement of pixel-patterns - re-arrangement of pixel-patterns is being initiated of photons - we see photons as energy - but is is perhaps better to see photons as Initiators of energy - facilitators to create energy -
Energy - is potentially present in the medium - but need a facilitator to express the energy.
or fill a room with balls and add more to watch what happens
Hi All
Good Elf, thanks for link on Carver Mead it’s its also surprising how many physicists’ there are that voice their qualms after they no longer have to rely on the establishment for a living. Unfortunately, many that voice in retirement are immediately cranked because of … well their age … and are said to be losing their marbles.
I remember in my youth being given 3 pieces of advice: work hard, keep your head down and don’t rock the boat … if you want to get on! Only charismatic’s are able to rock the boat and get away with it … but the knives are out … and any mistake … et tu Brutus!
Good Elf quote:
“Regarding the difference between "matter" and electromagnetic waves... The "photon" which is a wavepacket... and I hesitate deliberately not to call it a "particle" because of it's relatively defined "shape" like an expanding pancake propagating in free space... actually it is more like these patterns as indicated in transverse modes.”
I just wish to say that scientific photographs are to be taken with a pinch of salt … for example those wonderful pictures of nebulas … that make us go gaga … are nothing like that … they are artistic impression only … with a very broad license. In other words … the pictures have been touched up to make a point … and not to be taken as gospel.
Propagating pancake makes a point … but lets put some meat on it … otherwise the propagating pancake will stick … to the ceiling and be believed as fact. Sadly this happens too often.
Light has transverse wave features … again this does not mean that light is a transverse wave light is much more peculiar than that.
Simplistically, the best way to explain light is to explain it as a circle (2D shape i.e. no thickness) … the circle being the x-axis on which the waves move along. Once a revolution of the circle has been completed the wave continues on this circular path.
Now, this setup will create a superposition on the original wave … this new wave will still remain harmonic and with the same frequency as the original waves … but its amplitude will be different … I don’t think there will be any change to the phase because the circle circumference will hold the number of cycles exactly.
(The flux density will be equal to the square of the sum of the individual amplitudes.)
If you feel that this setup will create anharmonic waves then you can use Fourier Theorem Analysis.
Yes, I do realise that the above situation is simplistic and that light consists of different wavelengths and frequencies … but these can all be replaced by a resultant wave.
Anyway, light is a carrier wave.
Now, if the above setup continues it will create a black hole. Therefore, to maintain constant energy the circle expands with every revolution (at the speed of light) … voila … propagation. There is an analogy with music here … the same note but played an octave lower with each revolution.
The photon is the same as above … but before the circle has expanded. To maintain a single photon you need to continually take away its energy … otherwise it will propagate.
There are many peculiar properties of light that I want to put … especially the photoelectric effect … for next time.
Quote: Albert Einstein, 1954
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, *** and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.
My name is Janus.
Cheers
Good Elf, thanks for link on Carver Mead it’s its also surprising how many physicists’ there are that voice their qualms after they no longer have to rely on the establishment for a living. Unfortunately, many that voice in retirement are immediately cranked because of … well their age … and are said to be losing their marbles.
I remember in my youth being given 3 pieces of advice: work hard, keep your head down and don’t rock the boat … if you want to get on! Only charismatic’s are able to rock the boat and get away with it … but the knives are out … and any mistake … et tu Brutus!
Good Elf quote:
“Regarding the difference between "matter" and electromagnetic waves... The "photon" which is a wavepacket... and I hesitate deliberately not to call it a "particle" because of it's relatively defined "shape" like an expanding pancake propagating in free space... actually it is more like these patterns as indicated in transverse modes.”
I just wish to say that scientific photographs are to be taken with a pinch of salt … for example those wonderful pictures of nebulas … that make us go gaga … are nothing like that … they are artistic impression only … with a very broad license. In other words … the pictures have been touched up to make a point … and not to be taken as gospel.
Propagating pancake makes a point … but lets put some meat on it … otherwise the propagating pancake will stick … to the ceiling and be believed as fact. Sadly this happens too often.
Light has transverse wave features … again this does not mean that light is a transverse wave light is much more peculiar than that.
Simplistically, the best way to explain light is to explain it as a circle (2D shape i.e. no thickness) … the circle being the x-axis on which the waves move along. Once a revolution of the circle has been completed the wave continues on this circular path.
Now, this setup will create a superposition on the original wave … this new wave will still remain harmonic and with the same frequency as the original waves … but its amplitude will be different … I don’t think there will be any change to the phase because the circle circumference will hold the number of cycles exactly.
(The flux density will be equal to the square of the sum of the individual amplitudes.)
If you feel that this setup will create anharmonic waves then you can use Fourier Theorem Analysis.
Yes, I do realise that the above situation is simplistic and that light consists of different wavelengths and frequencies … but these can all be replaced by a resultant wave.
Anyway, light is a carrier wave.
Now, if the above setup continues it will create a black hole. Therefore, to maintain constant energy the circle expands with every revolution (at the speed of light) … voila … propagation. There is an analogy with music here … the same note but played an octave lower with each revolution.
The photon is the same as above … but before the circle has expanded. To maintain a single photon you need to continually take away its energy … otherwise it will propagate.
There are many peculiar properties of light that I want to put … especially the photoelectric effect … for next time.
Quote: Albert Einstein, 1954
All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, *** and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.
My name is Janus.
Cheers
QUOTE (woodroyd+Sep 22 2008, 04:46 PM)
Can anyone enlighten me, is there a mathematical definition of time itself.
We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.
Well in effort to help you understand the definition of time, I can tell you that time is a dimension in of space. We realize dimensions to be like directions, pointing out differences in structure. So we have in more so direct relation of in nuclear physics, 3 dimensions: strong/weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic and gravitational. Each direction is independent in action. We just conceptualize time as a 4th dimension. Now as for a mathematical relation to time, I'm not exactly sure the nature of your question? the only statement I can give you is probably one you already know T=D/v, which can be applied to basic velocity and acceleration situations.
We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.
Well in effort to help you understand the definition of time, I can tell you that time is a dimension in of space. We realize dimensions to be like directions, pointing out differences in structure. So we have in more so direct relation of in nuclear physics, 3 dimensions: strong/weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic and gravitational. Each direction is independent in action. We just conceptualize time as a 4th dimension. Now as for a mathematical relation to time, I'm not exactly sure the nature of your question? the only statement I can give you is probably one you already know T=D/v, which can be applied to basic velocity and acceleration situations.
Hi yor_on, rethinker, bukh, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, Janus, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
QUOTE (yor_on+)
Good Elf. Your rotating disk, I really liked it:)
And if matter can't obtain 'c' then there should either be an enormous always increasing angular 'momentum' building out there, or a slightly less momentous momentum being created by our photons.
Shouldn't we then be able to observe reflections of the same.
Maybe not if our universe is expanding though.
And if matter can't obtain 'c' then there should either be an enormous always increasing angular 'momentum' building out there, or a slightly less momentous momentum
being created by our photons.Shouldn't we then be able to observe reflections of the same.
Maybe not if our universe is expanding though.
Couple of (I hate the idea) "instructive" concepts. The first one is matter "can" actually obtain 'c' in a real universe and even exceed it this is because of "frame dragging". Take for instance the case of our "uniformly" expanding Universe, every point is moving away from every other point with a velocity that is subject to an "acceleration" dependent on the amount separation (like an expanding balloon). This mean that according to Hubble red shift (cosmological recessional speed) the most distant features of our Universe are moving away from us with an effective acceleration that is dependent on distance. This is due to universal "inflation" of our Universe.
Wikipedia: Redshift
So the further away an object is the more it appears to accelerate away from us simply because the actual space in between us and the observed feature is increasing due to the "points in spacetime" between us and the observed feature is spreading away from all other points in spacetime (please do not ask about the position of these "points"... we can only know this "feature" by virtue of the things we see moving out there not these "points"). I really mean spacetime since time is being dragged along with this spreading leading to a kind of "field acceleration" that does not involve inertial acceleration. So while Special Relativity confines everything to a "speed" less than the speed of light over any distance, this cosmological recessional speed is dragging the most distant matter "beyond gravity and light's influence" such that "eventually" there are objects that are relatively moving "faster than light" beyond "our" event horizon in what is called a Rindler Foliation.
7.5 Packing Universes In Spacetime - Rindler Foliations
Once this velocity and distance has reached a critical amount the intervening space between us and the observed object is "stretching" due to "cosmological expansion" faster than the speed of light. The "meaning of this" is if a photon is emitted from a very distant receding object in our direction, the distance between there and here is increasing faster than the light takes to move across it and as a result is "left behind" in a Rindler Foliation heading in our direction but never quite getting there. This "geometry" curves the intervening spacetime to close that space off from our part of the universe and it becomes "dark" and unseen, it would just "wink out". Not only by light by by mass as well... Because gravity propagates only at the speed of light it too is forced to exist in a closed off sub-space of our universe. From our point of view parts of our universe that used to be consistent parts of a gravitational and electromagnetic whole have been "removed from interaction" due to Hubble Shift.
This loss of "gravitating" mass from the "core" (it may be further away from us and in it's own Rindler Foliation compared to our "accessible" Universe and the "rim" of our Universe (further out) leads to the effect increasing with time because the spin of our universe (if there is any) is acting on smaller and smaller masses as everything "falls off the edge" and the "center" of our space becomes "hollowed out" and less dense with the problem of lower gravitational attraction holding it all together. The angular momentum (because of the closed nature of this universe) is not building up "out there" it is building up "right here".
The geometry as I stated previously is probably toroidally connected probably for many reasons one of them is this Hubble spreading whose nature is difficult to determine by itself alone. We could be expanding into a closed finite space wrapped around itself in a "small radius". This is not specifically noticed in the WMAP data. The "Big Bang" has not resulted in equal amounts of red and blue shift so your thesis (Shouldn't we then be able to observe reflections of the same) seems unlikely unless the initial space is much larger than we think. If it was much larger than "we think" then the Universe must be spinning a lot less than the figure I suggested because a figure that I suggested would have closed the Universe in a space we can already see. Whether the Universe is closed due to rotation or due to expansion is irrelevant from the point of view of gravity and light. Closed is closed. I suspect a bit from column A and a bit from column B seem likely.
Relativity is "difficult" when V -> C. Objects on the 'edge of our Universe" could be traveling 1 Km/Century under the speed of light or 1/2 a Km/Century under the speed of light either longitudinally (expansion) or transversely (rotation)... or both. All we know is "absolutely" everything we see is traveling under the speed of light". Our instruments would not be able to determine this small uncertainty in position and velocity over those distances. The differences in the results will create "different types of evolving Universe"... all of these "closed" and from our human perspective relatively indistinguishable. Another kind of "Uncertainty Principle" due to the orthogonality of the space and time dimensions and their measurement.
Wikipedia: Redshift
So the further away an object is the more it appears to accelerate away from us simply because the actual space in between us and the observed feature is increasing due to the "points in spacetime" between us and the observed feature is spreading away from all other points in spacetime (please do not ask about the position of these "points"... we can only know this "feature" by virtue of the things we see moving out there not these "points"). I really mean spacetime since time is being dragged along with this spreading leading to a kind of "field acceleration" that does not involve inertial acceleration. So while Special Relativity confines everything to a "speed" less than the speed of light over any distance, this cosmological recessional speed is dragging the most distant matter "beyond gravity and light's influence" such that "eventually" there are objects that are relatively moving "faster than light" beyond "our" event horizon in what is called a Rindler Foliation.
7.5 Packing Universes In Spacetime - Rindler Foliations
Once this velocity and distance has reached a critical amount the intervening space between us and the observed object is "stretching" due to "cosmological expansion" faster than the speed of light. The "meaning of this" is if a photon is emitted from a very distant receding object in our direction, the distance between there and here is increasing faster than the light takes to move across it and as a result is "left behind" in a Rindler Foliation heading in our direction but never quite getting there. This "geometry" curves the intervening spacetime to close that space off from our part of the universe and it becomes "dark" and unseen, it would just "wink out". Not only by light by by mass as well... Because gravity propagates only at the speed of light it too is forced to exist in a closed off sub-space of our universe. From our point of view parts of our universe that used to be consistent parts of a gravitational and electromagnetic whole have been "removed from interaction" due to Hubble Shift.
This loss of "gravitating" mass from the "core" (it may be further away from us and in it's own Rindler Foliation compared to our "accessible" Universe and the "rim" of our Universe (further out) leads to the effect increasing with time because the spin of our universe (if there is any) is acting on smaller and smaller masses as everything "falls off the edge" and the "center" of our space becomes "hollowed out" and less dense with the problem of lower gravitational attraction holding it all together. The angular momentum (because of the closed nature of this universe) is not building up "out there" it is building up "right here".
The geometry as I stated previously is probably toroidally connected probably for many reasons one of them is this Hubble spreading whose nature is difficult to determine by itself alone. We could be expanding into a closed finite space wrapped around itself in a "small radius". This is not specifically noticed in the WMAP data. The "Big Bang" has not resulted in equal amounts of red and blue shift so your thesis (Shouldn't we then be able to observe reflections of the same) seems unlikely unless the initial space is much larger than we think. If it was much larger than "we think" then the Universe must be spinning a lot less than the figure I suggested because a figure that I suggested would have closed the Universe in a space we can already see. Whether the Universe is closed due to rotation or due to expansion is irrelevant from the point of view of gravity and light. Closed is closed. I suspect a bit from column A and a bit from column B seem likely.
Relativity is "difficult" when V -> C. Objects on the 'edge of our Universe" could be traveling 1 Km/Century under the speed of light or 1/2 a Km/Century under the speed of light either longitudinally (expansion) or transversely (rotation)... or both. All we know is "absolutely" everything we see is traveling under the speed of light". Our instruments would not be able to determine this small uncertainty in position and velocity over those distances. The differences in the results will create "different types of evolving Universe"... all of these "closed" and from our human perspective relatively indistinguishable. Another kind of "Uncertainty Principle" due to the orthogonality of the space and time dimensions and their measurement.
QUOTE (Collected ideas regarding "Uncertainty"+)
QUOTE (Wikipedia:Conjugate variables+)
Conjugate variables
A pair of variables mathematically defined in such a way that they become Fourier transform duals of one-another, or more generally are related through Pontryagin duality. The duality relations lead naturally to an uncertainty (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) relation between them. A more precise mathematical definition, in the context of Hamiltonian mechanics, is given in the article canonical coordinates. Examples of canonically conjugate variables include the following:
* Time and frequency: the longer a musical note is sustained, the more precisely we know its frequency (but it spans more time). Conversely, a very short musical note becomes just a click, and so one can't know its frequency very accurately.
* Time and energy - as energy and frequency in Quantum Mechanics are directly proportional to each other.
* Position and momentum: precise definition of position lead to ambiguity of momentum, and vice versa.
* Angle (angular position) and angular momentum;
* Doppler and range: the more we know about how far away a radar target is, the less we can know about the exact velocity of approach or retreat, and vice versa. In this case, the two dimensional function of doppler and range is known as a radar ambiguity function or radar ambiguity diagram.
Canonical Conjugates
A pair of variables mathematically defined in such a way that they become Fourier transform duals of one-another, or more generally are related through Pontryagin duality. The duality relations lead naturally to an uncertainty (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) relation between them. A more precise mathematical definition, in the context of Hamiltonian mechanics, is given in the article canonical coordinates. Examples of canonically conjugate variables include the following:
* Time and frequency: the longer a musical note is sustained, the more precisely we know its frequency (but it spans more time). Conversely, a very short musical note becomes just a click, and so one can't know its frequency very accurately.
* Time and energy - as energy and frequency in Quantum Mechanics are directly proportional to each other.
* Position and momentum: precise definition of position lead to ambiguity of momentum, and vice versa.
* Angle (angular position) and angular momentum;
* Doppler and range: the more we know about how far away a radar target is, the less we can know about the exact velocity of approach or retreat, and vice versa. In this case, the two dimensional function of doppler and range is known as a radar ambiguity function or radar ambiguity diagram.
Canonical Conjugates
QUOTE (Math Pages : Physics...Fourier_Transforms_and_Uncertainty+)
Fourier_Transforms_and_Uncertainty.
...In other words, the probability amplitude distributions of two conjugate variables are simply the (suitably scaled) Fourier transforms of each other. We saw previously that the dispersions (variances) of two density distributions that comprise a Fourier transform pair satisfy the inequality (2), so the variances of the probability amplitude distributions of conjugate observables in quantum mechanics satisfy such an inequality. Thus Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for conjugate pairs of observables follows directly from the fact that those observables are essentially the Fourier transforms of each other.
Of course, this attribute of Fourier transform pairs is purely mathematical, and has no a priori applicability to pairs of observables such as position and momentum, or time and energy. The physical content of quantum mechanics is based on the two relations
E =h-bar * w p = h-bar K
where E is energy, p is momentum (in one dimension), h-bar is Planck's (reduced) constant, w is the frequency with units second^-1, and k is the wave number with units meter^-1. These relations were introduced in the early 1900's by Planck, Einstein, and deBroglie to account for non-classical phenomena such as cavity radiation and the photo-electric effect, both of which depend on the particle-like behavior of entities that had previously been modeled as waves, as well as phenomena involving wave-like behavior of material particles. These are the relations that associate the familiar observables of energy, momentum, space, and time, with the frequency domain. Indeed in terms of the characteristic time t = 1/w and distance D = 1/k the above relations can be written as
tE = Dp = h-bar
which already clearly reveals the conjugacy of time and energy, and of distance and momentum. In view of this, it isn't surprising to find that the product of the dispersions of two conjugate observables (such as position and momentum) cannot be less than one quanta of action, represented by h-bar .
In a sense, there is also a conjugacy between space and time - two observable that had been regarded as disjoint and independent prior to the early 1900s. In special relativity the inertial space and time intervals dx and dt between two events are components of a single invariant spacetime interval ds between those events. These intervals are related according to the Minkowski metric, which can be written in the form
{dx/dt + ds/dt}{dx/dt -ds/dt} = 1/c^2
This can be regarded as an "uncertainty relation" for space and time. In general, physics was based, prior to 1900, on the premise that h-bar and 1/c^2 were both zero. With the advent of quantum mechanics and special relativity, it was realized that they both have non-zero values, although they are extremely small in terms of ordinary units.
Fourier Transforms and Uncertainty
...In other words, the probability amplitude distributions of two conjugate variables are simply the (suitably scaled) Fourier transforms of each other. We saw previously that the dispersions (variances) of two density distributions that comprise a Fourier transform pair satisfy the inequality (2), so the variances of the probability amplitude distributions of conjugate observables in quantum mechanics satisfy such an inequality. Thus Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for conjugate pairs of observables follows directly from the fact that those observables are essentially the Fourier transforms of each other.
Of course, this attribute of Fourier transform pairs is purely mathematical, and has no a priori applicability to pairs of observables such as position and momentum, or time and energy. The physical content of quantum mechanics is based on the two relations
E =h-bar * w p = h-bar K
where E is energy, p is momentum (in one dimension), h-bar is Planck's (reduced) constant, w is the frequency with units second^-1, and k is the wave number with units meter^-1. These relations were introduced in the early 1900's by Planck, Einstein, and deBroglie to account for non-classical phenomena such as cavity radiation and the photo-electric effect, both of which depend on the particle-like behavior of entities that had previously been modeled as waves, as well as phenomena involving wave-like behavior of material particles. These are the relations that associate the familiar observables of energy, momentum, space, and time, with the frequency domain. Indeed in terms of the characteristic time t = 1/w and distance D = 1/k the above relations can be written as
tE = Dp = h-bar
which already clearly reveals the conjugacy of time and energy, and of distance and momentum. In view of this, it isn't surprising to find that the product of the dispersions of two conjugate observables (such as position and momentum) cannot be less than one quanta of action, represented by h-bar .
In a sense, there is also a conjugacy between space and time - two observable that had been regarded as disjoint and independent prior to the early 1900s. In special relativity the inertial space and time intervals dx and dt between two events are components of a single invariant spacetime interval ds between those events. These intervals are related according to the Minkowski metric, which can be written in the form
{dx/dt + ds/dt}{dx/dt -ds/dt} = 1/c^2
This can be regarded as an "uncertainty relation" for space and time. In general, physics was based, prior to 1900, on the premise that h-bar and 1/c^2 were both zero. With the advent of quantum mechanics and special relativity, it was realized that they both have non-zero values, although they are extremely small in terms of ordinary units.
Fourier Transforms and Uncertainty
QUOTE (Fairy+Oct 18 2008, 12:52 AM)
Thank you
????????????????Fairy please do not post your trash on my feedback.
Is there any moderators working this forum??????????????????????????????
????????????????Fairy please do not post your trash on my feedback.
Is there any moderators working this forum??????????????????????????????
Hi Janus, yor_on, rethinker, bukh, wcelliott, fairy, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
QUOTE
My name is Janus.
If your name is "really" Janus why aren't you logged in to post your points?QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My name is Janus. |
If your name is "really" Janus why aren't you logged in to post your points?
Propagating pancake makes a point … but lets put some meat on it … otherwise the propagating pancake will stick … to the ceiling and be believed as fact. Sadly this happens too often.
Light has transverse wave features … again this does not mean that light is a transverse wave light is much more peculiar than that.
Simplistically, the best way to explain light is to explain it as a circle (2D shape i.e. no thickness) … the circle being the x-axis on which the waves move along. Once a revolution of the circle has been completed the wave continues on this circular path.
Propagating pancake makes a point … but lets put some meat on it … otherwise the propagating pancake will stick … to the ceiling and be believed as fact. Sadly this happens too often.
Light has transverse wave features … again this does not mean that light is a transverse wave light is much more peculiar than that.
Simplistically, the best way to explain light is to explain it as a circle (2D shape i.e. no thickness) … the circle being the x-axis on which the waves move along. Once a revolution of the circle has been completed the wave continues on this circular path.
The "transverse wave feature" is not a "function" specifically of transverse waves as such it is a result of parametric spreading of the source radiation pattern in a "resonant cavity". Here is a pattern that would exhibit these transverse modes taken from the example of a directed dipole beam.
Dipole beam radiator with directors
This "device" indicates what this phenomenon really is. The scale of the antenna is simply modifying the scale of the units. Of course this is a continuous wave emitter but many emissions by a single source coherent emitter makes the same pattern. This concept applies to LASERS for instance. This diagram is "mapped" using a RF power meter so it is a system measurable. Power is energy per second a measure of the density of "ExB". This contrasts with the idea of wavelength. Regarding the individual "photon pancakes" these "pancake thickness" should be thought of as the wavelength of a packet of EM radiation (or a photon). No matter how much the electromagnetic radiation "spreads" laterally (that depends a lot on the geometry of the source) as it propagates away from source the wavelength remains constant (a feature of all electromagnetic radiation except in regard to Hubble Shift on a "cosmological scale" where this wavelength can "spread itself" a little). Electromagnetic waves cannot be actually a "plane wave" and 'flat" as you suggest. The inverse square law of propagation insists to carry real energy it must be propagated on a curved surface.
This means the spreading "individual" photons in these modes all occupy the same effective space but cannot be absorbed in the one sink "simultaneously" so they must distribute themselves over that pancake surface as "transactions" at the sinks. Continuous wave radiation from a source requires some means of "pumping the individual sources" in a way that many photons are emitted "synchronously" with the same source phase and the same wavelength... then all these photons on the one wavefront form a "surge" of photons all occupying the one boson state propagating together. Only bosons can occupy the one state in space at the one time and that what photons do best. You may ask how do all these "frozen wave packets" propagating like pancakes lead to continuous wave... I have prepared a "cartoon".
sinc functions combining to form a wave.
You will note that the "primitive" individual sinc functions sum vectorially longitudinally to form a wave, each "site" for a sinc function might actually be the site of billions of individual photons co-moving from source to sink... This is shown here...
Dipole radiation "observed" near to source
The caution is none of these things are truly observed ... we only know of the results of experiments. What this view has the benefit of is each and every photon has a radiation pattern that is identical and "spreads" along all paths in a way that reflects Feynman's Many Paths Interpretation.
Here is what is "seen" in waveguides... Here is a "image" created as a cross section of a waveguide using an atomic force microscope...
High frequency solution in a waveguide showing "probability density" as measured by the field intensity in broken symmetry "propagation"
Here is the same waveguide at a lower source frequency...
As above lower frequency...
You will note that a measurable was recorded to find these solutions and not some kind of "probability meter" but the "electric field strength meter" built in the form of the atomic force microscope. You will see that the solutions are "cavity resonances".
The only proviso is that under normal propagation and absorption conditions each emitted packet "must" be absorbed "entirely" or not at all. That is the meaning of the quantization of the photon. Naturally this will only occur in suitable "co-resonant" sites.
Cheers
Dipole beam radiator with directors
This "device" indicates what this phenomenon really is. The scale of the antenna is simply modifying the scale of the units. Of course this is a continuous wave emitter but many emissions by a single source coherent emitter makes the same pattern. This concept applies to LASERS for instance. This diagram is "mapped" using a RF power meter so it is a system measurable. Power is energy per second a measure of the density of "ExB". This contrasts with the idea of wavelength. Regarding the individual "photon pancakes" these "pancake thickness" should be thought of as the wavelength of a packet of EM radiation (or a photon). No matter how much the electromagnetic radiation "spreads" laterally (that depends a lot on the geometry of the source) as it propagates away from source the wavelength remains constant (a feature of all electromagnetic radiation except in regard to Hubble Shift on a "cosmological scale" where this wavelength can "spread itself" a little). Electromagnetic waves cannot be actually a "plane wave" and 'flat" as you suggest. The inverse square law of propagation insists to carry real energy it must be propagated on a curved surface.
This means the spreading "individual" photons in these modes all occupy the same effective space but cannot be absorbed in the one sink "simultaneously" so they must distribute themselves over that pancake surface as "transactions" at the sinks. Continuous wave radiation from a source requires some means of "pumping the individual sources" in a way that many photons are emitted "synchronously" with the same source phase and the same wavelength... then all these photons on the one wavefront form a "surge" of photons all occupying the one boson state propagating together. Only bosons can occupy the one state in space at the one time and that what photons do best. You may ask how do all these "frozen wave packets" propagating like pancakes lead to continuous wave... I have prepared a "cartoon".
sinc functions combining to form a wave.
You will note that the "primitive" individual sinc functions sum vectorially longitudinally to form a wave, each "site" for a sinc function might actually be the site of billions of individual photons co-moving from source to sink... This is shown here...
Dipole radiation "observed" near to source
The caution is none of these things are truly observed ... we only know of the results of experiments. What this view has the benefit of is each and every photon has a radiation pattern that is identical and "spreads" along all paths in a way that reflects Feynman's Many Paths Interpretation.
Here is what is "seen" in waveguides... Here is a "image" created as a cross section of a waveguide using an atomic force microscope...
High frequency solution in a waveguide showing "probability density" as measured by the field intensity in broken symmetry "propagation"
Here is the same waveguide at a lower source frequency...
As above lower frequency...
You will note that a measurable was recorded to find these solutions and not some kind of "probability meter" but the "electric field strength meter" built in the form of the atomic force microscope. You will see that the solutions are "cavity resonances".
The only proviso is that under normal propagation and absorption conditions each emitted packet "must" be absorbed "entirely" or not at all. That is the meaning of the quantization of the photon. Naturally this will only occur in suitable "co-resonant" sites.
Cheers
Interesting you mentioned waveguides operating outside their nominal operating wavelength.
Have you ever looked into "evanescent wave propagation"?
It's an experiment where they've demonstrated light traveling at speeds exceeding C.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0
"Abstract
Contrary to mechanical waves, the two-slit interference experiment of single photons shows that the behavior of classical electromagnetic waves corresponds to the quantum mechanical one of single photons, which is also different from the quantum-field-theory behavior such as the creations and annihilations of photons, the vacuum fluctuations, etc. Owing to a purely quantum effect, quantum tunneling particles including tunneling photons (evanescent modes) can propagate over a spacelike interval. With this picture we conclude that the superluminality of evanescent modes is a quantum mechanical rather than a classical phenomenon. "
Have you ever looked into "evanescent wave propagation"?
It's an experiment where they've demonstrated light traveling at speeds exceeding C.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0
"Abstract
Contrary to mechanical waves, the two-slit interference experiment of single photons shows that the behavior of classical electromagnetic waves corresponds to the quantum mechanical one of single photons, which is also different from the quantum-field-theory behavior such as the creations and annihilations of photons, the vacuum fluctuations, etc. Owing to a purely quantum effect, quantum tunneling particles including tunneling photons (evanescent modes) can propagate over a spacelike interval. With this picture we conclude that the superluminality of evanescent modes is a quantum mechanical rather than a classical phenomenon. "
Hi
Just a reflection -
If a particle best can be described as a kind of repeating wave-pattern - a kind of standing wave - is it possible to think that there exist wave-forms that are so straingt - is propagating into such extreme straigt trajectories - so that they will never show any bending - not enter into any kind of circular - not any kind of repetitive pattern - that there in a universe of non-defined (infinite) dimension can be such wave patterns -
Or - is it more likely that ALL wave-propagations have a certain bending (angular momentum) so they eventually will show as a circular - a kind of standing wave-expression - a kind of particle-expression -
Is it likely that universe CAN / MUST communicate all over - or is it a better thinking to say that the event horizon of our universe is being defined by wave-patterns showing the biggest "radius" that can reach us - or be confined in our universe.
Just a reflection -
If a particle best can be described as a kind of repeating wave-pattern - a kind of standing wave - is it possible to think that there exist wave-forms that are so straingt - is propagating into such extreme straigt trajectories - so that they will never show any bending - not enter into any kind of circular - not any kind of repetitive pattern - that there in a universe of non-defined (infinite) dimension can be such wave patterns -
Or - is it more likely that ALL wave-propagations have a certain bending (angular momentum) so they eventually will show as a circular - a kind of standing wave-expression - a kind of particle-expression -
Is it likely that universe CAN / MUST communicate all over - or is it a better thinking to say that the event horizon of our universe is being defined by wave-patterns showing the biggest "radius" that can reach us - or be confined in our universe.
Hi Good Elf and All
No … it’s not Janus. Neither is it Tom, Di_ck or Harry. I Just picked a nick from the past (as they used to do) that has some relevance, admiration, hidden meaning etc to oneself.
If you are asking why I haven’t signed-up …then the answer to that is: guests are allowed 2 posts in any 24 hour period, and most times that is enough for me. I first visited this sight some 5 years ago and have made about 120 posts … as you can see I spend more time reading posts … tend to bite my tongue mostly … because I have simplistic ideas and examples on everything … so I would never leave the forum if i joined.
Personally, I would like to see the witch doctor mentally of mathematicians, physicists, environmentalists, financiers, governments, religions etc … done away with. But then again the masses have never been given the education or information in a way they can understand it … they only have the juju stick shaken at them … “Pay or pay”.
And thanks for the feedback.
No … it’s not Janus. Neither is it Tom, Di_ck or Harry. I Just picked a nick from the past (as they used to do) that has some relevance, admiration, hidden meaning etc to oneself.
If you are asking why I haven’t signed-up …then the answer to that is: guests are allowed 2 posts in any 24 hour period, and most times that is enough for me. I first visited this sight some 5 years ago and have made about 120 posts … as you can see I spend more time reading posts … tend to bite my tongue mostly … because I have simplistic ideas and examples on everything … so I would never leave the forum if i joined.
Personally, I would like to see the witch doctor mentally of mathematicians, physicists, environmentalists, financiers, governments, religions etc … done away with. But then again the masses have never been given the education or information in a way they can understand it … they only have the juju stick shaken at them … “Pay or pay”.
And thanks for the feedback.
“Electromagnetic waves cannot be actually a "plane wave" and 'flat" as you suggest. The inverse square law of propagation insists to carry real energy it must be propagated on a curved surface.”
There is some confusion here. Light waves and electromagnetic waves are not the same. My head is not the same as my heart … though they belong to the same body. Light waves are definitely 2D and electromagnetic waves are definitely 3D. The properties of light are such that you need to be in a line-of-sight position … whereas with electromagnetic waves you can be in multi-positions.
Light in general is unpolarised and can come at us at varying angles … probably where the confusion arises. I actually thought that present theory had now accepted light as 2D … only in some quarters then.
Only electromagnetic energy evolve into spherical waves … though at distances remote from the origin the curvature will disappear to become a 2D wave and eventually 1D … so information is not lost … just not decipherable.
When we polarise light … we are not changing it in any way. All we are doing is allow light through that are travelling at a specific angle. For example, when we use a vertically polarise plate to filter light … we only allow light through that is orientated vertically all the other light waves are absorbed or deflected. If, we now place a horizontally polarised plate immediately after the vertical … the vertically polarised light will not be able to pass through … I know you know this … but did you know … that if we now place a plate that has been polarised at 45 degrees between the two plates … then the vertically polarised light is able to pass through the horizontally polarised plate. This simple experiment has baffled physicists and is not discussed … bit like Pythagoras and irrational numbers.
Now you should be able to see that light has to be 2D ... the photon as you describe or spherical waves cannot do this. We can also see that light waves have rotational properties as well … for analogy … just like a plane tipping its wings plus or minus 45 degrees to the horizontal (and still retain its 2D shape ) … though to be remembered as stated above … light comes at us orientated at various angles and they are also able to tip their wings.
With the 2D setup I described previous post … we can also transform light into a standing wave.
But, first see if you can explain the polarised plate experiment above.
Cheers
Janus
I love questions like this, I can speculate on answers and never be proved wrong.
My naive thoughts on Cosmology are that we're living inside a black hole. The "inflationary" period that cosmologists/astrophysicists agree happened because when a black hole is formed, matter collapses into the hole at a rapid rate, thus the "inflationary" period.
The matter accelerating past the event horizon is tied to the energy escaping the event horizon, as Witten figured out, so that no information is "lost" down the black hole. This, I interpret as meaning that the matter inside the black hole (our universe) is entangled with the energy escaping the event horizon. Entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, not just at the speed of light, but in *zero time*.
So in effect, the matter inside the universe is observable by the energy given off by the black hole (in the higher-dimensional "outer" universe). The energy observable from the higher-dimensional universe would probably be in the form of the Fourier Transform of the matter inside, but that's not as exotic as one might think. We process vision in the Fourier spatial-frequency domain in our brains. The optic nerve is essentially (IMO) a pipeline-processor dedicated to providing the brain with the spatial frequency domain version of the images our retinas detect.
QUOTE
“If your name is "really" Janus why aren't you logged in to post your points?”
No … it’s not Janus. Neither is it Tom, Di_ck or Harry. I Just picked a nick from the past (as they used to do) that has some relevance, admiration, hidden meaning etc to oneself.
If you are asking why I haven’t signed-up …then the answer to that is: guests are allowed 2 posts in any 24 hour period, and most times that is enough for me. I first visited this sight some 5 years ago and have made about 120 posts … as you can see I spend more time reading posts … tend to bite my tongue mostly … because I have simplistic ideas and examples on everything … so I would never leave the forum if i joined.
Personally, I would like to see the witch doctor mentally of mathematicians, physicists, environmentalists, financiers, governments, religions etc … done away with. But then again the masses have never been given the education or information in a way they can understand it … they only have the juju stick shaken at them … “Pay or pay”.
And thanks for the feedback.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “If your name is "really" Janus why aren't you logged in to post your points?” |
No … it’s not Janus. Neither is it Tom, Di_ck or Harry. I Just picked a nick from the past (as they used to do) that has some relevance, admiration, hidden meaning etc to oneself.
If you are asking why I haven’t signed-up …then the answer to that is: guests are allowed 2 posts in any 24 hour period, and most times that is enough for me. I first visited this sight some 5 years ago and have made about 120 posts … as you can see I spend more time reading posts … tend to bite my tongue mostly … because I have simplistic ideas and examples on everything … so I would never leave the forum if i joined.
Personally, I would like to see the witch doctor mentally of mathematicians, physicists, environmentalists, financiers, governments, religions etc … done away with. But then again the masses have never been given the education or information in a way they can understand it … they only have the juju stick shaken at them … “Pay or pay”.
And thanks for the feedback.
“Electromagnetic waves cannot be actually a "plane wave" and 'flat" as you suggest. The inverse square law of propagation insists to carry real energy it must be propagated on a curved surface.”
There is some confusion here. Light waves and electromagnetic waves are not the same. My head is not the same as my heart … though they belong to the same body. Light waves are definitely 2D and electromagnetic waves are definitely 3D. The properties of light are such that you need to be in a line-of-sight position … whereas with electromagnetic waves you can be in multi-positions.
Light in general is unpolarised and can come at us at varying angles … probably where the confusion arises. I actually thought that present theory had now accepted light as 2D … only in some quarters then.
Only electromagnetic energy evolve into spherical waves … though at distances remote from the origin the curvature will disappear to become a 2D wave and eventually 1D … so information is not lost … just not decipherable.
When we polarise light … we are not changing it in any way. All we are doing is allow light through that are travelling at a specific angle. For example, when we use a vertically polarise plate to filter light … we only allow light through that is orientated vertically all the other light waves are absorbed or deflected. If, we now place a horizontally polarised plate immediately after the vertical … the vertically polarised light will not be able to pass through … I know you know this … but did you know … that if we now place a plate that has been polarised at 45 degrees between the two plates … then the vertically polarised light is able to pass through the horizontally polarised plate. This simple experiment has baffled physicists and is not discussed … bit like Pythagoras and irrational numbers.
Now you should be able to see that light has to be 2D ... the photon as you describe or spherical waves cannot do this. We can also see that light waves have rotational properties as well … for analogy … just like a plane tipping its wings plus or minus 45 degrees to the horizontal (and still retain its 2D shape ) … though to be remembered as stated above … light comes at us orientated at various angles and they are also able to tip their wings.
With the 2D setup I described previous post … we can also transform light into a standing wave.
But, first see if you can explain the polarised plate experiment above.
Cheers
Janus
QUOTE
Is it likely that universe CAN / MUST communicate all over
I love questions like this, I can speculate on answers and never be proved wrong.
My naive thoughts on Cosmology are that we're living inside a black hole. The "inflationary" period that cosmologists/astrophysicists agree happened because when a black hole is formed, matter collapses into the hole at a rapid rate, thus the "inflationary" period.
The matter accelerating past the event horizon is tied to the energy escaping the event horizon, as Witten figured out, so that no information is "lost" down the black hole. This, I interpret as meaning that the matter inside the black hole (our universe) is entangled with the energy escaping the event horizon. Entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, not just at the speed of light, but in *zero time*.
So in effect, the matter inside the universe is observable by the energy given off by the black hole (in the higher-dimensional "outer" universe). The energy observable from the higher-dimensional universe would probably be in the form of the Fourier Transform of the matter inside, but that's not as exotic as one might think. We process vision in the Fourier spatial-frequency domain in our brains. The optic nerve is essentially (IMO) a pipeline-processor dedicated to providing the brain with the spatial frequency domain version of the images our retinas detect.
Hi wcelliott, bukh, Janus, yor_on, rethinker, fairy, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
Have you ever looked into "evanescent wave propagation"?
It's an experiment where they've demonstrated light traveling at speeds exceeding C.
It's an experiment where they've demonstrated light traveling at speeds exceeding C.
Good point wcelliott, it is a very big subject and it is almost impossible to bring everything together in one post. Evanescent waves are one of the most important features of wave theory. Whenever we investigate wave phenomena it is in the evanescent field because this is the only place where we are able to measure the "interaction". In this post I will summarize many different themes to convince "most" that what I am saying is not only credible but experimentally proven. Not only that many of recent history's "greats" hold this opinion already... not just Carver Mead or Prof Detlef Duerr or even Prof Sheldon Goldstein...
QUOTE (Conclusion - Quantum physics’ new world order+)
...In fact, say Prof Duerr and Prof Goldstein, the new research marks a return to a more classical understanding of particle physics that has been ignored for 80 years and it was the textbook quantum theory that was contrived. The debate, as far as he is concerned, is now over.
“Physicists don’t like it so much because it does away with all the romance, all the nice paradoxes, all the nice mysticism,” says Prof Duerr.
Bohmian mechanics has been met with so much resistance because, after all, says Prof Goldstein, scientists are human, too. “This thing that was said for decades to be impossible, it’s not only not impossible, it’s bloody obvious.”
Quantum physics’ new world order - The National
“Physicists don’t like it so much because it does away with all the romance, all the nice paradoxes, all the nice mysticism,” says Prof Duerr.
Bohmian mechanics has been met with so much resistance because, after all, says Prof Goldstein, scientists are human, too. “This thing that was said for decades to be impossible, it’s not only not impossible, it’s bloody obvious.”
Quantum physics’ new world order - The National
"Everyone" understands that Bohmian Mechanics is a "Stalking Horse" but the challenge to change this "irresistible force" of history requires "blunt tools". The idea that you need a wave and a particle "together" is not going to be there in the final analysis but it "helps" in the same way a crutch help lame people to get around until they "fully recover".
We do not actually have "remote sensors' that can truly tell us what is happening in the far field or Fraunhofer zone. The only perceptible difference we understand is the way the wavefront curvature affects these phenomena. This leads to three different classical treatments. The underlying principles are "easy" but the maths is pretty "messy". I indicated the treatment in the Fraunhofer Zone recently...
Three Experiments in One
Here is a reference to the phenomena...
Wikipedia: Fraunhofer diffraction
The Evanescent Zone is effectively "within the source", the Fresnel Zone which is transitional to the Far Field and the Far field or Fraunhofer Zone. The speed of light within the Evanescsnt zone can be literally infinite. This is the speed in that zone. In the Fresnel near field zone what is "supposed to be happening" is some source information is being lost because it is "inductively returned to the source" and in the Fraunhofer zone in the far field we are dealing only with the propagating phenomena of light stripped of the near field "information". In actual fact certain lenses are now capable of recoveringthis source information remotely from the source in the Fresnel Zone. The ability to build super lenses capable of near unlimited resolution at opticl frequencies are "possible" with the use of metamaterials. This is part fo the revolution in Quantum Optics where negative refractive index and other optical techniques have resulted in an explosion in understanding. None of this can be explained using "old style" particle theory.
I commonly quote this reference...
Electromagnetic Wave Equation
... and Schrodingers Wave Equation...
Schrodingers Wave Equation
The similarity is "compelling"...under some circumstances solve the same problems... In the case of the former equation these are measurables and in the latter case they are probabilities and are not measurables. Of course there are the objections raised by the Uncertainty Principle but in the light of the experimental results of "squeezed light", clearly we must think more closely whatthis limit really means ... I have tried to present an argument that shows this point strongly using references to other points (even those references in my last post here on this thread) but I could also point to
Heisenberg, Matrix Mechanics, and the Uncertainty Principle :S Lakshmibala
This paper has appeared in a readable form once more and represents a ray of light into a world of different ways to examine this aspect of the phenomenon.
Some extracted aspects of Lakshmibala's paper by Good Elf
Or to several papers on "Squeezed States". These coherent phenomena have indicated the existence of a close analogy between optical phenomena, general relativity, quantum mechanics and gravity. Indeed these pursuits have provided many practical benefits such as "slow light", electromagnetically induced transparency, optical wormholes, invisibility shields, self accelerating Truncated Airy photon packets, Bessel Beams, near field direct optical coupling antennas... I could go on and on. The existence of "infinite velocity phenomena in the near field or some may say the points in the source which have no "timelike separation" but sometimes significant spacelike separation leads to entanglement and also to interference states in gravitational interferences which can be used to communicate faster than light. Information transfer in the near field over many kilometers in gravitational interferences has been clocked in excess of 600,000 times the far field velocity of C .
We do not actually have "remote sensors' that can truly tell us what is happening in the far field or Fraunhofer zone. The only perceptible difference we understand is the way the wavefront curvature affects these phenomena. This leads to three different classical treatments. The underlying principles are "easy" but the maths is pretty "messy". I indicated the treatment in the Fraunhofer Zone recently...
Three Experiments in One
Here is a reference to the phenomena...
Wikipedia: Fraunhofer diffraction
The Evanescent Zone is effectively "within the source", the Fresnel Zone which is transitional to the Far Field and the Far field or Fraunhofer Zone. The speed of light within the Evanescsnt zone can be literally infinite. This is the speed in that zone. In the Fresnel near field zone what is "supposed to be happening" is some source information is being lost because it is "inductively returned to the source" and in the Fraunhofer zone in the far field we are dealing only with the propagating phenomena of light stripped of the near field "information". In actual fact certain lenses are now capable of recoveringthis source information remotely from the source in the Fresnel Zone. The ability to build super lenses capable of near unlimited resolution at opticl frequencies are "possible" with the use of metamaterials. This is part fo the revolution in Quantum Optics where negative refractive index and other optical techniques have resulted in an explosion in understanding. None of this can be explained using "old style" particle theory.
I commonly quote this reference...
QUOTE
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory
Authors: Jian Qi Shen
(Submitted on 3 May 2004)
Abstract: This paper demonstrates that there is much similarity in the mathematical formalisms between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media (such as chiral media, left-handed media, photonic crystals and EIT media) and some physical phenomena in field theory, including general relativity, quantum mechanics, energy band theory, etc. The significance of such comparisons lies in that: (i) the unification in mathematical descriptions shows that many physical phenomena and effects, which seem to have no connections between them, actually share almost the same mathematical structures; (ii) it can provide clue to us on suggesting more new effects which is similar in mathematical descriptions to the familiar phenomena in other areas.
Comments: 7 pages, Latex
Subjects: Physics Education (physics.ed-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:physics/0405007v1 [physics.ed-ph]
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory: Jian Qi Shen (Submitted on 3 May 2004)
Clearly in retrospect and with the hindsight of current experiments the Electromagnetic Wave Equation...Authors: Jian Qi Shen
(Submitted on 3 May 2004)
Abstract: This paper demonstrates that there is much similarity in the mathematical formalisms between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media (such as chiral media, left-handed media, photonic crystals and EIT media) and some physical phenomena in field theory, including general relativity, quantum mechanics, energy band theory, etc. The significance of such comparisons lies in that: (i) the unification in mathematical descriptions shows that many physical phenomena and effects, which seem to have no connections between them, actually share almost the same mathematical structures; (ii) it can provide clue to us on suggesting more new effects which is similar in mathematical descriptions to the familiar phenomena in other areas.
Comments: 7 pages, Latex
Subjects: Physics Education (physics.ed-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:physics/0405007v1 [physics.ed-ph]
The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory: Jian Qi Shen (Submitted on 3 May 2004)
Electromagnetic Wave Equation
... and Schrodingers Wave Equation...
Schrodingers Wave Equation
The similarity is "compelling"...under some circumstances solve the same problems... In the case of the former equation these are measurables and in the latter case they are probabilities and are not measurables. Of course there are the objections raised by the Uncertainty Principle but in the light of the experimental results of "squeezed light", clearly we must think more closely whatthis limit really means ... I have tried to present an argument that shows this point strongly using references to other points (even those references in my last post here on this thread) but I could also point to
Heisenberg, Matrix Mechanics, and the Uncertainty Principle :S Lakshmibala
This paper has appeared in a readable form once more and represents a ray of light into a world of different ways to examine this aspect of the phenomenon.
Some extracted aspects of Lakshmibala's paper by Good Elf
Or to several papers on "Squeezed States". These coherent phenomena have indicated the existence of a close analogy between optical phenomena, general relativity, quantum mechanics and gravity. Indeed these pursuits have provided many practical benefits such as "slow light", electromagnetically induced transparency, optical wormholes, invisibility shields, self accelerating Truncated Airy photon packets, Bessel Beams, near field direct optical coupling antennas... I could go on and on. The existence of "infinite velocity phenomena in the near field or some may say the points in the source which have no "timelike separation" but sometimes significant spacelike separation leads to entanglement and also to interference states in gravitational interferences which can be used to communicate faster than light. Information transfer in the near field over many kilometers in gravitational interferences has been clocked in excess of 600,000 times the far field velocity of C .
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory Authors: Jian Qi Shen (Submitted on 3 May 2004) Abstract: This paper demonstrates that there is much similarity in the mathematical formalisms between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media (such as chiral media, left-handed media, photonic crystals and EIT media) and some physical phenomena in field theory, including general relativity, quantum mechanics, energy band theory, etc. The significance of such comparisons lies in that: (i) the unification in mathematical descriptions shows that many physical phenomena and effects, which seem to have no connections between them, actually share almost the same mathematical structures; (ii) it can provide clue to us on suggesting more new effects which is similar in mathematical descriptions to the familiar phenomena in other areas. Comments: 7 pages, Latex Subjects: Physics Education (physics.ed-ph) Cite as: arXiv:physics/0405007v1 [physics.ed-ph] The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory: Jian Qi Shen (Submitted on 3 May 2004) |
Clearly in retrospect and with the hindsight of current experiments the Electromagnetic Wave Equation...
Electromagnetic Wave Equation
... and Schrodingers Wave Equation...
Schrodingers Wave Equation
The similarity is "compelling"...under some circumstances solve the same problems... In the case of the former equation these are measurables and in the latter case they are probabilities and are not measurables. Of course there are the objections raised by the Uncertainty Principle but in the light of the experimental results of "squeezed light", clearly we must think more closely whatthis limit really means ... I have tried to present an argument that shows this point strongly using references to other points (even those references in my last post here on this thread) but I could also point to
Heisenberg, Matrix Mechanics, and the Uncertainty Principle :S Lakshmibala
This paper has appeared in a readable form once more and represents a ray of light into a world of different ways to examine this aspect of the phenomenon.
Some extracted aspects of Lakshmibala's paper by Good Elf
Or to several papers on "Squeezed States". These coherent phenomena have indicated the existence of a close analogy between optical phenomena, general relativity, quantum mechanics and gravity. Indeed these pursuits have provided many practical benefits such as "slow light", electromagnetically induced transparency, optical wormholes, invisibility shields, self accelerating Truncated Airy photon packets, Bessel Beams, near field direct optical coupling antennas... I could go on and on. The existence of "infinite velocity phenomena in the near field or some may say the points in the source which have no "timelike separation" but sometimes significant spacelike separation leads to entanglement and also to interference states in gravitational interferences which can be used to communicate faster than light. Information transfer in the near field over many kilometers in gravitational interferences has been clocked in excess of 600,000 times the far field velocity of C .
The speed of quantum information and the preferred frame: analysis of experimental data
Authors: Valerio Scarani, Wolfgang Tittel, Hugo Zbinden, Nicolas Gisin
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2000)
Abstract: The results of EPR experiments performed in Geneva are analyzed in the frame of the cosmic microwave background radiation, generally considered as a good candidate for playing the role of preferred frame. We set a lower bound for the speed of quantum information in this frame at 1.5 x 10^4 c.
Comments: 9 pages including 3 figures
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Phys. Lett. A 276 2000 1-7
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0007008v1
Submission history
From: Wolfgang Tittel [view email]
[v1] Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:25:29 GMT (177kb) ... dated March 1, 2008
Author Keywords: Optical EPR experiments; Preferred frame; Cosmic background radiation
The speed of quantum information and the preferred frame: analysis of experimental data
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0007/0007008v1.pdf
and this one...
Experimental Test of Relativistic Quantum State Collapse with Moving Reference Frames
Authors: H. Zbinden, J. Brendel, W. Tittel, N. Gisin
(Submitted on 10 Feb 2000 (v1), last revised 5 Jul 2000 (this version, v3)) ... dated Feb 1, 2008
Abstract: An experimental test of relativistic wave-packet collapse is presented. The tested model assumes that the collapse takes place in the reference frame determined by the massive measuring detectors. Entangled photons are measured at 10 km distance within a time interval of less than 5 ps. The two apparatuses are in relative motion so that both detectors, each in its own inertial reference frame, are first to perform the measurement. The data always reproduces the quantum correlations and thus rule out a class of collapse models. The results also set a lower bound on the "speed of quantum information" to 0.66 x 10^7 and 1.5 x 10^4 times the speed of light in the Geneva and the background radiation reference frames, respectively. The very difficult and deep question of where the collapse takes place - if it takes place at all - is considered in a concrete experimental context.
Comments: 4 pages + 2 ps figures
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0002031v3
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0002/0002031v3.pdf
Experimental test of non-local quantum correlation in relativistic configurations
Authors: H. Zbinden, J. Brendel, N. Gisin, W. Tittel
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2000) ... dated Feb 1, 2008.
Abstract: We report on a new kind of experimental investigations of the tension between quantum nonlocally and relativity. Entangled photons are sent via an optical fiber network to two villages near Geneva, separated by more than 10 km where they are analyzed by interferometers. The photon pair source is set as precisely as possible in the center so that the two photons arrive at the detectors within a time interval of less than 5 ps (corresponding to a path length difference of less than 1 mm). One detector is set in motion so that both detectors, each in its own inertial reference frame, are first to do the measurement! The data always reproduces the quantum correlations, making it thus more difficult to consider the projection postulate as a compact description of real collapses of the wave-function.
Comments: 26 pages including 8 figures
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0007009v1
Submission history
From: Wolfgang Tittel [view email]
[v1] Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:12:39 GMT (441kb)
Experimental test of non-local quantum correlation in relativistic configurations
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0007/0007009v1.pdf
Space-like Separation in a Bell Test assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses
Authors: D. Salart, A. Baas, J.A.W. van Houwelingen, N. Gisin, H. Zbinden
(Submitted on 17 Mar 2008)
Abstract: We report on a Bell experiment with space-like separation assuming that the measurement time is related to gravity-induced state reduction. Two energy-time entangled photons are sent through optical fibers and directed into unbalanced interferometers at two receiving stations separated by 18 km. At each station, the detection of a photon triggers the displacement of a macroscopic mass. The timing ensures space-like separation from the moment a photon enters its interferometer until the mass has moved. 2-photon interference fringes with a visibility of up to 90.5% are obtained, leading to a violation of Bell inequality.
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:0803.2425v1 [quant-ph]
Submission history
From: Daniel Salart Subils [view email]
[v1] Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:48:40 GMT (403kb,D)
Space-like Separation in a Bell Test assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses
Electromagnetic Wave Equation
... and Schrodingers Wave Equation...
Schrodingers Wave Equation
The similarity is "compelling"...under some circumstances solve the same problems... In the case of the former equation these are measurables and in the latter case they are probabilities and are not measurables. Of course there are the objections raised by the Uncertainty Principle but in the light of the experimental results of "squeezed light", clearly we must think more closely whatthis limit really means ... I have tried to present an argument that shows this point strongly using references to other points (even those references in my last post here on this thread) but I could also point to
Heisenberg, Matrix Mechanics, and the Uncertainty Principle :S Lakshmibala
This paper has appeared in a readable form once more and represents a ray of light into a world of different ways to examine this aspect of the phenomenon.
Some extracted aspects of Lakshmibala's paper by Good Elf
Or to several papers on "Squeezed States". These coherent phenomena have indicated the existence of a close analogy between optical phenomena, general relativity, quantum mechanics and gravity. Indeed these pursuits have provided many practical benefits such as "slow light", electromagnetically induced transparency, optical wormholes, invisibility shields, self accelerating Truncated Airy photon packets, Bessel Beams, near field direct optical coupling antennas... I could go on and on. The existence of "infinite velocity phenomena in the near field or some may say the points in the source which have no "timelike separation" but sometimes significant spacelike separation leads to entanglement and also to interference states in gravitational interferences which can be used to communicate faster than light. Information transfer in the near field over many kilometers in gravitational interferences has been clocked in excess of 600,000 times the far field velocity of C .
The speed of quantum information and the preferred frame: analysis of experimental data
Authors: Valerio Scarani, Wolfgang Tittel, Hugo Zbinden, Nicolas Gisin
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2000)
Abstract: The results of EPR experiments performed in Geneva are analyzed in the frame of the cosmic microwave background radiation, generally considered as a good candidate for playing the role of preferred frame. We set a lower bound for the speed of quantum information in this frame at 1.5 x 10^4 c.
Comments: 9 pages including 3 figures
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Journal reference: Phys. Lett. A 276 2000 1-7
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0007008v1
Submission history
From: Wolfgang Tittel [view email]
[v1] Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:25:29 GMT (177kb) ... dated March 1, 2008
Author Keywords: Optical EPR experiments; Preferred frame; Cosmic background radiation
The speed of quantum information and the preferred frame: analysis of experimental data
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0007/0007008v1.pdf
and this one...
Experimental Test of Relativistic Quantum State Collapse with Moving Reference Frames
Authors: H. Zbinden, J. Brendel, W. Tittel, N. Gisin
(Submitted on 10 Feb 2000 (v1), last revised 5 Jul 2000 (this version, v3)) ... dated Feb 1, 2008
Abstract: An experimental test of relativistic wave-packet collapse is presented. The tested model assumes that the collapse takes place in the reference frame determined by the massive measuring detectors. Entangled photons are measured at 10 km distance within a time interval of less than 5 ps. The two apparatuses are in relative motion so that both detectors, each in its own inertial reference frame, are first to perform the measurement. The data always reproduces the quantum correlations and thus rule out a class of collapse models. The results also set a lower bound on the "speed of quantum information" to 0.66 x 10^7 and 1.5 x 10^4 times the speed of light in the Geneva and the background radiation reference frames, respectively. The very difficult and deep question of where the collapse takes place - if it takes place at all - is considered in a concrete experimental context.
Comments: 4 pages + 2 ps figures
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0002031v3
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0002/0002031v3.pdf
Experimental test of non-local quantum correlation in relativistic configurations
Authors: H. Zbinden, J. Brendel, N. Gisin, W. Tittel
(Submitted on 4 Jul 2000) ... dated Feb 1, 2008.
Abstract: We report on a new kind of experimental investigations of the tension between quantum nonlocally and relativity. Entangled photons are sent via an optical fiber network to two villages near Geneva, separated by more than 10 km where they are analyzed by interferometers. The photon pair source is set as precisely as possible in the center so that the two photons arrive at the detectors within a time interval of less than 5 ps (corresponding to a path length difference of less than 1 mm). One detector is set in motion so that both detectors, each in its own inertial reference frame, are first to do the measurement! The data always reproduces the quantum correlations, making it thus more difficult to consider the projection postulate as a compact description of real collapses of the wave-function.
Comments: 26 pages including 8 figures
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:quant-ph/0007009v1
Submission history
From: Wolfgang Tittel [view email]
[v1] Tue, 4 Jul 2000 17:12:39 GMT (441kb)
Experimental test of non-local quantum correlation in relativistic configurations
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0007/0007009v1.pdf
Space-like Separation in a Bell Test assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses
Authors: D. Salart, A. Baas, J.A.W. van Houwelingen, N. Gisin, H. Zbinden
(Submitted on 17 Mar 2008)
Abstract: We report on a Bell experiment with space-like separation assuming that the measurement time is related to gravity-induced state reduction. Two energy-time entangled photons are sent through optical fibers and directed into unbalanced interferometers at two receiving stations separated by 18 km. At each station, the detection of a photon triggers the displacement of a macroscopic mass. The timing ensures space-like separation from the moment a photon enters its interferometer until the mass has moved. 2-photon interference fringes with a visibility of up to 90.5% are obtained, leading to a violation of Bell inequality.
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:0803.2425v1 [quant-ph]
Submission history
From: Daniel Salart Subils [view email]
[v1] Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:48:40 GMT (403kb,D)
Space-like Separation in a Bell Test assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses
World's Largest Quantum Bell Test Spans Three Swiss Towns PhysOrg
Physicists Seek Answers to Quantum Correlations : PhysOrg
And my "Gedanken" paper which predates all of these...
http://www.seti.org.au/spacecom/quantumcom.html
It is important to realize that unlike the dipolar nature of electromagnetism, gravitational influences can be manipulated in the "near field" which stretches into the furthermost reaches of deep space and potentially responds instantly to interferences because the "static" sources of matter that have existed for a very long time (mostly since the Big Bang) and their influence is well spread into the distant reaches of space as "de Broglie Waves" as an obvious extension of Mach's Principle. It is clearly a "difficulty" when most of these sources are "incoherent" but it is relatively simple to rearrange "matter" to create coherence and a focusing over vast distances. Indeed some experiments into parametric amplification of matter waves have already been done which mimic some of the desirable aspects of parametric amplification of electromagnetic waves.
... and this "follow up"...
... and this "follow up"...
Nearfield Electromagnetic Effects on Einstein Special Relativity
William D. Walker
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Previous research papers [1]
william.walker@vm.ntnu.no
20 Feb 2007
In this paper Maxwell equations are used to analyze the propagation of oscillating electric and magnetic fields from a moving electric dipole source. The results show that both the magnetic field and electric fields generated propagate faster than the speed of light in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the farfield of the source.
In addition, the results show that the speed of the fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and only become independent in the farfield. These effects are shown to be the same whether the source or observation point is moving. Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einstein’s theory of special relativity theory is based, relativity theory is reanalyzed. The analysis shows that the relativistic gamma factor is dependant on whether the analysis is performed using nearfield or farfield propagating EM fields. In the nearfield, gamma is approximately one indicating that the coordinate transforms are Galilean in the nearfield. In the farfield the gamma factor reduces to the standard known relativistic formula indicating that they are approximately valid in the farfield. Because time dilation and space contraction depend on whether nearfield or farfield propagating fields are used in their analysis, it is proposed that Einstein relativistic effects are an illusion created by the propagating EM fields used in their measurement. Instead space and time are proposed to not be flexible as indicated by Galilean relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702166
Physicists Seek Answers to Quantum Correlations : PhysOrg
And my "Gedanken" paper which predates all of these...
http://www.seti.org.au/spacecom/quantumcom.html
It is important to realize that unlike the dipolar nature of electromagnetism, gravitational influences can be manipulated in the "near field" which stretches into the furthermost reaches of deep space and potentially responds instantly to interferences because the "static" sources of matter that have existed for a very long time (mostly since the Big Bang) and their influence is well spread into the distant reaches of space as "de Broglie Waves" as an obvious extension of Mach's Principle. It is clearly a "difficulty" when most of these sources are "incoherent" but it is relatively simple to rearrange "matter" to create coherence and a focusing over vast distances. Indeed some experiments into parametric amplification of matter waves have already been done which mimic some of the desirable aspects of parametric amplification of electromagnetic waves.
QUOTE
Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields
William D. Walker
Royal Institute of Technology, KTH-Visby
Department of Electrical Engineering
Cramrgatan 3, S-621 57 Visby, Sweden
bill@visby.kth.se
6 Sept 2000
1 Introduction
A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields
propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source.
A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a
dipole antenna to a parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna. The phase difference
between the two antenna signals is monitored with an oscilloscope as the distance
between the antennas is increased. Analysis of the phase vs distance curve indicates
that superluminal transverse electric field waves (phase and group) are generated
approximately one-quarter wavelength outside the source and propagate toward and
away from the source. Upon creation, the transverse waves travel with infinite speed.
The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. The inward propagating transverse fields rapidly reduce to the speed of light and then rapidly increase to infinite speed as they travel into the source. The results are shown to be consistent with standard
electrodynamic theory.
Theoretical analysis of an oscillating electric dipole reveals that the longitudinal
component of the electric field and the transverse magnetic field are generated at the source and propagate away from the source. Upon creation, the waves travel with infinite speed and then rapidly reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. It is noted that the special theory of relativity predicts that from a moving reference frame superluminal signals can propagate backward in time. Arguments against the superluminal wave interpretation presented in this paper are reviewed and shown to be invalid. Because of the similarity of the governing partial differential equations, two other physical systems (magnetic dipole and a gravitationally radiating oscillating mass) are noted to have similar superluminal near-field theoretical results.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0009023
William D. Walker
Royal Institute of Technology, KTH-Visby
Department of Electrical Engineering
Cramrgatan 3, S-621 57 Visby, Sweden
bill@visby.kth.se
6 Sept 2000
1 Introduction
A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields
propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source.
A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a
dipole antenna to a parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna. The phase difference
between the two antenna signals is monitored with an oscilloscope as the distance
between the antennas is increased. Analysis of the phase vs distance curve indicates
that superluminal transverse electric field waves (phase and group) are generated
approximately one-quarter wavelength outside the source and propagate toward and
away from the source. Upon creation, the transverse waves travel with infinite speed.
The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. The inward propagating transverse fields rapidly reduce to the speed of light and then rapidly increase to infinite speed as they travel into the source. The results are shown to be consistent with standard
electrodynamic theory.
Theoretical analysis of an oscillating electric dipole reveals that the longitudinal
component of the electric field and the transverse magnetic field are generated at the source and propagate away from the source. Upon creation, the waves travel with infinite speed and then rapidly reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. It is noted that the special theory of relativity predicts that from a moving reference frame superluminal signals can propagate backward in time. Arguments against the superluminal wave interpretation presented in this paper are reviewed and shown to be invalid. Because of the similarity of the governing partial differential equations, two other physical systems (magnetic dipole and a gravitationally radiating oscillating mass) are noted to have similar superluminal near-field theoretical results.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0009023
... and this "follow up"...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Experimental Evidence of Near-field Superluminally Propagating Electromagnetic Fields William D. Walker Royal Institute of Technology, KTH-Visby Department of Electrical Engineering Cramrgatan 3, S-621 57 Visby, Sweden bill@visby.kth.se 6 Sept 2000 1 Introduction A simple experiment is presented which indicates that electromagnetic fields propagate superluminally in the near-field next to an oscillating electric dipole source. A high frequency 437MHz, 2 watt sinusoidal electrical signal is transmitted from a dipole antenna to a parallel near-field dipole detecting antenna. The phase difference between the two antenna signals is monitored with an oscilloscope as the distance between the antennas is increased. Analysis of the phase vs distance curve indicates that superluminal transverse electric field waves (phase and group) are generated approximately one-quarter wavelength outside the source and propagate toward and away from the source. Upon creation, the transverse waves travel with infinite speed. The outgoing transverse waves reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. The inward propagating transverse fields rapidly reduce to the speed of light and then rapidly increase to infinite speed as they travel into the source. The results are shown to be consistent with standard electrodynamic theory. Theoretical analysis of an oscillating electric dipole reveals that the longitudinal component of the electric field and the transverse magnetic field are generated at the source and propagate away from the source. Upon creation, the waves travel with infinite speed and then rapidly reduce to the speed of light after they propagate about one wavelength away from the source. It is noted that the special theory of relativity predicts that from a moving reference frame superluminal signals can propagate backward in time. Arguments against the superluminal wave interpretation presented in this paper are reviewed and shown to be invalid. Because of the similarity of the governing partial differential equations, two other physical systems (magnetic dipole and a gravitationally radiating oscillating mass) are noted to have similar superluminal near-field theoretical results. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0009023 |
... and this "follow up"...
Nearfield Electromagnetic Effects on Einstein Special Relativity
William D. Walker
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Previous research papers [1]
william.walker@vm.ntnu.no
20 Feb 2007
In this paper Maxwell equations are used to analyze the propagation of oscillating electric and magnetic fields from a moving electric dipole source. The results show that both the magnetic field and electric fields generated propagate faster than the speed of light in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the farfield of the source.
In addition, the results show that the speed of the fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and only become independent in the farfield. These effects are shown to be the same whether the source or observation point is moving. Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einstein’s theory of special relativity theory is based, relativity theory is reanalyzed. The analysis shows that the relativistic gamma factor is dependant on whether the analysis is performed using nearfield or farfield propagating EM fields. In the nearfield, gamma is approximately one indicating that the coordinate transforms are Galilean in the nearfield. In the farfield the gamma factor reduces to the standard known relativistic formula indicating that they are approximately valid in the farfield. Because time dilation and space contraction depend on whether nearfield or farfield propagating fields are used in their analysis, it is proposed that Einstein relativistic effects are an illusion created by the propagating EM fields used in their measurement. Instead space and time are proposed to not be flexible as indicated by Galilean relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702166
This is an extreme interpretation of the influence of near field phenomena but in some respects it is quite correct. It is not that Einsteins theory of Special Relativity is "wrong" but near field effects of Special Relativity are a complication that have not been accounted for in the past. Naturally the "assumption" that the constancy of the speed of light in the near field does not hold so Einstein's Special Theory needs to be corrected in the near field. The same comment could be said about my insistence that there is a "low velocity" end of the Special Theory of Relativity and it becomes the de Broglie Matter Wave Theory in the near field too. I am sure Carver Mead would agree. The statement that Einstein's Theory is an "illusion" after first agreeing that Time Dilation and Length Contraction actually occur hardly relegates Einstein's Theory to the scrapheap since regardless of the optical effects in the near field the far filed effects are more significant in most experiments when dealing with optical phenomena.... Not so with gravitational phenomena. The optical effects of Einsteins Theory have been recognized for several decades and are in need of further correction when the distances from source to sink is less that one wavelength.
I think some people feel a sense of betrayal when they realize that they have not been made aware of these things at the undergraduate level being "fed" nothing but particle theories. When the "pennies finally drop" they think they are part of some kind of a conspiracy. In one respect they are when you see the efforts needed to maintain a failing paradigm. It is not Einstein's fault though. The experimental sciences are forging ahead of the theoretical sciences through pursuing the science rather than the philosophy. Einstein could not have known of hte advances in experimental sciences in the 21 st Century and his theory of Special Relativity "holds" in the realm for which it was derived. There are always exceptions and extendions to theory... Einstein's Theory has undergone many "extensions" but in it's basic concept it still retains it's full validity.
Regarding the experimental verification of superluminal velocities in the near field this can be checked in the literature and many sources report on this in practical experiments and it is no surprise. It is just in contradiction to particle theory... that is all. These two papers above show how one thing can lead to another as a "revolt" is the reaction to the "unprepared mind".
None have been so vocal denouncing current Quantum Theory as JS Bell ... the "father" of the Bell Inequality and the final proof that particles are indeed "non-local". He wrote a book.. "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics". This indicates strongly his views. I will put a couple of quotes here...
None have been so vocal denouncing current Quantum Theory as JS Bell ... the "father" of the Bell Inequality and the final proof that particles are indeed "non-local". He wrote a book.. "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics". This indicates strongly his views. I will put a couple of quotes here...
... conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better. Bohm has shown us a way.
* It would seem that the theory [quantum mechanics] is exclusively concerned about "results of measurement", and has nothing to say about anything else. What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of "measurer"? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system ... with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but highly idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less "measurement-like" processes are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere. Do we not have jumping then all the time?
The first charge against "measurement", in the fundamental axioms of quantum mechanics, is that it anchors the shifty split of the world into "system" and "apparatus". A second charge is that the word comes loaded with meaning from everyday life, meaning which is entirely inappropriate in the quantum context. When it is said that something is "measured" it is difficult not to think of the result as referring to some preexisting property of the object in question. This is to disregard Bohr's insistence that in quantum phenomena the apparatus as well as the system is essentially involved. If it were not so, how could we understand, for example, that "measurement" of a component of "angular momentum" ... in an arbitrarily chosen direction ... yields one of a discrete set of values? When one forgets the role of the apparatus, as the word "measurement" makes all too likely, one despairs of ordinary logic ... hence "quantum logic". When one remembers the role of the apparatus, ordinary logic is just fine.
In other contexts, physicists have been able to take words from ordinary language and use them as technical terms with no great harm done. Take for example the "strangeness", "charm", and "beauty" of elementary particle physics. No one is taken in by this "baby talk". ... Would that it were so with "measurement". But in fact the word has had such a damaging effect on the discussion, that I think it should now be banned altogether in quantum mechanics.
Bohmian Mechanics
Bohmian mechanics is the most naively obvious embedding imaginable of Schrödinger's equation into a completely coherent physical theory. It describes a world in which particles move in a highly non-Newtonian sort of way, one which may at first appear to have little to do with the spectrum of predictions of quantum mechanics. However, this deterministic theory of particles in motion completely accounts for all the phenomena of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, from spectral lines to interference effects, and it does so in a completely ordinary manner. It was first presented in 1927 by Louis de Broglie, just after the inception of quantum mechanics itself. It was soon abandoned and utterly ignored until rediscovered a quarter century later by David Bohm, who showed how it resolved the measurement problem and accounted for the reduction of the wave packet. Its principal advocate for the past three decades was John Bell:
Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.
J.S. BELL
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
I think some people feel a sense of betrayal when they realize that they have not been made aware of these things at the undergraduate level being "fed" nothing but particle theories. When the "pennies finally drop" they think they are part of some kind of a conspiracy. In one respect they are when you see the efforts needed to maintain a failing paradigm. It is not Einstein's fault though. The experimental sciences are forging ahead of the theoretical sciences through pursuing the science rather than the philosophy. Einstein could not have known of hte advances in experimental sciences in the 21 st Century and his theory of Special Relativity "holds" in the realm for which it was derived. There are always exceptions and extendions to theory... Einstein's Theory has undergone many "extensions" but in it's basic concept it still retains it's full validity.
Regarding the experimental verification of superluminal velocities in the near field this can be checked in the literature and many sources report on this in practical experiments and it is no surprise. It is just in contradiction to particle theory... that is all. These two papers above show how one thing can lead to another as a "revolt" is the reaction to the "unprepared mind".
QUOTE
Intercontinental quantum liaisons between entangled electrons
in ion traps of thermoluminescent crystals
Robert Desbrandes (Louisiana State University) and Daniel L. Van Gent (Oklahoma
State University)
Subject-class: quantum physics
Keywords : entanglement ; quantum traps; thermoluminescence dosimetry, remote
triggering, stimulated luminescence; Bremsstrahlung ; entanglement swapping ; ion
traps ; entanglement decoherence; quantum communication.
Endorser: Professor Robert O’Connell (Louisiana State University)
Abstract
The experiments reported in this paper were carried out with space-separated
entangled TLD crystals in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (USA) and Givarlais (France)
distant of 8,182 km. Samples of doped lithium fluoride, an excellent TLD material
used industrially have been irradiated together at one location in order to create
entangled traps in spatially collocated TLD chips via simultaneous Bremsstrahlung
irradiation of a medical accelerator on spatially collocated pairs of TLD chips. One of
the chips was then mailed to Baton Rouge and its entangled counterpart was kept in
Givarlais. Thermally heating the sample located in Baton Rouge has produced in the
corresponding entangled sample measured under a photomultiplier in Givarlais at
ambient temperature, correlated signals while the TLD temperature was increased
and then allowed to decrease by turning off the TLD heating oven in Baton Rouge.
The instant that maximum temperature of the TLD is attained in Baton Rouge
corresponds exactly with the instant of maximum correlation of PMT signal recorded
in Givarlais
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0611109
in ion traps of thermoluminescent crystals
Robert Desbrandes (Louisiana State University) and Daniel L. Van Gent (Oklahoma
State University)
Subject-class: quantum physics
Keywords : entanglement ; quantum traps; thermoluminescence dosimetry, remote
triggering, stimulated luminescence; Bremsstrahlung ; entanglement swapping ; ion
traps ; entanglement decoherence; quantum communication.
Endorser: Professor Robert O’Connell (Louisiana State University)
Abstract
The experiments reported in this paper were carried out with space-separated
entangled TLD crystals in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (USA) and Givarlais (France)
distant of 8,182 km. Samples of doped lithium fluoride, an excellent TLD material
used industrially have been irradiated together at one location in order to create
entangled traps in spatially collocated TLD chips via simultaneous Bremsstrahlung
irradiation of a medical accelerator on spatially collocated pairs of TLD chips. One of
the chips was then mailed to Baton Rouge and its entangled counterpart was kept in
Givarlais. Thermally heating the sample located in Baton Rouge has produced in the
corresponding entangled sample measured under a photomultiplier in Givarlais at
ambient temperature, correlated signals while the TLD temperature was increased
and then allowed to decrease by turning off the TLD heating oven in Baton Rouge.
The instant that maximum temperature of the TLD is attained in Baton Rouge
corresponds exactly with the instant of maximum correlation of PMT signal recorded
in Givarlais
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0611109
None have been so vocal denouncing current Quantum Theory as JS Bell ... the "father" of the Bell Inequality and the final proof that particles are indeed "non-local". He wrote a book.. "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics". This indicates strongly his views. I will put a couple of quotes here...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Intercontinental quantum liaisons between entangled electrons in ion traps of thermoluminescent crystals Robert Desbrandes (Louisiana State University) and Daniel L. Van Gent (Oklahoma State University) Subject-class: quantum physics Keywords : entanglement ; quantum traps; thermoluminescence dosimetry, remote triggering, stimulated luminescence; Bremsstrahlung ; entanglement swapping ; ion traps ; entanglement decoherence; quantum communication. Endorser: Professor Robert O’Connell (Louisiana State University) Abstract The experiments reported in this paper were carried out with space-separated entangled TLD crystals in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (USA) and Givarlais (France) distant of 8,182 km. Samples of doped lithium fluoride, an excellent TLD material used industrially have been irradiated together at one location in order to create entangled traps in spatially collocated TLD chips via simultaneous Bremsstrahlung irradiation of a medical accelerator on spatially collocated pairs of TLD chips. One of the chips was then mailed to Baton Rouge and its entangled counterpart was kept in Givarlais. Thermally heating the sample located in Baton Rouge has produced in the corresponding entangled sample measured under a photomultiplier in Givarlais at ambient temperature, correlated signals while the TLD temperature was increased and then allowed to decrease by turning off the TLD heating oven in Baton Rouge. The instant that maximum temperature of the TLD is attained in Baton Rouge corresponds exactly with the instant of maximum correlation of PMT signal recorded in Givarlais http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0611109 |
None have been so vocal denouncing current Quantum Theory as JS Bell ... the "father" of the Bell Inequality and the final proof that particles are indeed "non-local". He wrote a book.. "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics". This indicates strongly his views. I will put a couple of quotes here...
... conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better. Bohm has shown us a way.
* It would seem that the theory [quantum mechanics] is exclusively concerned about "results of measurement", and has nothing to say about anything else. What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of "measurer"? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system ... with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but highly idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less "measurement-like" processes are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere. Do we not have jumping then all the time?
The first charge against "measurement", in the fundamental axioms of quantum mechanics, is that it anchors the shifty split of the world into "system" and "apparatus". A second charge is that the word comes loaded with meaning from everyday life, meaning which is entirely inappropriate in the quantum context. When it is said that something is "measured" it is difficult not to think of the result as referring to some preexisting property of the object in question. This is to disregard Bohr's insistence that in quantum phenomena the apparatus as well as the system is essentially involved. If it were not so, how could we understand, for example, that "measurement" of a component of "angular momentum" ... in an arbitrarily chosen direction ... yields one of a discrete set of values? When one forgets the role of the apparatus, as the word "measurement" makes all too likely, one despairs of ordinary logic ... hence "quantum logic". When one remembers the role of the apparatus, ordinary logic is just fine.
In other contexts, physicists have been able to take words from ordinary language and use them as technical terms with no great harm done. Take for example the "strangeness", "charm", and "beauty" of elementary particle physics. No one is taken in by this "baby talk". ... Would that it were so with "measurement". But in fact the word has had such a damaging effect on the discussion, that I think it should now be banned altogether in quantum mechanics.
Bohmian Mechanics
Bohmian mechanics is the most naively obvious embedding imaginable of Schrödinger's equation into a completely coherent physical theory. It describes a world in which particles move in a highly non-Newtonian sort of way, one which may at first appear to have little to do with the spectrum of predictions of quantum mechanics. However, this deterministic theory of particles in motion completely accounts for all the phenomena of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, from spectral lines to interference effects, and it does so in a completely ordinary manner. It was first presented in 1927 by Louis de Broglie, just after the inception of quantum mechanics itself. It was soon abandoned and utterly ignored until rediscovered a quarter century later by David Bohm, who showed how it resolved the measurement problem and accounted for the reduction of the wave packet. Its principal advocate for the past three decades was John Bell:
Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.
J.S. BELL
Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
I would also like to say a similar set of "grievances" have been leveled by Alain Aspect who is the foremost experimentalist in working with entanglement.
I don't know how many truly "great experimentalists" I can bring to this discussion but I would say that most of the leading "experimentalist" lights in Physics in the latter part of the 20th Century and in the 21st Century are disagreeing with the standard Quantum (Copenhagen) Interpretation and "nobody is listening". They are far too busy "calculating" and publishing frenetically to think too carefully about what they are doing. Oh... I would also add many of the "Classical Physicist's of the earlier part of the 20th Century were also in strong disagreement at the time but Bohr won the day.. but why?
All I ask is for you all to consider this body of evidence (along what has already been referenced) that point to serious omission by the cloistered Physics Fraternity over a period of around 80 years. As many would point out they have their tenure to think of and do not want to rock the boat. What is "broken" cannot be "fixed" simply by adding endless extensions to a flawed concept. The obscurity and "magic" of Quantum Physics has been an artifact of methodology, the Mathematical Physicists and the use of instruments which are self limiting devices in measurement.
Once these matters are addressed the concept and ideas regarding time itself as another dimension become more evident. The "Evanescent Zone" is a "window" into a number of near field phenomena which have gone unexamined for far too long.
Cheers
QUOTE
BELL’S THEOREM : THE NAIVE VIEW OF AN EXPERIMENTALIST†
Alain Aspect
(Vienna December 2000)
Institut d'Optique Théorique et Appliquée
Bâtiment 503-Centre universitaire d'Orsay
91403 ORSAY Cedex – France
alain.aspect@iota.u-psud.fr
1. INTRODUCTION
It is a real emotion to participate to this conference in commemoration of John Bell. I first met him in 1975, a few months after reading his famous paper1. I had been so strongly impressed by this paper, that I had immediately decided to do my « thèse d’état » – which at that time, in France, could be a really long work – on this fascinating problem. I definitely wanted to carry out an experiment « in which the settings are changed during the flight of the particles », as suggested in the paper, and I had convinced a young professor of the Institut d’Optique, Christian Imbert, to support my project and to act as my thesis advisor. But he had advised me to first go to Geneva, and to discuss my proposal with John Bell. I got an appointment without delay, and I showed up in John’s office at CERN, very impressed. While I was explaining my planned experiment, he silently listened. Eventually, I stopped talking, and the first question came: “Have you a permanent position?” After my positive answer, he started talking of physics, and he definitely encouraged me, making it clear that he would consider the implementation of variable analysers a fundamental improvement. Beyond his celebrated sense of humour, his answer reminds me of the general atmosphere at that time about raising questions on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Quite frequently it was open hostility, and in the best case, it would provoke an ironical reaction: “Quantum Mechanics has been vindicated by such a large amount of work by the smartest theorists and experimentalists, how can you hope to find anything with such a simple scheme, in optics, a science of the XIXth century?” In addition to starting the experiment, I had then to develop a line of argument to try to convince the physicists I met (and among them some had to give their opinion about funding my project). After some not so successfull tentatives of quite sophisticated pleas, I eventually found out that it was much more efficient to explain the very simple and naive way in which I had understood Bell’s theorem. And to my great surprise, that simple presentation was very convincing even with the most theoretically inclined interlocutors. I was lucky enough to be able to present it in front of John Bell himself, and he apparently appreciated it. I am therefore going to explain now how I understood Bell’s theorem twenty five years ago, and I hope to be able to communicate the shock I received, that was so strong that I spent eight years of my life working on this problem.
[...]
The purpose of this first part is to convince the reader that the formalism leading to Bell's Inequalities is very general and reasonable. What is surprising is that such a reasonable formalism conflicts with Quantum Mechanics. In fact, situations exhibiting a conflict are very rare, and Quantum Optics is the domain where the most significant tests of this conflict have been carried out (sections 7 to 11).
[..]
Figure 17. Ideal timing experiment. Each polarizer is randomly reoriented during the propagation of photons between the source and the polarizers. On each side, one records the orientation of the polarizer as well as the results of polarization measurements as a function of time. When a run is completed, the two data sets from the two sides are brought together, and one can determine the value of the correlation as a function of the relative orientation at the moment of the measurement.
Comment: This experiment noted in fig 17 by Aspect is the gedanken form of the experiment that has recently been performed in Zurich and it has been confirmed many times over and over (as seen in the references above).
When realizing that this quantum non locality does not allow one to send any useful information, one might be tempted to conclude that in fact there is no real problem, and that all these discussions and experimental efforts are pointless. Before rushing to this conclusion, I would suggest to consider an ideal experiment done with the scheme of figure 17. On each side of the experiment of Fig. 1, done with variable analysers, there is a monitoring system, that registers the detection events in channels + or – with their exact dates. We also suppose that the orientation of each polarizer is changed at random times, also monitored by the system of the corresponding side. It is only when the experiment is completed that the two sets of data, separately collected on each side, are brought together, in order to extract the correlations. Then, looking into the data that were collected previously, and that correspond to paired events that were space like separated when they happened, one can see that indeed the correlation did change at the very moment when the relative orientation of the polarizers changed.
So when one takes the point of view of a delocalized observer, which is certainly not inconsistent when looking into the past, it must be acknowledged that there is a non local behaviour, in the EPR correlations. Entanglement is definitely a feature going beyond any spacetime description à la Einstein: a pair of entangled photons must be considered a single global object, that we cannot consider as made of individual objects separated in spacetime with well defined properties.
For many years, I have been quoting the scheme of Figure 17 as a GedankenExperiment useful for the sake of the discussion. Nowadays, we are lucky that this experiment has been done in the real world: the experiment of Zeilinger and Weihs42, sketched on Figure 18, exactly follows43 the scheme of Figure 17. Once again, the EPR problem has switched from fundamental discussions bearing on Gedanken Experiment, to real experiments. We must be grateful to John Bell for having shown us that philosophical questions about the nature of reality could be translated into a problem for physicists, where naive experimentalists can contribute.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402001
Alain Aspect
(Vienna December 2000)
Institut d'Optique Théorique et Appliquée
Bâtiment 503-Centre universitaire d'Orsay
91403 ORSAY Cedex – France
alain.aspect@iota.u-psud.fr
1. INTRODUCTION
It is a real emotion to participate to this conference in commemoration of John Bell. I first met him in 1975, a few months after reading his famous paper1. I had been so strongly impressed by this paper, that I had immediately decided to do my « thèse d’état » – which at that time, in France, could be a really long work – on this fascinating problem. I definitely wanted to carry out an experiment « in which the settings are changed during the flight of the particles », as suggested in the paper, and I had convinced a young professor of the Institut d’Optique, Christian Imbert, to support my project and to act as my thesis advisor. But he had advised me to first go to Geneva, and to discuss my proposal with John Bell. I got an appointment without delay, and I showed up in John’s office at CERN, very impressed. While I was explaining my planned experiment, he silently listened. Eventually, I stopped talking, and the first question came: “Have you a permanent position?” After my positive answer, he started talking of physics, and he definitely encouraged me, making it clear that he would consider the implementation of variable analysers a fundamental improvement. Beyond his celebrated sense of humour, his answer reminds me of the general atmosphere at that time about raising questions on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Quite frequently it was open hostility, and in the best case, it would provoke an ironical reaction: “Quantum Mechanics has been vindicated by such a large amount of work by the smartest theorists and experimentalists, how can you hope to find anything with such a simple scheme, in optics, a science of the XIXth century?” In addition to starting the experiment, I had then to develop a line of argument to try to convince the physicists I met (and among them some had to give their opinion about funding my project). After some not so successfull tentatives of quite sophisticated pleas, I eventually found out that it was much more efficient to explain the very simple and naive way in which I had understood Bell’s theorem. And to my great surprise, that simple presentation was very convincing even with the most theoretically inclined interlocutors. I was lucky enough to be able to present it in front of John Bell himself, and he apparently appreciated it. I am therefore going to explain now how I understood Bell’s theorem twenty five years ago, and I hope to be able to communicate the shock I received, that was so strong that I spent eight years of my life working on this problem.
[...]
The purpose of this first part is to convince the reader that the formalism leading to Bell's Inequalities is very general and reasonable. What is surprising is that such a reasonable formalism conflicts with Quantum Mechanics. In fact, situations exhibiting a conflict are very rare, and Quantum Optics is the domain where the most significant tests of this conflict have been carried out (sections 7 to 11).
[..]
Figure 17. Ideal timing experiment. Each polarizer is randomly reoriented during the propagation of photons between the source and the polarizers. On each side, one records the orientation of the polarizer as well as the results of polarization measurements as a function of time. When a run is completed, the two data sets from the two sides are brought together, and one can determine the value of the correlation as a function of the relative orientation at the moment of the measurement.
Comment: This experiment noted in fig 17 by Aspect is the gedanken form of the experiment that has recently been performed in Zurich and it has been confirmed many times over and over (as seen in the references above).
When realizing that this quantum non locality does not allow one to send any useful information, one might be tempted to conclude that in fact there is no real problem, and that all these discussions and experimental efforts are pointless. Before rushing to this conclusion, I would suggest to consider an ideal experiment done with the scheme of figure 17. On each side of the experiment of Fig. 1, done with variable analysers, there is a monitoring system, that registers the detection events in channels + or – with their exact dates. We also suppose that the orientation of each polarizer is changed at random times, also monitored by the system of the corresponding side. It is only when the experiment is completed that the two sets of data, separately collected on each side, are brought together, in order to extract the correlations. Then, looking into the data that were collected previously, and that correspond to paired events that were space like separated when they happened, one can see that indeed the correlation did change at the very moment when the relative orientation of the polarizers changed.
So when one takes the point of view of a delocalized observer, which is certainly not inconsistent when looking into the past, it must be acknowledged that there is a non local behaviour, in the EPR correlations. Entanglement is definitely a feature going beyond any spacetime description à la Einstein: a pair of entangled photons must be considered a single global object, that we cannot consider as made of individual objects separated in spacetime with well defined properties.
For many years, I have been quoting the scheme of Figure 17 as a GedankenExperiment useful for the sake of the discussion. Nowadays, we are lucky that this experiment has been done in the real world: the experiment of Zeilinger and Weihs42, sketched on Figure 18, exactly follows43 the scheme of Figure 17. Once again, the EPR problem has switched from fundamental discussions bearing on Gedanken Experiment, to real experiments. We must be grateful to John Bell for having shown us that philosophical questions about the nature of reality could be translated into a problem for physicists, where naive experimentalists can contribute.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402001
I don't know how many truly "great experimentalists" I can bring to this discussion but I would say that most of the leading "experimentalist" lights in Physics in the latter part of the 20th Century and in the 21st Century are disagreeing with the standard Quantum (Copenhagen) Interpretation and "nobody is listening". They are far too busy "calculating" and publishing frenetically to think too carefully about what they are doing. Oh... I would also add many of the "Classical Physicist's of the earlier part of the 20th Century were also in strong disagreement at the time but Bohr won the day.. but why?
All I ask is for you all to consider this body of evidence (along what has already been referenced) that point to serious omission by the cloistered Physics Fraternity over a period of around 80 years. As many would point out they have their tenure to think of and do not want to rock the boat. What is "broken" cannot be "fixed" simply by adding endless extensions to a flawed concept. The obscurity and "magic" of Quantum Physics has been an artifact of methodology, the Mathematical Physicists and the use of instruments which are self limiting devices in measurement.
Once these matters are addressed the concept and ideas regarding time itself as another dimension become more evident. The "Evanescent Zone" is a "window" into a number of near field phenomena which have gone unexamined for far too long.
Cheers
A lot to digest, but it all sounds very interesting!
Good Elf
QUOTE: "The existence of "infinite velocity phenomena in the near field or some may say the points in the source which have no "timelike separation" but sometimes significant spacelike separation leads to entanglement and also to interference states in gravitational interferences which can be used to communicate faster than light."
How can it be possible to measure "speed" under conditions where there is no "timelike separation" ?
QUOTE: "None have been so vocal denouncing current Quantum Theory as JS Bell ... the "father" of the Bell Inequality and the final proof that particles are indeed "non-local"
Yes - uncertainty is an inherent quality of the system -
The intruiging part is is that position is such a badly defined concept when we goes into extreme smallness - when we ends up in the definition of smallest. And even when we move upwards in our scaling we have extreme difficulties in defining exact positions because of the wave-particle duality.
It is solely via the scalewise arrangement of repeating patterns that gives us the "illusion" of lastingness. Existance is being based on wave-like expressions that enter into standing waves - "particle", and this by itsself precludes the possibilities for talking about exact positions.
Everything becomes a matter of probability fields and fluxes.
Having that said - I think it is very useful to construct the lastingness and the "exact" positions via scalewise arranging the system as being thought via the pixel model.
QUOTE: "Once these matters are addressed the concept and ideas regarding time itself as another dimension become more evident. The "Evanescent Zone" is a "window" into a number of near field phenomena which have gone unexamined for far too long."
Yeap - the near zone is EVERYTHING when we are dealing with what we define and describe as physical - the percepting / measuring zone - not a big surprise of course - and instead of saying "unexamined" I would like instead to say "unreflected".
And as You rightly state - Time is one of the key considerations in the near zone - and how - exactly how time should or can be defined in the near zone.
Allow me to copy-paste something from another thread from a few days ago:
-"namely that the subtle difference on boson - fermion, respectively, is the speed by which the wave-expression propagates over the pixel grid.
In the case of a fermionic expression - like electron - the wave-structure is a kind of standing spherical wave - but a standing wave can easily moove over the grid. In the case that the electron mooves relative to the frid - this implicates that some of the pixel playing are engaged in expressing the repetitive (circular) wave-structure - is expressing the standing-wave - and other pixels are engaged in playing the movement of wave over the grid.
Important to notice is that an electron is a well-defined qubit - a well-defined amount of energy - a well-defined amount of pixels playing per time-unit. So a pixel cannot express both movement and particle - each and any pixel has to play either kinetic or potential properties of the electron.
The more rapid the propagation of the electron over the grid - the higher the proportion of pixels playing kinetic - and the circular standing wave-pattern is gradually being stretched to more and more propagating wave-patterns - and at a certain point - where all the pixels are playing propagation and no pixels are playing repetition - vupti - the electron is now a photon. The change from electron at near speed of c - and to photon with speed of c is millimeter thin - and vice versa
This way of seeing it - also explains the nature of mass.
Mass is strictly related to the frame in which mass is being measured - and mass is strictly related to the the relatvive movement over the pixel grid of a particle like structure - AND a particle like structure is solely being defined out from a wave-trajectory that is being repaeted - is somewhat bended / circular / in the observed frame. Mass is nicely expressed via the retardation of the wave-trajectory relative to the full-speed straight trajectory - the maximum speed by which a signal (a wave) can be propagated via the pixels ON-signaling - where ALL the pixels involved are working in a straight line - full speed so to say. The more retardation - the more bending - the more circular - the more repating - the slower the speed over the grid - the more of the expression being potential and the less being kinetic - and we measure this phenomenom as mass.
It is important to notice that mass is not something that directly can be attributed to the individual pixels as such. If we had the opportunity to investigate the internal of individual pixels - if we had the opportunity to step a scale downwards - then mass and all other physical qualities would be expressed to us in this scale instead - but of course we cannot. We humans are strictly bound to our scale - the Pixel scale (spelt capital)"
Particle and mass is essential for "freezing" an expression in such a way that it can be interfered with by our percepting senses and our mesuring apparatus's - and without this "freezing" or "lastingness" there cannot be "Observer Related Time" - so we are deep into the particle-wave ambiguity - when we are dealing with near field (or so-called physical reality)
And finally - excuse me for the lenght - I feel inspired to copy paste a recent post from another thread:
- "Very banal one can say that our perception of surroundings - the universe - is solely being based upon how we on a time-line receive informational bits - and so-called reality is being based on such cinematographically ordered informations.
Now what is an informational bit - which qualities can be packed into such a qubit. I would like to think that "frequency" is one such quality - in that we are ultimately dealing with a time-line - and I would also like to think that "direction" or shall we call it angular momentum - is another quality which can be identified in a very small qubit -
And already now it should be obvious that smallest qubits are without meaningful information to us - there must be a minimum amount of coherent - time-linked - information in order to be communicable. There must be a cinematographic time-line and an interference with individual qubits. Our physical universe is being defined by photon / electron as qubit. How many repetitions needed in order to achieve interference is not known.
If we translate this into the pixel concept - I like to think that what we percept is the repeating signals - that we "see" as particle structures. It is not possible to see a one-time-event.
So it is the frequency and angular momentum that we decipher - and these qualities can be translated into size- distance - mass - and all other kinds og physical qualities. Or ??
So frequency and angular momentum is being packed into the (photonic ?) wave-expressions - so I like to think that angular momentum probably is a quality of bosonic - Or --?? perhaps one can say that quakes in the pixel-screen are bosonic when they are non-repeating in the frame they are being observed in - and they are fermionic when they are repeating in the frame they are being observed in - saying that absolute free from angular momentum is equivalent to ideal bosonic. Slight angular momentum indicates that it is a VERY big particle structure - very big radius - and that is the bending of space as we lto see it when viewing large structures - which are the same as viewing distant structures."
QUOTE: "The existence of "infinite velocity phenomena in the near field or some may say the points in the source which have no "timelike separation" but sometimes significant spacelike separation leads to entanglement and also to interference states in gravitational interferences which can be used to communicate faster than light."
How can it be possible to measure "speed" under conditions where there is no "timelike separation" ?
QUOTE: "None have been so vocal denouncing current Quantum Theory as JS Bell ... the "father" of the Bell Inequality and the final proof that particles are indeed "non-local"
Yes - uncertainty is an inherent quality of the system -
The intruiging part is is that position is such a badly defined concept when we goes into extreme smallness - when we ends up in the definition of smallest. And even when we move upwards in our scaling we have extreme difficulties in defining exact positions because of the wave-particle duality.
It is solely via the scalewise arrangement of repeating patterns that gives us the "illusion" of lastingness. Existance is being based on wave-like expressions that enter into standing waves - "particle", and this by itsself precludes the possibilities for talking about exact positions.
Everything becomes a matter of probability fields and fluxes.
Having that said - I think it is very useful to construct the lastingness and the "exact" positions via scalewise arranging the system as being thought via the pixel model.
QUOTE: "Once these matters are addressed the concept and ideas regarding time itself as another dimension become more evident. The "Evanescent Zone" is a "window" into a number of near field phenomena which have gone unexamined for far too long."
Yeap - the near zone is EVERYTHING when we are dealing with what we define and describe as physical - the percepting / measuring zone - not a big surprise of course - and instead of saying "unexamined" I would like instead to say "unreflected".
And as You rightly state - Time is one of the key considerations in the near zone - and how - exactly how time should or can be defined in the near zone.
Allow me to copy-paste something from another thread from a few days ago:
-"namely that the subtle difference on boson - fermion, respectively, is the speed by which the wave-expression propagates over the pixel grid.
In the case of a fermionic expression - like electron - the wave-structure is a kind of standing spherical wave - but a standing wave can easily moove over the grid. In the case that the electron mooves relative to the frid - this implicates that some of the pixel playing are engaged in expressing the repetitive (circular) wave-structure - is expressing the standing-wave - and other pixels are engaged in playing the movement of wave over the grid.
Important to notice is that an electron is a well-defined qubit - a well-defined amount of energy - a well-defined amount of pixels playing per time-unit. So a pixel cannot express both movement and particle - each and any pixel has to play either kinetic or potential properties of the electron.
The more rapid the propagation of the electron over the grid - the higher the proportion of pixels playing kinetic - and the circular standing wave-pattern is gradually being stretched to more and more propagating wave-patterns - and at a certain point - where all the pixels are playing propagation and no pixels are playing repetition - vupti - the electron is now a photon. The change from electron at near speed of c - and to photon with speed of c is millimeter thin - and vice versa
This way of seeing it - also explains the nature of mass.
Mass is strictly related to the frame in which mass is being measured - and mass is strictly related to the the relatvive movement over the pixel grid of a particle like structure - AND a particle like structure is solely being defined out from a wave-trajectory that is being repaeted - is somewhat bended / circular / in the observed frame. Mass is nicely expressed via the retardation of the wave-trajectory relative to the full-speed straight trajectory - the maximum speed by which a signal (a wave) can be propagated via the pixels ON-signaling - where ALL the pixels involved are working in a straight line - full speed so to say. The more retardation - the more bending - the more circular - the more repating - the slower the speed over the grid - the more of the expression being potential and the less being kinetic - and we measure this phenomenom as mass.
It is important to notice that mass is not something that directly can be attributed to the individual pixels as such. If we had the opportunity to investigate the internal of individual pixels - if we had the opportunity to step a scale downwards - then mass and all other physical qualities would be expressed to us in this scale instead - but of course we cannot. We humans are strictly bound to our scale - the Pixel scale (spelt capital)"
Particle and mass is essential for "freezing" an expression in such a way that it can be interfered with by our percepting senses and our mesuring apparatus's - and without this "freezing" or "lastingness" there cannot be "Observer Related Time" - so we are deep into the particle-wave ambiguity - when we are dealing with near field (or so-called physical reality)
And finally - excuse me for the lenght - I feel inspired to copy paste a recent post from another thread:
- "Very banal one can say that our perception of surroundings - the universe - is solely being based upon how we on a time-line receive informational bits - and so-called reality is being based on such cinematographically ordered informations.
Now what is an informational bit - which qualities can be packed into such a qubit. I would like to think that "frequency" is one such quality - in that we are ultimately dealing with a time-line - and I would also like to think that "direction" or shall we call it angular momentum - is another quality which can be identified in a very small qubit -
And already now it should be obvious that smallest qubits are without meaningful information to us - there must be a minimum amount of coherent - time-linked - information in order to be communicable. There must be a cinematographic time-line and an interference with individual qubits. Our physical universe is being defined by photon / electron as qubit. How many repetitions needed in order to achieve interference is not known.
If we translate this into the pixel concept - I like to think that what we percept is the repeating signals - that we "see" as particle structures. It is not possible to see a one-time-event.
So it is the frequency and angular momentum that we decipher - and these qualities can be translated into size- distance - mass - and all other kinds og physical qualities. Or ??
So frequency and angular momentum is being packed into the (photonic ?) wave-expressions - so I like to think that angular momentum probably is a quality of bosonic - Or --?? perhaps one can say that quakes in the pixel-screen are bosonic when they are non-repeating in the frame they are being observed in - and they are fermionic when they are repeating in the frame they are being observed in - saying that absolute free from angular momentum is equivalent to ideal bosonic. Slight angular momentum indicates that it is a VERY big particle structure - very big radius - and that is the bending of space as we lto see it when viewing large structures - which are the same as viewing distant structures."
Hi Janus, wcelliott, bukh,yor_on, rethinker, fairy, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
QUOTE (Janus+)
There is some confusion here. Light waves and electromagnetic waves are not the same. My head is not the same as my heart … though they belong to the same body. Light waves are definitely 2D and electromagnetic waves are definitely 3D. The properties of light are such that you need to be in a line-of-sight position … whereas with electromagnetic waves you can be in multi-positions.
I think you will find this is all a matter of the enormous differences in scale between the small and the large that blur that boundary. Though I will give you that point about there being a difference between continuous waves and discrete photon emissions. I think my explanation and the illustration supplied deal with that difference. Though that illustration does not address the three dimensional structure of photons.
QUOTE (Janus+)
When we polarise light … we are not changing it in any way. All we are doing is allow light through that are travelling at a specific angle. For example, when we use a vertically polarise plate to filter light … we only allow light through that is orientated vertically all the other light waves are absorbed or deflected. If, we now place a horizontally polarised plate immediately after the vertical … the vertically polarised light will not be able to pass through … I know you know this … but did you know … that if we now place a plate that has been polarised at 45 degrees between the two plates … then the vertically polarised light is able to pass through the horizontally polarised plate. This simple experiment has baffled physicists and is not discussed … bit like Pythagoras and irrational numbers.
I get your drift ... it is not discussed. This is because to conventional theory this omission is very "embarrassing" because many have pointed this out along the way but most chose to ignore it. MV Berry is also one of the venerated experimentalists (and also a great theoretician) in the field of optics who is a dissenter to conventional Quantum Theory wisdom. The heart of it goes to the nature of light and it's enigmatic spin. It does behave like a top but it also has aspects that do not perform "top-like motion". Light, electromagnetism and photons are all the same phenomenon. The confusion with waves is natural since the association with radio broadcast technologies is "obvious" but it is a special case of "coherent stimulation". The directionality of any "beam of photons" depends on the construction of the primary source and it's wavelength which are usually a resonant system though individual photon sources are available. MV Berry showed that photons are subject to Berry Phase (Geometric Phase) which is an effect that is distinct from the separate phenomenon of dynamic propagational phase. This distributes the spin property around the parameter space. This also has a physical influence on distribution of the quanta which is path dependent. A link has been shown to the Aharonov-Anandan phase and the Berry's phase can be considered as its adiabatic limit. A number of definitive experiments have been performed to show that this is indeed a phenomenon that is path delimited around a closed geodesic.
In Berry's original discussion, there were three constraints on the quantum system: (i) nondegenerate state; (ii) adiabatic and (iii) cyclic evolution, these restrains were removed later. All the three constraints Among them the most remarkable one is to observe the angle of rotation of linearly polarized light propagating down a helically wound, single-mode optical fiber. This connection is usually performed by two ways but one of them is consideration of the helicity and the spin magnetic moment and the way they interact. I will link to a paper that describes this property as to a solution of Maxwell's Equations in a Schrodinger -like form. This is useful to my overall argument since Schrodinger Solutions to Electromagnetic Wave Equations shows there is a strong relationship to resonances in cavities both classical and quantum.
An earlier paper by the revered MV Berry can be found here...
Quantal Phase Factors Accompanying Adiabatic Changes M. V. Berry
Other features have also been noted such as Berry Phase in solids and matter such as electrons.
Berry’s phase seen in solid-state qubit
An earlier paper by the revered MV Berry can be found here...
Quantal Phase Factors Accompanying Adiabatic Changes M. V. Berry
Other features have also been noted such as Berry Phase in solids and matter such as electrons.
Berry’s phase seen in solid-state qubit
An international team of physicists is the first to show how information can be stored and manipulated in a solid-state quantum bit using “Berry’s phase” – an esoteric geometrical property of a quantum system.
The team controlled the Berry’s phase of paired electrons in a tiny piece of superconductor by exposing it to pulses of microwave radiation. The breakthrough could help physicists overcome a major barrier to practical quantum computing – the tendency of quantum bits to lose their quantum information content rapidly over time.
This "completes the loop" of all quantum phenomenon executing Berry Phase.
Aharonov and Berry share Wolf Prize 1998
In Berry's original discussion, there were three constraints on the quantum system: (i) nondegenerate state; (ii) adiabatic and (iii) cyclic evolution, these restrains were removed later. All the three constraints Among them the most remarkable one is to observe the angle of rotation of linearly polarized light propagating down a helically wound, single-mode optical fiber. This connection is usually performed by two ways but one of them is consideration of the helicity and the spin magnetic moment and the way they interact. I will link to a paper that describes this property as to a solution of Maxwell's Equations in a Schrodinger -like form. This is useful to my overall argument since Schrodinger Solutions to Electromagnetic Wave Equations shows there is a strong relationship to resonances in cavities both classical and quantum.
QUOTE
The geometric phase in photon systems
J. Lua
Department of Physics, Shanghai Teachers University, Shanghai 200234, P.R. China
and
The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, 34014 Trieste, Italy
Received: 24 August 1998 / Accepted: 30 October 1998
Abstract. By using the Maxwell equations in a Schrodinger-like form, the geometric phase in photon systems is calculated. This approach provides a unifi ed way to discuss geometric phases in both photon (massless) and other massive particle systems. The concept of parameter space is not introduced in our discussion. So all complications caused by it can be avoided. In principle, this approach can used to calculate the geometric phase in any cyclic evolution of photon systems.
PACS. 03.65.Bz Foundations, theory of measurement, miscellaneous theories (including Aharonov-Bohm e ect, Bell inequalities, Berry's phase) { 41.20.Bt Maxwell equations, time-varying elds, conservation laws { 42.90.+m Other topics in optics
Eur. Phys. J. D 5, 307{310 (1999)
http://epjd.edpsciences.org/index.php?opti...99/03/d8291.pdf
J. Lua
Department of Physics, Shanghai Teachers University, Shanghai 200234, P.R. China
and
The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, 34014 Trieste, Italy
Received: 24 August 1998 / Accepted: 30 October 1998
Abstract. By using the Maxwell equations in a Schrodinger-like form, the geometric phase in photon systems is calculated. This approach provides a unifi ed way to discuss geometric phases in both photon (massless) and other massive particle systems. The concept of parameter space is not introduced in our discussion. So all complications caused by it can be avoided. In principle, this approach can used to calculate the geometric phase in any cyclic evolution of photon systems.
PACS. 03.65.Bz Foundations, theory of measurement, miscellaneous theories (including Aharonov-Bohm e ect, Bell inequalities, Berry's phase) { 41.20.Bt Maxwell equations, time-varying elds, conservation laws { 42.90.+m Other topics in optics
Eur. Phys. J. D 5, 307{310 (1999)
http://epjd.edpsciences.org/index.php?opti...99/03/d8291.pdf
An earlier paper by the revered MV Berry can be found here...
Quantal Phase Factors Accompanying Adiabatic Changes M. V. Berry
Other features have also been noted such as Berry Phase in solids and matter such as electrons.
Berry’s phase seen in solid-state qubit
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The geometric phase in photon systems J. Lua Department of Physics, Shanghai Teachers University, Shanghai 200234, P.R. China and The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, 34014 Trieste, Italy Received: 24 August 1998 / Accepted: 30 October 1998 Abstract. By using the Maxwell equations in a Schrodinger-like form, the geometric phase in photon systems is calculated. This approach provides a unifi ed way to discuss geometric phases in both photon (massless) and other massive particle systems. The concept of parameter space is not introduced in our discussion. So all complications caused by it can be avoided. In principle, this approach can used to calculate the geometric phase in any cyclic evolution of photon systems. PACS. 03.65.Bz Foundations, theory of measurement, miscellaneous theories (including Aharonov-Bohm e ect, Bell inequalities, Berry's phase) { 41.20.Bt Maxwell equations, time-varying elds, conservation laws { 42.90.+m Other topics in optics Eur. Phys. J. D 5, 307{310 (1999) http://epjd.edpsciences.org/index.php?opti...99/03/d8291.pdf |
An earlier paper by the revered MV Berry can be found here...
Quantal Phase Factors Accompanying Adiabatic Changes M. V. Berry
Other features have also been noted such as Berry Phase in solids and matter such as electrons.
Berry’s phase seen in solid-state qubit
An international team of physicists is the first to show how information can be stored and manipulated in a solid-state quantum bit using “Berry’s phase” – an esoteric geometrical property of a quantum system.
The team controlled the Berry’s phase of paired electrons in a tiny piece of superconductor by exposing it to pulses of microwave radiation. The breakthrough could help physicists overcome a major barrier to practical quantum computing – the tendency of quantum bits to lose their quantum information content rapidly over time.
This "completes the loop" of all quantum phenomenon executing Berry Phase.
Aharonov and Berry share Wolf Prize 1998
QUOTE (Aharonov and Berry share Wolf Prize 1998: PhysicsWorld+)
The 1998 Wolf Prize has been awarded to Yakir Aharonov and Sir Michael Berry for the discoveries that bear their names - the Aharonov- Bohm effect and the Berry phase. Both effects - subtle and unexpected consequences of quantum theory - have subsequently been observed in many different types of experiment.
The official citation states that the awards are made "for the discovery of quantum topological and geometrical phases, specifically the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Berry phase, and their incorporation into many fields of physics". These fields include optics, nuclear physics, fluid physics, chemistry, molecular physics, string theory, gravitational physics, cosmology, solid-state physics, the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum computing. etc..
Here is a web article that describes Berry Phase...
Berry's geometric phase: a review
The correct rule for the "parallel transport", as sketched above, permits to calculate the geometrical phase, such that it ignores completely any dynamical and gauge phase. The result depends only on the geometry of the loop. In this sense, Berry's phase is said to be "gauge-invariant". It has a completely "classical explanation" but has quantum implications. These rotations occur in the direction of the modes in space and depend on loop paths. This is really a kind of helicity that photons of light undertake.
There is an article in Wikipedia...
The official citation states that the awards are made "for the discovery of quantum topological and geometrical phases, specifically the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Berry phase, and their incorporation into many fields of physics". These fields include optics, nuclear physics, fluid physics, chemistry, molecular physics, string theory, gravitational physics, cosmology, solid-state physics, the foundations of quantum mechanics and quantum computing. etc..
Here is a web article that describes Berry Phase...
Berry's geometric phase: a review
The correct rule for the "parallel transport", as sketched above, permits to calculate the geometrical phase, such that it ignores completely any dynamical and gauge phase. The result depends only on the geometry of the loop. In this sense, Berry's phase is said to be "gauge-invariant". It has a completely "classical explanation" but has quantum implications. These rotations occur in the direction of the modes in space and depend on loop paths. This is really a kind of helicity that photons of light undertake.
There is an article in Wikipedia...
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Geometric phase+)
Polarized light in an optical fiber
Waves are characterized by amplitude and phase, and both may vary as a function of those parameters. The Berry phase occurs when both parameters are changed simultaneously but very slowly (adiabatically), and eventually brought back to the initial configuration. In quantum mechanics, this could e.g. involve rotations but also translations of particles, which are apparently undone at the end. Intuitively one expects that the waves in the system return to the initial state, as characterized by the amplitudes and phases (and accounting for the passage of time). However, if the parameter excursions correspond to a cyclic loop instead of a self-retracing back-and-forth variation, then it is possible that the initial and final states differ in their phases. This phase difference is the Berry phase, and its occurrence typically indicates that the system's parameter dependence is singular (undefined) for some combination of parameters.
[..]
Imagine linearly polarized light entering a single-mode optical fiber. Suppose the fiber traces out some path in space and the light exits the fiber in the same direction as it entered. Then compare the initial and final polarizations. In semiclassical approximation the fiber functions like a waveguide and the momentum of the light is at all times tangent to the fiber. The polarization can be thought of as an orientation perpendicular to the momentum. As the fiber traces out its path, the momentum vector of the light traces out a path on the sphere in momentum space. The path is closed since initial and final directions of the light coincide, and the polarization is a vector tangent to the sphere. Going to momentum space is equivalent to taking the Gauss map. There are no forces that could make the polarization turn, just the constraint to remain tangent to the sphere. Thus the polarization undergoes parallel transport and the phase shift is given by the enclosed solid angle (times the spin, which in case of light is 1).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_phase
Waves are characterized by amplitude and phase, and both may vary as a function of those parameters. The Berry phase occurs when both parameters are changed simultaneously but very slowly (adiabatically), and eventually brought back to the initial configuration. In quantum mechanics, this could e.g. involve rotations but also translations of particles, which are apparently undone at the end. Intuitively one expects that the waves in the system return to the initial state, as characterized by the amplitudes and phases (and accounting for the passage of time). However, if the parameter excursions correspond to a cyclic loop instead of a self-retracing back-and-forth variation, then it is possible that the initial and final states differ in their phases. This phase difference is the Berry phase, and its occurrence typically indicates that the system's parameter dependence is singular (undefined) for some combination of parameters.
[..]
Imagine linearly polarized light entering a single-mode optical fiber. Suppose the fiber traces out some path in space and the light exits the fiber in the same direction as it entered. Then compare the initial and final polarizations. In semiclassical approximation the fiber functions like a waveguide and the momentum of the light is at all times tangent to the fiber. The polarization can be thought of as an orientation perpendicular to the momentum. As the fiber traces out its path, the momentum vector of the light traces out a path on the sphere in momentum space. The path is closed since initial and final directions of the light coincide, and the polarization is a vector tangent to the sphere. Going to momentum space is equivalent to taking the Gauss map. There are no forces that could make the polarization turn, just the constraint to remain tangent to the sphere. Thus the polarization undergoes parallel transport and the phase shift is given by the enclosed solid angle (times the spin, which in case of light is 1).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_phase
Regarding the use of polarizers it is easier to understand that the rotations of the polarizers through partial angles result in a change in the Berry Phase "along a walk" which does not close in a loop around a closed path if this operation is made in "3" steps rather than "2" steps... ie. 0 radians -> π/4 radians -> π/2 radians instead of 0 radians -> π/2 radians. The Berry phase picked up rotates some of these quanta a "bit at a time". If the quanta is absorbed then they disappear from the output if the quanta are not absorbed then they retain that phase for the next step. These photons have the same possibility of blocking that the first pass had with the polarizer at only π/4 radians so 1/2 get through again.
Another possible way to look at it is to consider the light as being circularly polarized (both left hand and right hand circularly polarized at the one time) Equal amounts of this "sum" to plane polarized light. This retains the circular polarized inner nature of this wave but because it exists in superposition of states can pass through the polarizer without more than 50% absorption. The second polarizer then acts on this partially rotated component and can undergo a second stage polarization at π/4 radians to the first with an attendant attendant attenuation of another 50% but some does get through as you have stated. Here is a link to a page...
Optical Activity and Light Polarization - check out the animation Circularly polarized light where we have two plane orthogonally polarized waves resulting in a circularly polarized wave
Red and Blue "plane polarized components" and the green component is a circularly polarized "sum". Then consider two of these situations where one is left hand circularly polarized and one is right hand circularly polarized all superimposed in the one "photon". The photon may or may not pass a polarizer. If it does not pass the polarizer then it is completely absorbed as a quantum (all or nothing). If it passes the filter it undergoes a Berry Phase rotation but the photon being unabsorbed is entirely unaffected by it's "history" other than this Berry rotation.
So I still cling to 3D photons propagating as a mix of left and right hand helices sort of like in this paper by Carroll on Wheeler-Feynman Advanced and Retarded waves summing in space (and time) to produce the progressive photon.
WFA PRAHM Model JE Carroll 2006 (Packets of retarded and advanced helically "longitudinally" modulated modes)
Though while emitted as a superposition of left and right hand helices the effect in reality is a kind of traveling spatial "caustic" that "creates" the photon in free space as a traveling optical topological defect. In true free space the photons spread and undergo a kind of "pancakefication" perpendicular to the direction of "propagation" (which is also Gauge Invariant). The best way to describe why the time symmetric photons "converge" on the sinks (rather than a Copenhagen Interpretation "quantum collapse") is through Wheeler Feynman Theory where a transaction is already a "done deal" according to John Cramer. That is just my preference in this matter. On the general aspect ... Berry Phase is "everywhere" in quantum optics.
Hope that helps...
Cheers
Another possible way to look at it is to consider the light as being circularly polarized (both left hand and right hand circularly polarized at the one time) Equal amounts of this "sum" to plane polarized light. This retains the circular polarized inner nature of this wave but because it exists in superposition of states can pass through the polarizer without more than 50% absorption. The second polarizer then acts on this partially rotated component and can undergo a second stage polarization at π/4 radians to the first with an attendant attendant attenuation of another 50% but some does get through as you have stated. Here is a link to a page...
Optical Activity and Light Polarization - check out the animation Circularly polarized light where we have two plane orthogonally polarized waves resulting in a circularly polarized wave
Red and Blue "plane polarized components" and the green component is a circularly polarized "sum". Then consider two of these situations where one is left hand circularly polarized and one is right hand circularly polarized all superimposed in the one "photon". The photon may or may not pass a polarizer. If it does not pass the polarizer then it is completely absorbed as a quantum (all or nothing). If it passes the filter it undergoes a Berry Phase rotation but the photon being unabsorbed is entirely unaffected by it's "history" other than this Berry rotation.
So I still cling to 3D photons propagating as a mix of left and right hand helices sort of like in this paper by Carroll on Wheeler-Feynman Advanced and Retarded waves summing in space (and time) to produce the progressive photon.
WFA PRAHM Model JE Carroll 2006 (Packets of retarded and advanced helically "longitudinally" modulated modes)
Though while emitted as a superposition of left and right hand helices the effect in reality is a kind of traveling spatial "caustic" that "creates" the photon in free space as a traveling optical topological defect. In true free space the photons spread and undergo a kind of "pancakefication" perpendicular to the direction of "propagation" (which is also Gauge Invariant). The best way to describe why the time symmetric photons "converge" on the sinks (rather than a Copenhagen Interpretation "quantum collapse") is through Wheeler Feynman Theory where a transaction is already a "done deal" according to John Cramer. That is just my preference in this matter. On the general aspect ... Berry Phase is "everywhere" in quantum optics.
Hope that helps...
Cheers
Good Elf
QUOTE: "On the general aspect ... Berry Phase is "everywhere" in quantum optics."
Is it wrong to say that Berry Phase is a nice reflection of the fact that bosonic expressions show a bended trajectory - always - and extreme - or NEARLY straight trajectories are expressing the biggest we can see or that we harbour in our universe (perceptible part of universe)
or put differently - c is expressing the speed of a bended trajectory.
QUOTE: "On the general aspect ... Berry Phase is "everywhere" in quantum optics."
Is it wrong to say that Berry Phase is a nice reflection of the fact that bosonic expressions show a bended trajectory - always - and extreme - or NEARLY straight trajectories are expressing the biggest we can see or that we harbour in our universe (perceptible part of universe)
or put differently - c is expressing the speed of a bended trajectory.
Hi bukh, Janus, wcelliott, yor_on, rethinker, fairy, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
QUOTE (bukh+)
How can it be possible to measure "speed" under conditions where there is no "timelike separation" ?
In the case of paired entangled photons the spacelike separation is "measured" by "tripping the state" of one entangled photon causing the state of the other photon to be "forced instantly" in different places in a single frame at the same time. It is not possible to force a "particular state" so the photons are not used as "signals" or a means of carrying qubits but the collapse is a "semaphore" all the same. The same time is "forced" by making the times of transit of photons identical in time to the two separate locations in the frame in the same sentiment as Einstein might have defined it also using light signals (that is if he had access to entangled photons). Having "no timelike separation" simply means in a single rectilinear inertial frame (which is, of course, of infinite extent in the x,y and z directions) a distant point in the frame we have time defined as the same but different positions having the same T coordinate. Speed is really a function of the "time it takes to trip the semaphore" at each end of this inertial frame. These "trips" are not performed by photons but through matter wave interferences (moving a mirror). Light traversing the length of the interferometer takes time to reach the other end. The entangled photons enable contemporaneous events to register the matter wave interference changes "end to end" as fast as the process of "entanglement" which is technically infinitely fast.
You would understand that an interferometer "fed" with photons from one end would take time of propagation from one end to the other to register a change of position of a mirror at one end. In this "special interferometer" fed with entangled photons from the middle allows the polarization state to be modified "instantly" if the photons have both traveled the same distance and are entangled. If the state of one entangled photon at one end was in one polarization state the other would be collapsed to the other state... and visa versa. This effectively shifts a fringe instantly at both ends of the interferometer. The lack of this to occur infinitely fast and "perfectly synchronized" is really a function of accurately positioning the two end points in the system. The triggering end must first change for the "slave" end to show a change a finite distance further. This time for collapse defines the speed of communication. The additional "resolving" distance required defines the upper bounding speed.
You would understand that an interferometer "fed" with photons from one end would take time of propagation from one end to the other to register a change of position of a mirror at one end. In this "special interferometer" fed with entangled photons from the middle allows the polarization state to be modified "instantly" if the photons have both traveled the same distance and are entangled. If the state of one entangled photon at one end was in one polarization state the other would be collapsed to the other state... and visa versa. This effectively shifts a fringe instantly at both ends of the interferometer. The lack of this to occur infinitely fast and "perfectly synchronized" is really a function of accurately positioning the two end points in the system. The triggering end must first change for the "slave" end to show a change a finite distance further. This time for collapse defines the speed of communication. The additional "resolving" distance required defines the upper bounding speed.
QUOTE (bukh+)
....Allow me to copy-paste something from another thread from a few days ago:
-"namely that the subtle difference on boson - fermion, respectively, is the speed by which the wave-expression propagates over the pixel grid.... etc.
He he he... Your "pixel" descriptions are obviously "loaded" with layers of entertaining detail that are quite odd since because the "pixel" does not truly exist, none of these imaginary phenomena you describe are measurable. This is like Tolkien writing Lord of The Rings where we have languages (like the one I have "transliterated" at the bottom of my posts), entire cosmologies, different evolved beings all living and working together... economies and power structures but none of this has any visible existence.
Pixels are useful in computing "on screens" and there is a theory of finite element analysis which divides an object into small polygonal components in order to analyze the mechanical function of connected systems in great detail.
Wikipedia: Finite Element Method
Very useful. However these systems are only simple "models". Even Lord of the Rings work with vast arrays of wireframe models all being dynamically modified in their huge battle scenes, each individual "model" is acting as if it were an individual interacting with the other models around it in some New Zealand Landscape. Nobody could program these scenes without some "massive" automation, hence the name "Massive" (Multiple Agent Simulation System in Virtual Environment). The kiwi's managed to do this effectively and to compute these "trajectories" using a great bit of software which has been used many times since (to the glee of the New Zealand Economy).
Wikipedia: Massive (software)
All that being said and also reflecting on computer techniques using "pixels" and also wireframes which incorporate fuzzy logic and "physics", these actually do not exist. What I hope for in the future is the possibility that "our essences" may all one day go to "Silicon Heaven" based on massively parallel quantum computing housing this aspect of our basic "self awareness" (post mortem). This is still technically "some way off". For now though hopefully this universe is not a "pixelated universe" (... though I would never deny the existence of the "pixies" or "elves" obviously) but I must admit that there are features about our quantum reality and it's holographic and emergent nature that "suggest" it may very well be possible.
The Thirteenth Floor
However I really do not want to contemplate that line of thought too much. We actually have the scientific method where we have not only the theory but we have the experiment. Unfortunately you cannot refer to that most important part of this process... the experiment.
-"namely that the subtle difference on boson - fermion, respectively, is the speed by which the wave-expression propagates over the pixel grid.... etc.
He he he... Your "pixel" descriptions are obviously "loaded" with layers of entertaining detail that are quite odd since because the "pixel" does not truly exist, none of these imaginary phenomena you describe are measurable. This is like Tolkien writing Lord of The Rings where we have languages (like the one I have "transliterated" at the bottom of my posts), entire cosmologies, different evolved beings all living and working together... economies and power structures but none of this has any visible existence.
Pixels are useful in computing "on screens" and there is a theory of finite element analysis which divides an object into small polygonal components in order to analyze the mechanical function of connected systems in great detail.
Wikipedia: Finite Element Method
Very useful. However these systems are only simple "models". Even Lord of the Rings work with vast arrays of wireframe models all being dynamically modified in their huge battle scenes, each individual "model" is acting as if it were an individual interacting with the other models around it in some New Zealand Landscape. Nobody could program these scenes without some "massive" automation, hence the name "Massive" (Multiple Agent Simulation System in Virtual Environment). The kiwi's managed to do this effectively and to compute these "trajectories" using a great bit of software which has been used many times since (to the glee of the New Zealand Economy).
Wikipedia: Massive (software)
All that being said and also reflecting on computer techniques using "pixels" and also wireframes which incorporate fuzzy logic and "physics", these actually do not exist. What I hope for in the future is the possibility that "our essences" may all one day go to "Silicon Heaven" based on massively parallel quantum computing housing this aspect of our basic "self awareness" (post mortem). This is still technically "some way off". For now though hopefully this universe is not a "pixelated universe" (... though I would never deny the existence of the "pixies" or "elves" obviously) but I must admit that there are features about our quantum reality and it's holographic and emergent nature that "suggest" it may very well be possible.
The Thirteenth Floor
However I really do not want to contemplate that line of thought too much. We actually have the scientific method where we have not only the theory but we have the experiment. Unfortunately you cannot refer to that most important part of this process... the experiment.
QUOTE (bukh+)
Is it wrong to say that Berry Phase is a nice reflection of the fact that bosonic expressions show a bended trajectory - always - and extreme - or NEARLY straight trajectories are expressing the biggest we can see or that we harbour in our universe (perceptible part of universe)
or put differently - c is expressing the speed of a bended trajectory.
or put differently - c is expressing the speed of a bended trajectory.
Berry Phase is not about "blending trajectories" as far as I understand by this statement and the meaning of the word "blending". You may be referring to the classical limit of quantum processes? Berry Phase is a very predictable classical process called parallel transport. Think of a "die"... a single "dice". It has six sides marked with spots one to six on various sides (I do not know which... but there is a strict order). A cube has three orthogonal axes (x, y, z)... I'll call them 1, 2, 3. The rotation of that "dice" about three orthogonal axes marked 1, 2 , 3... If I rotate that dice around those axes in turn by 90 degrees in the order 1, 2 ,3 this is different to rotating it through the axes 3, 2, 1 or 2, 3, 1 or 1, 3, 2. It gets a lot worse for Rubik's Cube. What turns up on top is "path dependent". The rotations do not commute. What I mean is three planar linear vectors summed on a piece of graph paper "always commute" no matter the order of addition. This is just an ordinary dice no hyperspatial object. Other similar phenomena occur in nature. Qubits are subject to this type of phenomenon as well. Photons (bosons) and electrons and protons (fermions) as well as all other quantum objects are similarly like this in some way.
Cheers
What turns up on top is "path dependent". The rotations do not commute. What I mean is three planar linear vectors summed on a piece of graph paper "always commute" no matter the order of addition. This is just an ordinary dice no hyperspatial object. Other similar phenomena occur in nature. Qubits are subject to this type of phenomenon as well. Photons (bosons) and electrons and protons (fermions) as well as all other quantum objects are similarly like this in some way.Cheers
There is no such thing as time. I mean from the other point of view.
QUOTE (woodroyd+Sep 22 2008, 04:46 PM)
Can anyone enlighten me, is there a mathematical definition of time itself.
We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.
I have not read all the answers since this question has been posed. There are, however, three comments I would like to make:
1. Time is change: If nothing changes there cannot be time. Thus time cannot exist at equilibrium. Only when a system is disturbed from equilibrium (for example a pendulum) can time be measured. Thus before the Big Bang everything must have been in equilibrium. The Big Bang disturbed this and we are now on journey back to equilibrium as it was before the Big Bang.
2. Time is a fourth dimension: Thus when it is perpendicular to the three space dimensions NOTHING can change because any space-derivative with time will be zero. Thus at the Big Bang space-time became curved so that time-derivatives will not be zero within our Universe (except at the event horizons of black holes). When time eventually ends in our Universe, our Universe would have unfurled to merge with an infinite four-dimensional Euclidean space within which time derivatives will be zero: Nothing will change anymore. We will be back "before" the Big bang.
3. Time manifests as a change in entropy. What was the entropy of the Universe before the Big Bang? Must have been zero. So we must be on our way back to zero entropy.
We talk of time beginning with the big bang, to understand the nature of time would help me to understand what it is to be beyond time itself, to picture the universe without time, before the beginning. thanks.
I have not read all the answers since this question has been posed. There are, however, three comments I would like to make:
1. Time is change: If nothing changes there cannot be time. Thus time cannot exist at equilibrium. Only when a system is disturbed from equilibrium (for example a pendulum) can time be measured. Thus before the Big Bang everything must have been in equilibrium. The Big Bang disturbed this and we are now on journey back to equilibrium as it was before the Big Bang.
2. Time is a fourth dimension: Thus when it is perpendicular to the three space dimensions NOTHING can change because any space-derivative with time will be zero. Thus at the Big Bang space-time became curved so that time-derivatives will not be zero within our Universe (except at the event horizons of black holes). When time eventually ends in our Universe, our Universe would have unfurled to merge with an infinite four-dimensional Euclidean space within which time derivatives will be zero: Nothing will change anymore. We will be back "before" the Big bang.
3. Time manifests as a change in entropy. What was the entropy of the Universe before the Big Bang? Must have been zero. So we must be on our way back to zero entropy.
Johanfprins
Your comments on Time is much in line with the ideas of the 3D Pixel Universe
1) Yes time is a derived function - gowerned by change - and time is discrete in that change require discreteness. And then I like to distict between objective and sucjective time, respectively, in that objective time is the ordering system of changes in universe - and subjective time is dependant on observer - and as sucg subjective time will always be "delayed" compared to objective and the smallest time incremet in subjective time will always be "longer" than in objective - because it takes a certain complexity to be perceoted - it atkes a certain complexity to be "big" enough to be interfered with by the observer.
2) I like to think that the origin of physical universe (not BB - which best can be defined as the origin of the universe perceptable by humans) - the true origin of universe is the "Unfolding" - when space as a dimension segregates into more than one dimension - the origin of physical starts the moment that more dimensions can arrange and re-arrange themselves in dynamically different expressions - they can expres change.
3) With the segregation into more and more dimensions - which is the same as the segregation into more and more ratios of space - it is possible to express more and more complex dimensional arrangements in space - complexity - or entropy increases. As complexity increases - it is at the same time possible to achieve a better and better fit of the dimensions- and the misfit is the gradient for changes - so when the fit eventually is idealy even all over space there is no gradient to drive changes - motion ceases and space ends up in a new motionsless unit One - and the cyclus can start again.
Your comments on Time is much in line with the ideas of the 3D Pixel Universe
1) Yes time is a derived function - gowerned by change - and time is discrete in that change require discreteness. And then I like to distict between objective and sucjective time, respectively, in that objective time is the ordering system of changes in universe - and subjective time is dependant on observer - and as sucg subjective time will always be "delayed" compared to objective and the smallest time incremet in subjective time will always be "longer" than in objective - because it takes a certain complexity to be perceoted - it atkes a certain complexity to be "big" enough to be interfered with by the observer.
2) I like to think that the origin of physical universe (not BB - which best can be defined as the origin of the universe perceptable by humans) - the true origin of universe is the "Unfolding" - when space as a dimension segregates into more than one dimension - the origin of physical starts the moment that more dimensions can arrange and re-arrange themselves in dynamically different expressions - they can expres change.
3) With the segregation into more and more dimensions - which is the same as the segregation into more and more ratios of space - it is possible to express more and more complex dimensional arrangements in space - complexity - or entropy increases. As complexity increases - it is at the same time possible to achieve a better and better fit of the dimensions- and the misfit is the gradient for changes - so when the fit eventually is idealy even all over space there is no gradient to drive changes - motion ceases and space ends up in a new motionsless unit One - and the cyclus can start again.
Good Elf
QUOTE: "Berry Phase is not about "blending trajectories" "
Not blending - bending
So if you re-consider or perhaps consider: what IS the fundamental about particle - you may end up with something that has a certain kind of lastingness - a certain kind of repetitive nature - and repetion must be a kind of bending trajectories if we are dealing with geometric issues - or ??
QUOTE: "The entangled photons enable contemporaneous events to register the matter wave interference changes "end to end" as fast as the process of "entanglement" which is technically infinitely fast."
What is meant by: "process of entanglement which is TECHNICALLY infinitely fast" ?
I understand that you are not in favour of involving anything that is not REAL - real in the sense that it must be perceptable by human senses and human apparatus's - real in the sense that it can be measured - investigated in a REAL EXPERIMENT. Right ?
Viewed on these premises I would be reluctant to buy your statement "Technically infinitely fast" - because you cannot have knowledge about underlying Time-factors. BTW what IS your definition of Time ??
I appreciate Your humoristic attitude to my Pixels - and I admire your conviction that electron or whatever which can be measured (measurement equivalent to something that interfere with human scale) is REAL - what about a Photon - is photon Real ?
And this must necessarily implicate that there is nothing smaller than what can be measured - that can be interfered with by human scale (notice - I am not saying what IS the smallest in human scale - just saying that it must be interferable) - and I gladly accept that this is one way of defining reality - not that I am in agreement. But as long as definitions are clear - no problem. Personally I am not happy to accept that smallest defined this way is a satisfactory insigt in physical universe.
QUOTE: "Berry Phase is not about "blending trajectories" "
Not blending - bending
So if you re-consider or perhaps consider: what IS the fundamental about particle - you may end up with something that has a certain kind of lastingness - a certain kind of repetitive nature - and repetion must be a kind of bending trajectories if we are dealing with geometric issues - or ??
QUOTE: "The entangled photons enable contemporaneous events to register the matter wave interference changes "end to end" as fast as the process of "entanglement" which is technically infinitely fast."
What is meant by: "process of entanglement which is TECHNICALLY infinitely fast" ?
I understand that you are not in favour of involving anything that is not REAL - real in the sense that it must be perceptable by human senses and human apparatus's - real in the sense that it can be measured - investigated in a REAL EXPERIMENT. Right ?
Viewed on these premises I would be reluctant to buy your statement "Technically infinitely fast" - because you cannot have knowledge about underlying Time-factors. BTW what IS your definition of Time ??
I appreciate Your humoristic attitude to my Pixels - and I admire your conviction that electron or whatever which can be measured (measurement equivalent to something that interfere with human scale) is REAL - what about a Photon - is photon Real ?
And this must necessarily implicate that there is nothing smaller than what can be measured - that can be interfered with by human scale (notice - I am not saying what IS the smallest in human scale - just saying that it must be interferable) - and I gladly accept that this is one way of defining reality - not that I am in agreement. But as long as definitions are clear - no problem. Personally I am not happy to accept that smallest defined this way is a satisfactory insigt in physical universe.
Hi bukh, johanfprins, Janus, wcelliott, yor_on, rethinker, fairy, dimazin, Firtharn, woodroyd, Ron, TheUnknownUniverse, TracerTong, eyeque, Neuralize et al,
QUOTE (bukh+)
QUOTE: "Berry Phase is not about "blending trajectories" "
Not blending - bending
Not blending - bending
Ouch!... You got me there... Right!... "bending trajectories!" .... Well sort of... But what it is saying is not an "action", that is the meaning of Gauge Invariance.
Wikipedia:Gauge theory
The photon has "attributes" of spreading, executing Berry Phase, rotating, moving, "being" in an eigenstate and many other "properties". Until the wave collapses these apparent "actions" are actually "non-actions" like some kind of distortion in a mirror or some geometric property of the system. In the end it is that single point or speck on the screen or the click in a sensor that is actually recorded... and that is "always" in the near field. These influences are not merely "reversible" they represent "nothing happening at all" it is an "artifact" of the way we try to view these entities. It is a "gift" of spacetime. If everything is "ultimately" composed of photons in standing wave eigenstates then in theory there should be no time and no space because all photons in quantum states are on some kind of null geodesic locked in that "resonance" endlessly (... for example electrons and other quantum particles with mass). What really happens is these "internal photon" standing waves which are propagating in Minkowski Spacetime (a flatspace) are eigenstates... stationary states in time whose "properties" can only be determined as they "shift" from one eigenstate to the next "in time"... They result in nearfield phenomena in which spacetime is curved (at least relative to the way we are measuring stuff). That curvature "is literally" mass and mass also has time as it's consequence since mass and force are related and force is mass times acceleration...
F = ma = m(∂²x/∂t²)
... which involves time and of course "space".
Just remind you of one of my core concepts... The photon has it's own "special inertial frame" in which it experiences no time and no space because it "travels at a velocity" of C... executing the null geodesic... the null geodesic is of zero length and zero time connection (in a hypothetical rest frame of the photon). In it's "rest frame" it is traveling at zero velocity and taking no time to do it. That is the speed of light in the rest frame of light which is the nearfield... the speed of light is "instantaneous". This is the "connection" in our Universe for "force"... light is the force carrier (exchange force) in the Universe, it is a quantum but I disagree with the concept it is a tiny idealized "point particle". Every "visible" point in the Universe is connected "instantly" in the photons frame as if "touching" in the photon's sphere of influence. What is not part of this scheme (unseen) is entirely covered by gravity which has the ability to pass through any and all barriers other than "black holes". Every mass source in the universe is unattenuated by any barrier but does undergo "dispersion" in materials in which the speed of light varies.
The photon experiences the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. This is also a Gauge Invariant process such that "nothing is actually happening" in the one frame of the moving "particle", but everything "in the far field" will be capable of measuring this phenomenon and we call it Special Relativity. matter particle also suffer this influence ... if influence is the right word. The influence is "between the frames" not "in the frames". The photon's null geodesic is simply the limiting case of a high speed particle (in the far field) as the relative velocity V -> C. I have already mentioned the problem of nearfield Special Relativistic influences in the references above. This means in terms of "experience" there is none for the photon between source and sink... if no real time is passing then no dynamics or process in which an energy exchange can happen to it can occur because absolutely all transfers of energy takes some time.... the Lagrangian Principle defines what is "inside" and what is "outside" our realm of "measurement"(perhaps defining the dimensions themselves). This is the basic essence of a quantum. This time passage can only occur in the near field (evanescent field) in which the photon moves from it's "timeless" state into an "action" state where time is executing. We see this as "currents", moving charges, changing magnetic fluxes... all in all the realm of the "virtual photon". While we measure these measurables we usually take for granted we are in the process of observing "near field" phenomena where the "photon" remains attached to the source (or sink) inductively. In this case time and energy processes are actually executing, observe "forces" on wires carrying current and so forth.
Virtual Photons
This is actually in the "rest frame" of a photon in my interpretation of this effect, this is the laboratory frame and it is sometimes extended to points near and far depending on the kind of exchange. This is one of the fundamental problems of measuring wave properties without involving the "particle properties" which must only be measured in the near field.
Everything else I said was basically correct except for my "myopia". Sincerest apologies.
.... Well sort of... But what it is saying is not an "action", that is the meaning of Gauge Invariance.Wikipedia:Gauge theory
The photon has "attributes" of spreading, executing Berry Phase, rotating, moving, "being" in an eigenstate and many other "properties". Until the wave collapses these apparent "actions" are actually "non-actions" like some kind of distortion in a mirror or some geometric property of the system. In the end it is that single point or speck on the screen or the click in a sensor that is actually recorded... and that is "always" in the near field. These influences are not merely "reversible" they represent "nothing happening at all" it is an "artifact" of the way we try to view these entities. It is a "gift" of spacetime. If everything is "ultimately" composed of photons in standing wave eigenstates then in theory there should be no time and no space because all photons in quantum states are on some kind of null geodesic locked in that "resonance" endlessly (... for example electrons and other quantum particles with mass). What really happens is these "internal photon" standing waves which are propagating in Minkowski Spacetime (a flatspace) are eigenstates... stationary states in time whose "properties" can only be determined as they "shift" from one eigenstate to the next "in time"... They result in nearfield phenomena in which spacetime is curved (at least relative to the way we are measuring stuff). That curvature "is literally" mass and mass also has time as it's consequence since mass and force are related and force is mass times acceleration...
F = ma = m(∂²x/∂t²)
... which involves time and of course "space".
Just remind you of one of my core concepts... The photon has it's own "special inertial frame" in which it experiences no time and no space because it "travels at a velocity" of C... executing the null geodesic... the null geodesic is of zero length and zero time connection (in a hypothetical rest frame of the photon). In it's "rest frame" it is traveling at zero velocity and taking no time to do it. That is the speed of light in the rest frame of light which is the nearfield... the speed of light is "instantaneous". This is the "connection" in our Universe for "force"... light is the force carrier (exchange force) in the Universe, it is a quantum but I disagree with the concept it is a tiny idealized "point particle". Every "visible" point in the Universe is connected "instantly" in the photons frame as if "touching" in the photon's sphere of influence. What is not part of this scheme (unseen) is entirely covered by gravity which has the ability to pass through any and all barriers other than "black holes". Every mass source in the universe is unattenuated by any barrier but does undergo "dispersion" in materials in which the speed of light varies.
The photon experiences the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. This is also a Gauge Invariant process such that "nothing is actually happening" in the one frame of the moving "particle", but everything "in the far field" will be capable of measuring this phenomenon and we call it Special Relativity. matter particle also suffer this influence ... if influence is the right word. The influence is "between the frames" not "in the frames". The photon's null geodesic is simply the limiting case of a high speed particle (in the far field) as the relative velocity V -> C. I have already mentioned the problem of nearfield Special Relativistic influences in the references above. This means in terms of "experience" there is none for the photon between source and sink... if no real time is passing then no dynamics or process in which an energy exchange can happen to it can occur because absolutely all transfers of energy takes some time.... the Lagrangian Principle defines what is "inside" and what is "outside" our realm of "measurement"(perhaps defining the dimensions themselves). This is the basic essence of a quantum. This time passage can only occur in the near field (evanescent field) in which the photon moves from it's "timeless" state into an "action" state where time is executing. We see this as "currents", moving charges, changing magnetic fluxes... all in all the realm of the "virtual photon". While we measure these measurables we usually take for granted we are in the process of observing "near field" phenomena where the "photon" remains attached to the source (or sink) inductively. In this case time and energy processes are actually executing, observe "forces" on wires carrying current and so forth.
Virtual Photons
This is actually in the "rest frame" of a photon in my interpretation of this effect, this is the laboratory frame and it is sometimes extended to points near and far depending on the kind of exchange. This is one of the fundamental problems of measuring wave properties without involving the "particle properties" which must only be measured in the near field.
Everything else I said was basically correct except for my "myopia". Sincerest apologies.
QUOTE (bukh+)
Viewed on these premises I would be reluctant to buy your statement "Technically infinitely fast" - because you cannot have knowledge about underlying Time-factors. BTW what IS your definition of Time ??
It is the same one everyone has. We use time in Physics and we try not to "define" it absolutely since any absolute knowledge is subject to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems.
Wikipedia: Gödel's incompleteness theorems
I keep hammering this point to emphasize that man's ceaseless search for "ultimate" knowledge is futile. This is a good thing since our tasks are mapped out for us "forever" in an endless quest for a "Grail". We need to be less pedantic and realize our ultimate limitations. You build accurate clocks and you synchronize them in the one inertial frame of reference. You synchronize using the Einstein method of exchanging light signals in the one frame. That sets up a set of points in the frame you can work with and if you do it properly using accurate clocks this process may be used in timing these events. Physics is not about "mathematics". Physics is about how the Universe works and it is an experimental Science not an abstract "philosophy". Mathematics is what "we" do to try and express Physics, the Universe does all this "spontaneously" without any calculation or "reflective contemplation" or "mind".
A little "reflection" on all these matters will indicate that "everything" is part of a single expression of a one very simple principle related to that "Gauge Invariance" above... Special Relativity, mass, Gravity, forces, quantum theory etc... all are one principle... though the mathematics can complicate things somewhat. That is the price we pay for "understanding". However just remember this is only the beginnings of knowledge... not it's ends.
Wikipedia: Gödel's incompleteness theorems
I keep hammering this point to emphasize that man's ceaseless search for "ultimate" knowledge is futile. This is a good thing since our tasks are mapped out for us "forever" in an endless quest for a "Grail". We need to be less pedantic and realize our ultimate limitations. You build accurate clocks and you synchronize them in the one inertial frame of reference. You synchronize using the Einstein method of exchanging light signals in the one frame. That sets up a set of points in the frame you can work with and if you do it properly using accurate clocks this process may be used in timing these events. Physics is not about "mathematics". Physics is about how the Universe works and it is an experimental Science not an abstract "philosophy". Mathematics is what "we" do to try and express Physics, the Universe does all this "spontaneously" without any calculation or "reflective contemplation" or "mind".
A little "reflection" on all these matters will indicate that "everything" is part of a single expression of a one very simple principle related to that "Gauge Invariance" above... Special Relativity, mass, Gravity, forces, quantum theory etc... all are one principle... though the mathematics can complicate things somewhat. That is the price we pay for "understanding". However just remember this is only the beginnings of knowledge... not it's ends.
QUOTE (Sir Isaac Newton+)
“I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore,
and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother
pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean
of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
- Sir Isaac Newton
1642-1727, British Scientist, Mathematician
Cheers
PS:
and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother
pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean
of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”
- Sir Isaac Newton
1642-1727, British Scientist, Mathematician
Cheers
PS:
QUOTE (bukh+)
what about a Photon - is photon Real ?
If you are real, if matter is real, if matter is composed only of photons then you can conclude what you like about that relationship. If you want "real" to be something other than what the Universe intended it to be then... No... If you let the Universe "tell her story" then it is a "real story" and "she" (Gaea) wants us to narrate it for "her". For me "she" is as real as we are. You might think we are made of "flesh and bones" but ultimately we are made of the stuff you question as being "real". I am only a Physicist and an experimental one at that... no more. "Oh lord don't ask no questions... there ain't no answers in me!"
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 21 2008, 06:49 PM)
Johanfprins
Your comments on Time is much in line with the ideas of the 3D Pixel Universe
We are approaching the same problem from different sides: I do not believe in a pixel Universe or that time and/or space is discreet. This is only true for computer games: i.e. virtual reality.
I believe space-time and matter consist of continuous fields: The discreteness of quantum mechanics relates the allowed harmonic vibrations which manifest in our Universe. In other words a "free" electron is not a particle but a localized wave; which is kept localized by the boundary conditions which underpin space-time. Its mass is thus the ground-state solution of a time-independent wave-equation (solved within its inertial reference frame) as limited by space-time. A muon is thus an excited state of an electron etc. This immediately brings general relativity seamlessly into account. Dirac's equation cannot model a stationary electron since such an electron must move at a high speed relative to the reference frame within which Dirac's equation is valid! To have a localized wave an electron has to be bound so that it is stationary within a reference frame: Its own inertial reference frame. Bohr's principle of complementarity has muddied the water for over 80 years.
It is for me difficult to believe that our Universe started off with zero entropy. Why would the entropy then increase; unless heat is flowing in from a higher temperature outside the Universe!
Your comments on Time is much in line with the ideas of the 3D Pixel Universe
We are approaching the same problem from different sides: I do not believe in a pixel Universe or that time and/or space is discreet. This is only true for computer games: i.e. virtual reality.
I believe space-time and matter consist of continuous fields: The discreteness of quantum mechanics relates the allowed harmonic vibrations which manifest in our Universe. In other words a "free" electron is not a particle but a localized wave; which is kept localized by the boundary conditions which underpin space-time. Its mass is thus the ground-state solution of a time-independent wave-equation (solved within its inertial reference frame) as limited by space-time. A muon is thus an excited state of an electron etc. This immediately brings general relativity seamlessly into account. Dirac's equation cannot model a stationary electron since such an electron must move at a high speed relative to the reference frame within which Dirac's equation is valid! To have a localized wave an electron has to be bound so that it is stationary within a reference frame: Its own inertial reference frame. Bohr's principle of complementarity has muddied the water for over 80 years.
It is for me difficult to believe that our Universe started off with zero entropy. Why would the entropy then increase; unless heat is flowing in from a higher temperature outside the Universe!
Good Elf
QUOTE: "The photon has "attributes" of spreading, executing Berry Phase, rotating, moving, "being" in an eigenstate and many other "properties". Until the wave collapses these apparent "actions" are actually "non-actions" like some kind of distortion in a mirror or some geometric property of the system. In the end it is that single point or speck on the screen or the click in a sensor that is actually recorded... and that is "always" in the near field. These influences are not merely "reversible" they represent "nothing happening at all" it is an "artifact" of the way we try to view these entities. It is a "gift" of spacetime. If everything is "ultimately" composed of photons in standing wave eigenstates then in theory there should be no time and no space because all photons in quantum states are on some kind of null geodesic locked in that "resonance" endlessly (... for example electrons and other quantum particles with mass). What really happens is these "internal photon" standing waves which are propagating in Minkowski Spacetime (a flatspace) are eigenstates... stationary states in time whose "properties" can only be determined as they "shift" from one eigenstate to the next "in time"... They result in nearfield phenomena in which spacetime is curved (at least relative to the way we are measuring stuff). That curvature "is literally" mass and mass also has time as it's consequence since mass and force are related and force is mass times acceleration..."
Reading the above is very very close to reading how the 3D Pixel Universe operates - I am not
sure that I am able to explain this in an understable form - anyhow - I will try
QUOTE: "Until the wave collapses these apparent "actions" are actually "non-actions" like some kind of distortion in a mirror or some geometric property of the system."
This is close to saying that "non-observed" is not into existance - and I would be more happy to say that there is a lot of actions - non-commutative actions - with the quanta - with the gauge boson - that is equivalent to Photon in human scale - and likewise equivalent with "smaller quanta" in lower scales (deeper Russian Dolls) - and everything is according to Lagrangian invariance. The essential question is how symmetri is being calculated - is it continuous or discrete - and I like to think that it is utimately discrete - but really - that is close to looking for the origin of the origin - if you can follow me on this thinking path.
And naturally I am happy to know that you also see Berry Phase as a kind of bended trajectory - because this property is essential in the understanding of the 3D Pixel Universe - and I trust that you still can follow my thinking path.
QUOTE: " In the end it is that single point or speck on the screen or the click in a sensor that is actually recorded... and that is "always" in the near field. These influences are not merely "reversible" they represent "nothing happening at all" it is an "artifact" of the way we try to view these entities. It is a "gift" of spacetime."
I would like to rephrase this slightly in the direction that all that "happens" in spacetime - everything that we see as our physical universe - is a mere reflection of the system (universe) percepting the system (universe) - and what you refer to as artifact is the interference - that one part of the system interferes with another - and this another part is the observer. Our - read human - perception of universe is always dealyed as compared to the dynamic of universe. We are dealing with the distinction between objective time and subjective time. When we are talking about "collapse of wave front" - or "observer-destroying wavefronts" - it has NOTHING to do with the fact that observer can influence space-time - space-time is happily persuing its dynamic life - ever changing expressions - or flux's - and the only thing we can do is to observe - is to sample what I like to call "interference events" - to memorize and retrieve such interference events - and that is what we "see" as reality - And when we think that observation causes collapses - it is more correct to say that once we have made a specific interference - we cannot repeat exactly the same interference - because objective time is passing - we cannot make the same two samples in a floating river.
When you say "a gift of spacetime" - you refer to the fact that we humans can use our "antenna" mainly in the form of our software - the brain and our physical senses - but also in form of hardware like all our instruments - and extract our reality out from space time. The latter part is what you like to refer to as real - whilst I like to include both software and hardware perceptions in our real world. Actually human being is performing much more "experiments" using the brain - than using instrumenst
QUOTE: "If everything is "ultimately" composed of photons in standing wave eigenstates then in theory there should be no time and no space"
Well - according to your limited way of looking at physical - only including "visible" expressions "objects" - you are right - but you know that I insist that we look deeper and include more. So already having said "standing wave eigenstate" you have said spaceTIME - where time is referring to objective time. But you have not said subjective time - and you have decided or choosen to denote the existance of objective time - you are still bound to think or to limit yourself to observer-related reality. Anyhow it is a minor detail - and will not disturb the fact that you are still explaining the 3D Pixel Universe neatly
Our reality - human real world IS this nearfield interferences - where the bended trajectories of bosonic activity is being translated into interferences with our percepting mind and instruments - it is that stupidly simple.
Like you nicely put it: "That curvature "is literally" mass and mass also has time as it's consequence since mass and force are related and force is mass times acceleration..."
I have described it like: - MASS is being the dynamic pattern of motion on the grid of the wave-expressions - how their trajectories are more or less circular in the FRAME OF OBSERVATION - very very important to define frame accuarately - and physical universe is being defined and viewed in the 3D Pixel Grid frame. And time - subjective time - the time that is connected with our physical world - that kind of time IS a derived function of such mass - because mass is what we as humans can use as our reference when we are trying to define a cnange - it is so stupidly simple once we understand to differentialte between objective time and subjective time, respectively.
Try to see the 3D Pixel Universe as a useful way of picturelizing - of understanding how we humans can handle physical universe in our mind. It is a much much simpler model than any other model hitherto brought forward. And it is a "Shape-model" that offer "Flesh and Blood" to the Gauge Theory - it is Lagrangian invariant - it has a well defined gauge field - and well defined quanta (from the smallest - as small as one want) it is non-commutative and instead of talking about symmetry group U(1)Å~SU(2)Å~SU(3) it is operating via ratios of space as the symmetri group.
What is real - is a philosophical discussion - we could also start discussing what good taste is.
QUOTE: "The photon has "attributes" of spreading, executing Berry Phase, rotating, moving, "being" in an eigenstate and many other "properties". Until the wave collapses these apparent "actions" are actually "non-actions" like some kind of distortion in a mirror or some geometric property of the system. In the end it is that single point or speck on the screen or the click in a sensor that is actually recorded... and that is "always" in the near field. These influences are not merely "reversible" they represent "nothing happening at all" it is an "artifact" of the way we try to view these entities. It is a "gift" of spacetime. If everything is "ultimately" composed of photons in standing wave eigenstates then in theory there should be no time and no space because all photons in quantum states are on some kind of null geodesic locked in that "resonance" endlessly (... for example electrons and other quantum particles with mass). What really happens is these "internal photon" standing waves which are propagating in Minkowski Spacetime (a flatspace) are eigenstates... stationary states in time whose "properties" can only be determined as they "shift" from one eigenstate to the next "in time"... They result in nearfield phenomena in which spacetime is curved (at least relative to the way we are measuring stuff). That curvature "is literally" mass and mass also has time as it's consequence since mass and force are related and force is mass times acceleration..."
Reading the above is very very close to reading how the 3D Pixel Universe operates - I am not
sure that I am able to explain this in an understable form - anyhow - I will try
QUOTE: "Until the wave collapses these apparent "actions" are actually "non-actions" like some kind of distortion in a mirror or some geometric property of the system."
This is close to saying that "non-observed" is not into existance - and I would be more happy to say that there is a lot of actions - non-commutative actions - with the quanta - with the gauge boson - that is equivalent to Photon in human scale - and likewise equivalent with "smaller quanta" in lower scales (deeper Russian Dolls) - and everything is according to Lagrangian invariance. The essential question is how symmetri is being calculated - is it continuous or discrete - and I like to think that it is utimately discrete - but really - that is close to looking for the origin of the origin - if you can follow me on this thinking path.
And naturally I am happy to know that you also see Berry Phase as a kind of bended trajectory - because this property is essential in the understanding of the 3D Pixel Universe - and I trust that you still can follow my thinking path.
QUOTE: " In the end it is that single point or speck on the screen or the click in a sensor that is actually recorded... and that is "always" in the near field. These influences are not merely "reversible" they represent "nothing happening at all" it is an "artifact" of the way we try to view these entities. It is a "gift" of spacetime."
I would like to rephrase this slightly in the direction that all that "happens" in spacetime - everything that we see as our physical universe - is a mere reflection of the system (universe) percepting the system (universe) - and what you refer to as artifact is the interference - that one part of the system interferes with another - and this another part is the observer. Our - read human - perception of universe is always dealyed as compared to the dynamic of universe. We are dealing with the distinction between objective time and subjective time. When we are talking about "collapse of wave front" - or "observer-destroying wavefronts" - it has NOTHING to do with the fact that observer can influence space-time - space-time is happily persuing its dynamic life - ever changing expressions - or flux's - and the only thing we can do is to observe - is to sample what I like to call "interference events" - to memorize and retrieve such interference events - and that is what we "see" as reality - And when we think that observation causes collapses - it is more correct to say that once we have made a specific interference - we cannot repeat exactly the same interference - because objective time is passing - we cannot make the same two samples in a floating river.
When you say "a gift of spacetime" - you refer to the fact that we humans can use our "antenna" mainly in the form of our software - the brain and our physical senses - but also in form of hardware like all our instruments - and extract our reality out from space time. The latter part is what you like to refer to as real - whilst I like to include both software and hardware perceptions in our real world. Actually human being is performing much more "experiments" using the brain - than using instrumenst
QUOTE: "If everything is "ultimately" composed of photons in standing wave eigenstates then in theory there should be no time and no space"
Well - according to your limited way of looking at physical - only including "visible" expressions "objects" - you are right - but you know that I insist that we look deeper and include more. So already having said "standing wave eigenstate" you have said spaceTIME - where time is referring to objective time. But you have not said subjective time - and you have decided or choosen to denote the existance of objective time - you are still bound to think or to limit yourself to observer-related reality. Anyhow it is a minor detail - and will not disturb the fact that you are still explaining the 3D Pixel Universe neatly
Our reality - human real world IS this nearfield interferences - where the bended trajectories of bosonic activity is being translated into interferences with our percepting mind and instruments - it is that stupidly simple.
Like you nicely put it: "That curvature "is literally" mass and mass also has time as it's consequence since mass and force are related and force is mass times acceleration..."
I have described it like: - MASS is being the dynamic pattern of motion on the grid of the wave-expressions - how their trajectories are more or less circular in the FRAME OF OBSERVATION - very very important to define frame accuarately - and physical universe is being defined and viewed in the 3D Pixel Grid frame. And time - subjective time - the time that is connected with our physical world - that kind of time IS a derived function of such mass - because mass is what we as humans can use as our reference when we are trying to define a cnange - it is so stupidly simple once we understand to differentialte between objective time and subjective time, respectively.
Try to see the 3D Pixel Universe as a useful way of picturelizing - of understanding how we humans can handle physical universe in our mind. It is a much much simpler model than any other model hitherto brought forward. And it is a "Shape-model" that offer "Flesh and Blood" to the Gauge Theory - it is Lagrangian invariant - it has a well defined gauge field - and well defined quanta (from the smallest - as small as one want) it is non-commutative and instead of talking about symmetry group U(1)Å~SU(2)Å~SU(3) it is operating via ratios of space as the symmetri group.
What is real - is a philosophical discussion - we could also start discussing what good taste is.
johanfprins
Yes - the water has been muddied for many years.
In another thread "Physics General - infinity --" we are having alike discussion about discreteness - and of course you are right in stating that: "a free electron is not a particle but a localized wave; which is kept localized by the boundary conditions which underpin space-time."
For the time being it is not important to me to get insight in the origin of the origin - I am happy to get my own understanding in how physical Universe best can be invisaged by my mind. And to this I need to get a structure in order to be able to visualize - and to me the structure best can be described as scalewise arrangements - from the smallest, and discretely into bigger and bigger qubits.
Now - what IS the smallest -
Is it possible to translate dimensionless points into a geometric dimension - into something that has a "body" ?
Is it possible to construct a dimension without having a dimension at hand -
How do we define an ordinate out from dimensionlessness -
And as per now I have decided not to care about the origin of the origin - meaning not to care about how dimension comes at hand
I have choosen the more simple solution - and required dimension to be - that dimension is an axiomatic requirement in order to be able to come up with a model about physical world.
And it is not unlikely that a deeper insight eventually will get us to understand how dimension can be construed out from continuous - but I see no way at the moment.
QUOTE: "To have a localized wave an electron has to be bound so that it is stationary within a reference frame".
If I read you correctly - this is exactly what the 3D Pixel Universe is about - and the refernce frame of physical world (human scale) is the 3D Pixel Grid.
A pixel is not into existance as such - taken to the extreme: "potential cannot be into existance and kinetis IS not into existanse - so what is into existance" ?? -
It is all about scales and frames of references - YES.
Yes - the water has been muddied for many years.
In another thread "Physics General - infinity --" we are having alike discussion about discreteness - and of course you are right in stating that: "a free electron is not a particle but a localized wave; which is kept localized by the boundary conditions which underpin space-time."
For the time being it is not important to me to get insight in the origin of the origin - I am happy to get my own understanding in how physical Universe best can be invisaged by my mind. And to this I need to get a structure in order to be able to visualize - and to me the structure best can be described as scalewise arrangements - from the smallest, and discretely into bigger and bigger qubits.
Now - what IS the smallest -
Is it possible to translate dimensionless points into a geometric dimension - into something that has a "body" ?
Is it possible to construct a dimension without having a dimension at hand -
How do we define an ordinate out from dimensionlessness -
And as per now I have decided not to care about the origin of the origin - meaning not to care about how dimension comes at hand
I have choosen the more simple solution - and required dimension to be - that dimension is an axiomatic requirement in order to be able to come up with a model about physical world.
And it is not unlikely that a deeper insight eventually will get us to understand how dimension can be construed out from continuous - but I see no way at the moment.
QUOTE: "To have a localized wave an electron has to be bound so that it is stationary within a reference frame".
If I read you correctly - this is exactly what the 3D Pixel Universe is about - and the refernce frame of physical world (human scale) is the 3D Pixel Grid.
A pixel is not into existance as such - taken to the extreme: "potential cannot be into existance and kinetis IS not into existanse - so what is into existance" ?? -
It is all about scales and frames of references - YES.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 22 2008, 09:12 AM)
Now - what IS the smallest -
Is it possible to translate dimensionless points into a geometric dimension - into something that has a "body" ?
Is it possible to construct a dimension without having a dimension at hand -
How do we define an ordinate out from dimensionlessness -
And as per now I have decided not to care about the origin of
It is all about scales and frames of references - YES.
Very interesting viewpoints you have raised. They are too many to treat in detail in this forum. I have thus quoted some of them and will attempt, in my own way (which is most probably incorrect) to convey my "insights". Since my insights are contrary to quantum-field theory, I could not get them published anywhere yet.
To give a quick summary:
I believe that "our" Universe has formed within an infinite Euclidean four-dimensional continuous space which has existed always because time does not manifest within such a space: There are no boundaries within such a space and since the fourth dimension is perpendicular to the other three dimensions time does not exist. By reducing the picture by an dimension one can consider the primordial universe as an infinite water surface through which waves move in opposite directions thus canceling each other so that there is no movement observable and thus no change which can manifest as time. When however pushing a stick into the water, one changes the boundary conditions and movement suddenly becomes evident. Time initiates; energy is born and a new existence is created around the stick since ity changed the boundary conditions. The smallest entity is defined by these boundary conditions which are not a four-dimensional Euclidean space everywhere anymore. Space itself is still continuous and the smallest entities are still continuous waves which are kept localized by the boundary conditions which came into play during the Big Bang.
So the four dimensions have not been "constructed" at the Big Bang but became distorted in order to manifest as our Universe. Matter an anti-matter probably segregated over the fourth space dimension. Although they cannot recombine they do experience each other through their charge. A free electron could thus be a three-dimensional wave which is localized by "vibrating" within the field of a positive charge situated over the fourth dimension. The mass of the electron is the energy caused by this interaction. Since a single free electron is actually a dipole over the fourth dimension, it does not have an electric energy-field around it. When, however, accelerating such an electron the electric-field between it and its positive charge over the fourth dimension "leaks" into three dimensional space and causes EM radiation. In the same manner the spin of the electron relates to the fourth space dimension experienced within the mass-volume of the electron. Around its mass-volume space-time is curved thus causing gravity. Other aspects of cosmology, like dark energy and inflation follow as logical consequences. Inflation is caused by dark matter expanding since dark matter consists of a entangled waves of massive sizes. Single bosons stretching over parsecs.
Is it possible to translate dimensionless points into a geometric dimension - into something that has a "body" ?
Is it possible to construct a dimension without having a dimension at hand -
How do we define an ordinate out from dimensionlessness -
And as per now I have decided not to care about the origin of
It is all about scales and frames of references - YES.
Very interesting viewpoints you have raised. They are too many to treat in detail in this forum. I have thus quoted some of them and will attempt, in my own way (which is most probably incorrect) to convey my "insights". Since my insights are contrary to quantum-field theory, I could not get them published anywhere yet.
To give a quick summary:
I believe that "our" Universe has formed within an infinite Euclidean four-dimensional continuous space which has existed always because time does not manifest within such a space: There are no boundaries within such a space and since the fourth dimension is perpendicular to the other three dimensions time does not exist. By reducing the picture by an dimension one can consider the primordial universe as an infinite water surface through which waves move in opposite directions thus canceling each other so that there is no movement observable and thus no change which can manifest as time. When however pushing a stick into the water, one changes the boundary conditions and movement suddenly becomes evident. Time initiates; energy is born and a new existence is created around the stick since ity changed the boundary conditions. The smallest entity is defined by these boundary conditions which are not a four-dimensional Euclidean space everywhere anymore. Space itself is still continuous and the smallest entities are still continuous waves which are kept localized by the boundary conditions which came into play during the Big Bang.
So the four dimensions have not been "constructed" at the Big Bang but became distorted in order to manifest as our Universe. Matter an anti-matter probably segregated over the fourth space dimension. Although they cannot recombine they do experience each other through their charge. A free electron could thus be a three-dimensional wave which is localized by "vibrating" within the field of a positive charge situated over the fourth dimension. The mass of the electron is the energy caused by this interaction. Since a single free electron is actually a dipole over the fourth dimension, it does not have an electric energy-field around it. When, however, accelerating such an electron the electric-field between it and its positive charge over the fourth dimension "leaks" into three dimensional space and causes EM radiation. In the same manner the spin of the electron relates to the fourth space dimension experienced within the mass-volume of the electron. Around its mass-volume space-time is curved thus causing gravity. Other aspects of cosmology, like dark energy and inflation follow as logical consequences. Inflation is caused by dark matter expanding since dark matter consists of a entangled waves of massive sizes. Single bosons stretching over parsecs.
johanfprins
QUOTE: "So the four dimensions have not been "constructed" at the Big Bang but became distorted in order to manifest as our Universe."
I like to think that we have to distinct between subjective - and objective time, respectively,
and it is subjective time that is being born at BB, and before BB universe had "existed" but in scales below human physical scale. The stick which is being put into the waves actually best can be seen as human brain - our mind - our antenna.
It is a long and fairly simple explanation - that is based upon the idea of seing physical as dynamically changing dimensionalities in space - and how dimensionalities are defined by their ratio of total space. Everything according to the 3D Pixel Universe.
If you have the time and the inspiration - then take a look at what I have been putting forward in this forum for a while - and the easiest will be to skim my latest posts - say within the last 4 weeks - where most of the aspects have been explained.
I think you will find many similarities with your own viewpoints
You are probably familiar with Milo Wolf and his ideas about WSM (wave structure of matter)
QUOTE: "So the four dimensions have not been "constructed" at the Big Bang but became distorted in order to manifest as our Universe."
I like to think that we have to distinct between subjective - and objective time, respectively,
and it is subjective time that is being born at BB, and before BB universe had "existed" but in scales below human physical scale. The stick which is being put into the waves actually best can be seen as human brain - our mind - our antenna.
It is a long and fairly simple explanation - that is based upon the idea of seing physical as dynamically changing dimensionalities in space - and how dimensionalities are defined by their ratio of total space. Everything according to the 3D Pixel Universe.
If you have the time and the inspiration - then take a look at what I have been putting forward in this forum for a while - and the easiest will be to skim my latest posts - say within the last 4 weeks - where most of the aspects have been explained.
I think you will find many similarities with your own viewpoints
You are probably familiar with Milo Wolf and his ideas about WSM (wave structure of matter)
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 22 2008, 10:56 AM)
QUOTE: "
I like to think that we have to distinct between subjective - and objective time, respectively,
I think you will find many similarities with your own viewpoints
You are probably familiar with Milo Wolf and his ideas about WSM (wave structure of matter)
Very interesting viewpoint's you have. You do not have anything written up which you can e-mail to me?
I do not want to give "subjective time" physical credence when modeling our Universe. That it does has a existence is clear but I do not agree with Wheeler that our present actions affect what happened in the past. His thought experiments have a much simpler explanation when accepting that there are no particles but only waves.
Milo Wolff's waves are not time-independent constructs and therefore I do not believe that they can be used to model matter. Nonetheless, his approach is interesting!
I like to think that we have to distinct between subjective - and objective time, respectively,
I think you will find many similarities with your own viewpoints
You are probably familiar with Milo Wolf and his ideas about WSM (wave structure of matter)
Very interesting viewpoint's you have. You do not have anything written up which you can e-mail to me?
I do not want to give "subjective time" physical credence when modeling our Universe. That it does has a existence is clear but I do not agree with Wheeler that our present actions affect what happened in the past. His thought experiments have a much simpler explanation when accepting that there are no particles but only waves.
Milo Wolff's waves are not time-independent constructs and therefore I do not believe that they can be used to model matter. Nonetheless, his approach is interesting!
johanfprins
well I am not a publishing or anything like that person - so what I have is what there is on my forum page - but you will get a pretty good picture by skimming my post - sorry for lazyness -
And re Wheeler - I absolutely follow your line - subjective time is solely based upon human mind sampling of objective universe - and You will see that is exactly what I responded to Good Elf in my latest post -
And re Milo Wolf - (actually I learned about Milo long after I had made my 3D Pixel Universe model), and yes that is exacttly what is missing with his model - and I have had some discussions with among others "Gorgeous" another poster - about this issue -
If you decide to go through some of the Pixel Universe ideas - I shall be happy to hear your comments
and specifically I am anxious to hear how you envisage the concept of dimension
well I am not a publishing or anything like that person - so what I have is what there is on my forum page - but you will get a pretty good picture by skimming my post - sorry for lazyness -
And re Wheeler - I absolutely follow your line - subjective time is solely based upon human mind sampling of objective universe - and You will see that is exactly what I responded to Good Elf in my latest post -
And re Milo Wolf - (actually I learned about Milo long after I had made my 3D Pixel Universe model), and yes that is exacttly what is missing with his model - and I have had some discussions with among others "Gorgeous" another poster - about this issue -
If you decide to go through some of the Pixel Universe ideas - I shall be happy to hear your comments
and specifically I am anxious to hear how you envisage the concept of dimension
Hej Good Elf
Not long time ago a wise man told me the following:
"He he he... Your "pixel" descriptions are obviously "loaded" with layers of entertaining detail that are quite odd since because the "pixel" does not truly exist, none of these imaginary phenomena you describe are measurable. This is like Tolkien writing Lord of The Rings where we have languages (like the one I have "transliterated" at the bottom of my posts), entire cosmologies, different evolved beings all living and working together... economies and power structures but none of this has any visible existence."
Now the same wise man explains to me that:
- "the speed of light is "instantaneous". This is the "connection" in our Universe for "force"... light is the force carrier (exchange force) in the Universe, it is a quantum but I disagree with the concept it is a tiny idealized "point particle". Every "visible" point in the Universe is connected "instantly" in the photons frame as if "touching" in the photon's sphere of influence. What is not part of this scheme (unseen) is entirely covered by gravity which has the ability to pass through any and all barriers other than "black holes". Every mass source in the universe is unattenuated by any barrier but does undergo "dispersion" in materials in which the speed of light varies.
The photon experiences the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. This is also a Gauge Invariant process such that "nothing is actually happening" in the one frame of the moving "particle", but everything "in the far field" will be capable of measuring this phenomenon and we call it Special Relativity. matter particle also suffer this influence ... if influence is the right word. The influence is "between the frames" not "in the frames". The photon's null geodesic is simply the limiting case of a high speed particle (in the far field) as the relative velocity V -> C. I have already mentioned the problem of nearfield Special Relativistic influences in the references above. This means in terms of "experience" there is none for the photon between source and sink... if no real time is passing then no dynamics or process in which an energy exchange can happen to it can occur because absolutely all transfers of energy takes some time.... the Lagrangian Principle defines what is "inside" and what is "outside" our realm of "measurement"(perhaps defining the dimensions themselves). This is the basic essence of a quantum. This time passage can only occur in the near field (evanescent field) in which the photon moves from it's "timeless" state into an "action" state where time is executing. We see this as "currents", moving charges, changing magnetic fluxes... all in all the realm of the "virtual photon". While we measure these measurables we usually take for granted we are in the process of observing "near field" phenomena where the "photon" remains attached to the source (or sink) inductively. In this case time and energy processes are actually executing, observe "forces" on wires carrying current and so forth."
Now - do you seriously find my pixels more entertaining than your nullgeodesics -
Who are the story teller - and who are telling the most entertaining stories ?
I am amused - and there is always a slight grain of truth in any story - so please continue - and I mean it genuinely friendly.
Not long time ago a wise man told me the following:
"He he he... Your "pixel" descriptions are obviously "loaded" with layers of entertaining detail that are quite odd since because the "pixel" does not truly exist, none of these imaginary phenomena you describe are measurable. This is like Tolkien writing Lord of The Rings where we have languages (like the one I have "transliterated" at the bottom of my posts), entire cosmologies, different evolved beings all living and working together... economies and power structures but none of this has any visible existence."
Now the same wise man explains to me that:
- "the speed of light is "instantaneous". This is the "connection" in our Universe for "force"... light is the force carrier (exchange force) in the Universe, it is a quantum but I disagree with the concept it is a tiny idealized "point particle". Every "visible" point in the Universe is connected "instantly" in the photons frame as if "touching" in the photon's sphere of influence. What is not part of this scheme (unseen) is entirely covered by gravity which has the ability to pass through any and all barriers other than "black holes". Every mass source in the universe is unattenuated by any barrier but does undergo "dispersion" in materials in which the speed of light varies.
The photon experiences the most extreme form of time dilation and length contraction possible. This is also a Gauge Invariant process such that "nothing is actually happening" in the one frame of the moving "particle", but everything "in the far field" will be capable of measuring this phenomenon and we call it Special Relativity. matter particle also suffer this influence ... if influence is the right word. The influence is "between the frames" not "in the frames". The photon's null geodesic is simply the limiting case of a high speed particle (in the far field) as the relative velocity V -> C. I have already mentioned the problem of nearfield Special Relativistic influences in the references above. This means in terms of "experience" there is none for the photon between source and sink... if no real time is passing then no dynamics or process in which an energy exchange can happen to it can occur because absolutely all transfers of energy takes some time.... the Lagrangian Principle defines what is "inside" and what is "outside" our realm of "measurement"(perhaps defining the dimensions themselves). This is the basic essence of a quantum. This time passage can only occur in the near field (evanescent field) in which the photon moves from it's "timeless" state into an "action" state where time is executing. We see this as "currents", moving charges, changing magnetic fluxes... all in all the realm of the "virtual photon". While we measure these measurables we usually take for granted we are in the process of observing "near field" phenomena where the "photon" remains attached to the source (or sink) inductively. In this case time and energy processes are actually executing, observe "forces" on wires carrying current and so forth."
Now - do you seriously find my pixels more entertaining than your nullgeodesics -
Who are the story teller - and who are telling the most entertaining stories ?
I am amused - and there is always a slight grain of truth in any story - so please continue - and I mean it genuinely friendly.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 22 2008, 01:56 PM)
If you decide to go through some of the Pixel Universe ideas - I shall be happy to hear your comments
and specifically I am anxious to hear how you envisage the concept of dimension
I am not very clever and have a problem to follow up a lot of separated arguments on a thread. I will, however, try and follow your pixel-universe ideas.
I do not understand your question about dimension. But I will conjecture that dimension is a mathematical concept which relates to the number of linearly independent mathematical-directions required to describe the Universe. According to Occam's razor I expect that the number of dimensions should be low. I still think that 4 is the maximum. Above that you are entering the "looking glass" holding hands with Alice!
and specifically I am anxious to hear how you envisage the concept of dimension
I am not very clever and have a problem to follow up a lot of separated arguments on a thread. I will, however, try and follow your pixel-universe ideas.
I do not understand your question about dimension. But I will conjecture that dimension is a mathematical concept which relates to the number of linearly independent mathematical-directions required to describe the Universe. According to Occam's razor I expect that the number of dimensions should be low. I still think that 4 is the maximum. Above that you are entering the "looking glass" holding hands with Alice!
johanfprins
QUOTE: "I do not understand your question about dimension"
Oh - quite simple - like you, I am happy with 4 dimensions - and more dimensions are just foldings - no - what I hint at is that dimension is not easily constructed as a "body" - can a dimension be constructed out from points that are themselves dimensionless- and how can we arrange points via ordinates without a kind of dimensional yardstick - so I have come to an insight (for the time being) that dimension is axiomatically required.
QUOTE: "I do not understand your question about dimension"
Oh - quite simple - like you, I am happy with 4 dimensions - and more dimensions are just foldings - no - what I hint at is that dimension is not easily constructed as a "body" - can a dimension be constructed out from points that are themselves dimensionless- and how can we arrange points via ordinates without a kind of dimensional yardstick - so I have come to an insight (for the time being) that dimension is axiomatically required.
Hi bukh et al,
Still... there are those who want to remain in ignorance but still take advantage of the technologies developed by those who accept progress and understand it. In some real ways handing an iPod or Blackberry to a child is like handing him a loaded gun, it is just that the consequences of this action is not as clear cut and self evident to a simple deconstructionist mind but the outcomes are just as inevitable... Present company excepted of course... anyone reading this is not only partially open to "scientific progress", they are obviously somewhat interested in Physics which rests at the heart of the Scientific Method.
Everything I said and suggested has been duly referenced and brought to everyone's attention. You choose what you accept and what you believe and nobody can or should try to change that... it is your own path that you must choose yourself... we all have so few things in life now that we can really choose freely. Obviously that includes a "Pixel Universe". I don't "buy" it because you do not "sell" it with the right "credentials". Where do I buy the batteries?... What extra features can I access?... Do I get the Internet?... Does it tell me which stocks and shares to buy now that the crash has come?... Will it cure my prostrate problems?... Will it otherwise provide me with a long and happy life?... Is it good to eat?... Does it remedy Global Warming?... What security and guarantee is there that what I am being "sold" is consistent with your "claims"? Do you have "testimonials"? What are your "other" applications? As far as I see all you promise the "buyer" is a "warm inner glow". In all other matters it has "no applications", present or future... Is that correct? So is this a "religion" or is it "a political system" or both?? It appears not to be "science" to me! No hard feelings but it is strictly "Caveat emptor!"
What I am "selling" has endless applications, saves peoples lives in times of disaster, extends lifespans, protects your home from intruders, keeps you connected with the rest of the world, prevents famine, seeks solutions to global warming, finds answers to the energy crisis, immunizes you from disease, has "already" given many in the world a longer and happier life. All very "ho hum" to the "upper crust" an politicians who care nothing for the people but to the "thronging masses" (one of which might be you or me) it is a critical matter of simple survival even life and death. Lets say I have this buck... and I can give it to someone who wants it to go to your "storing up rewards" for your "afterlife" or alternatively I could spend it on some medication or health service that prevents you dying of illness right now... what do you think I should do? It's a "no-brainer" folks... Science can't prevent you from dying ultimately so the former "investment" returns better and longer "reward points" for "frequent fliers". Hey!... look another buck.... what should I do with this one?... Naturally the same thing!!... Hey... another buck and a needy Bank down the street wants a "handout" and... Oops! you died... but I am sure you would have agreed I spent my three bucks wisely in a "better tomorrow"?
Science has allowed "me" personally to survive and enjoy a quality of life as well as satisfying the needs of a growing and complicated world. I am alive not because of "prayers to an unknown deity" or splashes of "holy water" but to a clumsy bumbling and emergent body of knowledge we call science. Everyone alive can probably relate to a time in their life when they stood at a turning point where on one side was "life" and the other was"death"... A simple infection, a cough or cold that seemed to not clear, an insect or other sort of bite that needed treatment. So what do you think science means to you? I ask everyone to think deeply about their lives, their loved ones lives and what this all means to their future. All political persuasions and religious denominations use it (some begrudgingly) and all scientists 'usually" accept it and use it to gain these obvious advances and advantages.
For me I only accept what is independently determinable or at least I will tell you when I am beyond the "literature" I have researched and I always give you a "free" link that reference it wherever available. I am not even selling a book. I actually get more out of this than you would think and that is why I do it... It is for my own personal satisfaction and pleasure. I would get no pleasure forcing anyone to believe anything simply because I told them to believe it or kept raising my voice in order that I drown out opposition. You already get that sort of propaganda dished out "for free" on TV or on your Blackberry's newscasts and in some places on this Forum... he he he! You really don't need it from me!
Cheers
QUOTE
Now - do you seriously find my pixels more entertaining than your nullgeodesics -
Who are the story teller - and who are telling the most entertaining stories ?
I am amused - and there is always a slight grain of truth in any story - so please continue - and I mean it genuinely friendly.
He he he... For "entertainment" I watch my collection of old Sci-Fi Movies, I know what I am getting and I have paid for them so there are no "ongoing costs" to my life.... I do not tell simple "stories". You just need to look at the experiments I cross reference in the papers to determine if a "story" is something I make up out of my head or if it is simply an independently confirmatory piece of information. I read and "usually" understand the papers I reference. Nobody should take the word of someone who makes claims and says he is some kind of "elf" (at least you can clearly understand that principle... I do not sign these posts with George W. Bush, Karl Marx, The Pope, Jesus Christ, The Dali Lama, Stephen Hawking or Billy Graham)... all you need to do is see if there is experimental verification of these facts for yourself... If you do not want to do things that way it is fine by me! No hard feelings and believe me this is a very friendly piece of advice. It really depends on how you organize your "own world"... around things that you verify or things you simply "make up". It is your choice isn't it? For thousands of years people "made up stuff" and passed it off to the gullible as "Truth". When these "motivators" became influential they even had some killed for not accepting their version of "Truth" blindly. Then along came the scientific method, the "enlightenment", we now have "progress", things are actually changing for those who want it and "ignorance" continues for those who do not wish it and wish things to stay as they are. If you choose not to accept any "progress" then feel free to "atrophy" in some eternal self fulfilling belief system. We still will never have the full "Truth" but somehow to me that is not that important. It is the journey not the destination. For others it is only the "destination" that is all important and nothing... absolutely nothing... can or should stand in the way of attaining that "goal"... real or imagined. As Eric Idle said while hanging from a cross at the end of the Life of Brian..."Some of us still have to live you know". Who are the story teller - and who are telling the most entertaining stories ?
I am amused - and there is always a slight grain of truth in any story - so please continue - and I mean it genuinely friendly.
Still... there are those who want to remain in ignorance but still take advantage of the technologies developed by those who accept progress and understand it. In some real ways handing an iPod or Blackberry to a child is like handing him a loaded gun, it is just that the consequences of this action is not as clear cut and self evident to a simple deconstructionist mind but the outcomes are just as inevitable... Present company excepted of course... anyone reading this is not only partially open to "scientific progress", they are obviously somewhat interested in Physics which rests at the heart of the Scientific Method.
Everything I said and suggested has been duly referenced and brought to everyone's attention. You choose what you accept and what you believe and nobody can or should try to change that... it is your own path that you must choose yourself... we all have so few things in life now that we can really choose freely. Obviously that includes a "Pixel Universe". I don't "buy" it because you do not "sell" it with the right "credentials". Where do I buy the batteries?... What extra features can I access?... Do I get the Internet?... Does it tell me which stocks and shares to buy now that the crash has come?... Will it cure my prostrate problems?... Will it otherwise provide me with a long and happy life?... Is it good to eat?... Does it remedy Global Warming?... What security and guarantee is there that what I am being "sold" is consistent with your "claims"? Do you have "testimonials"? What are your "other" applications? As far as I see all you promise the "buyer" is a "warm inner glow". In all other matters it has "no applications", present or future... Is that correct? So is this a "religion" or is it "a political system" or both?? It appears not to be "science" to me! No hard feelings but it is strictly "Caveat emptor!"
What I am "selling" has endless applications, saves peoples lives in times of disaster, extends lifespans, protects your home from intruders, keeps you connected with the rest of the world, prevents famine, seeks solutions to global warming, finds answers to the energy crisis, immunizes you from disease, has "already" given many in the world a longer and happier life. All very "ho hum" to the "upper crust" an politicians who care nothing for the people but to the "thronging masses" (one of which might be you or me) it is a critical matter of simple survival even life and death. Lets say I have this buck... and I can give it to someone who wants it to go to your "storing up rewards" for your "afterlife" or alternatively I could spend it on some medication or health service that prevents you dying of illness right now... what do you think I should do? It's a "no-brainer" folks... Science can't prevent you from dying ultimately so the former "investment" returns better and longer "reward points" for "frequent fliers". Hey!... look another buck.... what should I do with this one?... Naturally the same thing!!... Hey... another buck and a needy Bank down the street wants a "handout" and... Oops! you died... but I am sure you would have agreed I spent my three bucks wisely in a "better tomorrow"?
Science has allowed "me" personally to survive and enjoy a quality of life as well as satisfying the needs of a growing and complicated world. I am alive not because of "prayers to an unknown deity" or splashes of "holy water" but to a clumsy bumbling and emergent body of knowledge we call science. Everyone alive can probably relate to a time in their life when they stood at a turning point where on one side was "life" and the other was"death"... A simple infection, a cough or cold that seemed to not clear, an insect or other sort of bite that needed treatment. So what do you think science means to you? I ask everyone to think deeply about their lives, their loved ones lives and what this all means to their future. All political persuasions and religious denominations use it (some begrudgingly) and all scientists 'usually" accept it and use it to gain these obvious advances and advantages.
For me I only accept what is independently determinable or at least I will tell you when I am beyond the "literature" I have researched and I always give you a "free" link that reference it wherever available. I am not even selling a book. I actually get more out of this than you would think and that is why I do it... It is for my own personal satisfaction and pleasure. I would get no pleasure forcing anyone to believe anything simply because I told them to believe it or kept raising my voice in order that I drown out opposition. You already get that sort of propaganda dished out "for free" on TV or on your Blackberry's newscasts and in some places on this Forum... he he he! You really don't need it from me!
Cheers
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 22 2008, 08:20 PM)
johanfprins
QUOTE: "I do not understand your question about dimension"
Oh - quite simple - like you, I am happy with 4 dimensions - and more dimensions are just foldings - no - what I hint at is that dimension is not easily constructed as a "body" - can a dimension be constructed out from points that are themselves dimensionless- and how can we arrange points via ordinates without a kind of dimensional yardstick - so I have come to an insight (for the time being) that dimension is axiomatically required.
I like Penrose's idea that Plato's mathematical Universe exists as a more complete entity than our Universe. This mathematical Universe contains the "language" to model our reality. It also has the "language" to construct nonsense. Like a big mathematical computer one can have "garbage-in; garbage-out. I suspect that quantum-field theory belongs to the latter category.
In terms of Plato's Universe dimensionless points, line etc. exists and this gives us the background to define a four-dimensional Euclidean Universe which acts as a reference frame relative to which we can model what we can see and measure around us. I think one will just have to accept this as a postulate.
Dimensional yardsticks must be created from our Universe. The one currently bandied around is the Planck length: However, I do not believe that there exists a limit to the continuity of space: Singular points only exists in Plato's Universe not in ours. In ours there will always be an infinite number of points between any two points. Our Universe is completely built from fields like Einstein believed until his death. I would rather take the mass-radius of the electron as a yardstick. This defines the boundaries of the time-independent distribution of charge within the electron. This distribution must find itself within a time-independent four-dimensional space: If not, the electron will explode owing the interaction between different parts of its distributed charge!
QUOTE: "I do not understand your question about dimension"
Oh - quite simple - like you, I am happy with 4 dimensions - and more dimensions are just foldings - no - what I hint at is that dimension is not easily constructed as a "body" - can a dimension be constructed out from points that are themselves dimensionless- and how can we arrange points via ordinates without a kind of dimensional yardstick - so I have come to an insight (for the time being) that dimension is axiomatically required.
I like Penrose's idea that Plato's mathematical Universe exists as a more complete entity than our Universe. This mathematical Universe contains the "language" to model our reality. It also has the "language" to construct nonsense. Like a big mathematical computer one can have "garbage-in; garbage-out. I suspect that quantum-field theory belongs to the latter category.
In terms of Plato's Universe dimensionless points, line etc. exists and this gives us the background to define a four-dimensional Euclidean Universe which acts as a reference frame relative to which we can model what we can see and measure around us. I think one will just have to accept this as a postulate.
Dimensional yardsticks must be created from our Universe. The one currently bandied around is the Planck length: However, I do not believe that there exists a limit to the continuity of space: Singular points only exists in Plato's Universe not in ours. In ours there will always be an infinite number of points between any two points. Our Universe is completely built from fields like Einstein believed until his death. I would rather take the mass-radius of the electron as a yardstick. This defines the boundaries of the time-independent distribution of charge within the electron. This distribution must find itself within a time-independent four-dimensional space: If not, the electron will explode owing the interaction between different parts of its distributed charge!
Good Elf
QUOTE: "You already get that sort of propaganda dished out "for free" on TV or on your Blackberry's newscasts and in some places on this Forum... he he he! You really don't need it from me!"
If You were one of many TV chanels - and You were a Pay-TV - I would pay money for viewing.
QUOTE: "You already get that sort of propaganda dished out "for free" on TV or on your Blackberry's newscasts and in some places on this Forum... he he he! You really don't need it from me!"
If You were one of many TV chanels - and You were a Pay-TV - I would pay money for viewing.
johanfprins
QUOTE: "In terms of Plato's Universe dimensionless points, line etc. exists and this gives us the background to define a four-dimensional Euclidean Universe which acts as a reference frame relative to which we can model what we can see and measure around us. I think one will just have to accept this as a postulate.
Dimensional yardsticks must be created from our Universe."
Yep - I am very much in favour also of the idea that "Informational world" is the underlying truth of our physical universe - actually that"Informational world" can express itsself in any kind of expression and that physical universe is just one of (infinitely) many different expressions - disguises -
Informational world among others can be mathematics - dimensionless points - and now the "trick" is how to translate dimensionless points into a 3D body. I like to think that physical is essentially defined out from being dimensional and dynamically changing.
So the first thing to get is a dimensionality. Irrespective how many dimensionless points we have - well it is difficult to grasp how they translate into dimension. And a yardstick is not something being offered cheaply - from where do we get a yardstick - because again dimensionless points will be of little help.
Projective geometry is no doubt facinating - I have no insight whatsoever - but I have this feeling that we are not close to the insight that may tell us how we translate dimensionlessness and continuity into dimension -
The answer may be that dimension is not relevant - that everything can be explained better by fields -
Anyhow in order to picturelize - and in order for me to get something to explain out from - I need dimension - and I can easily accept that dimension as such is not into existance - because on the bottomline nothing is into existance as such - everything is mind conceptions- and dimensionality may well be a needed interface in order for humans to get insight in Universe.
QUOTE: "In terms of Plato's Universe dimensionless points, line etc. exists and this gives us the background to define a four-dimensional Euclidean Universe which acts as a reference frame relative to which we can model what we can see and measure around us. I think one will just have to accept this as a postulate.
Dimensional yardsticks must be created from our Universe."
Yep - I am very much in favour also of the idea that "Informational world" is the underlying truth of our physical universe - actually that"Informational world" can express itsself in any kind of expression and that physical universe is just one of (infinitely) many different expressions - disguises -
Informational world among others can be mathematics - dimensionless points - and now the "trick" is how to translate dimensionless points into a 3D body. I like to think that physical is essentially defined out from being dimensional and dynamically changing.
So the first thing to get is a dimensionality. Irrespective how many dimensionless points we have - well it is difficult to grasp how they translate into dimension. And a yardstick is not something being offered cheaply - from where do we get a yardstick - because again dimensionless points will be of little help.
Projective geometry is no doubt facinating - I have no insight whatsoever - but I have this feeling that we are not close to the insight that may tell us how we translate dimensionlessness and continuity into dimension -
The answer may be that dimension is not relevant - that everything can be explained better by fields -
Anyhow in order to picturelize - and in order for me to get something to explain out from - I need dimension - and I can easily accept that dimension as such is not into existance - because on the bottomline nothing is into existance as such - everything is mind conceptions- and dimensionality may well be a needed interface in order for humans to get insight in Universe.
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 23 2008, 10:44 AM)
The answer may be that dimension is not relevant - that everything can be explained better by fields -
I like that! A good basis to start from. I think we are broadly in agreement. Our semantics might be different.
I like that! A good basis to start from. I think we are broadly in agreement. Our semantics might be different.
Isn't time something we are looking for?
Hi bukh,
Actually, what we call "light" is only one region of the whole electromagnetic spectrum, and it all behaves fairly predictably with a minimum of hard concepts (but there are a couple aspects that defy explanation).
One of the relevant explanations is that the wavelength of the light is inversely proportional to the energy of the photons. In other words, the more energetic the photon, the smaller its wavelength.
There's a continuum of photons that this applies to, starting out at ELF frequencies (used for communicating with submerged submarines) which have very long wavelengths, going through the AM band, through the FM band, through the microwaves that are used by cell phones and radars and satellite uplinks/downlinks, through millimeter-waves which are also used for radars, through the TeraHertz band, which will soon make Spock's TriCorder possible (identifying chemical compounds from a distance), CO2 lasers at the same wavelength that our bodies radiate at called "blackbody radiation" and FLIRS work at, through shorter-wavelength lasers including weapons-grade lasers, to the near-IR lasers that are used in TV remote controls and autofocus cameras to determine how far the subject is from the camera, to visible light we can see. Beyond violet is UV, which, having a shorter wavelength, has more energy per photon, enough to break some chemical compounds with a single photon, to X-rays, which definitely have sufficient energy to tear chemical compounds apart (but have so much energy that they tend not to interact with most chemicals but tend to zip straight through unless they hit a big, heavy nucleus, to gamma rays, which are like X-rays on steroids. They all obey the same basic laws of optics.
That's a general trend in quantum mechanics, the more energetic, the smaller it is. So the smaller the universe, the more energetic is it, if we want to extrapolate from QM to Cosmology. Those extra dimensions "curled-up" inside subatomic particles don't have less energy, they'd have more.
I personally don't buy the "extra dimensions coiled-up inside" explanation of where the higher-order dimensions are, and I suspect that the people who came up with that explanation don't believe it, either. It's just easier to describe that than what's more likely (IMO), which is that we're living in a black hole inside a greater universe, one with higher-order dimensions, and while we can't see out, the higher-order space *can* see in.
But that's just my conjecture.
QUOTE (bukh+)
Good Elf
QUOTE: "You already get that sort of propaganda dished out "for free" on TV or on your Blackberry's newscasts and in some places on this Forum... he he he! You really don't need it from me!"
If You were one of many TV channels - and You were a Pay-TV - I would pay money for viewing.
QUOTE: "You already get that sort of propaganda dished out "for free" on TV or on your Blackberry's newscasts and in some places on this Forum... he he he! You really don't need it from me!"
If You were one of many TV channels - and You were a Pay-TV - I would pay money for viewing.
Many thinks for that... you are entertaining in your own right as well. Anytime you want a counterbalanced point of view... I'm your man! 
Cheers
Cheers
Hi All,
Oh well, no one interested in a 2D photon of light … then I won’t flog a horse that has difficulty standing.
It seems that many on this thread are happy with 4 Dimensions for our universe to explain everything … and so did Einstein. But, we have to remember that when he was developing his ideas … he believed in the ‘steady state’ theory for the universe … i.e. a sphere to hold everything … without anything outside of it. He developed the 4th dimension as time … to give the ‘steady state’ theory some meat. From this we get the curvature of space-time model… with some peculiar things that may happen. Also, we get lots of maths to show that this is the correct view because in some cases it is better at predicting than classical methods. Presently, we know that the universe is expanding … and the steady state theory is out of favour … though the maths still remains.
My take on all this is: all theories including crank theories have a modicum of correctness. So, the theory that we like will answers some questions correctly and the difficult questions we believe will get answered in due time. Conclusion, we always stay with our pet theory because it is only a matter of time before all will be revealed … and then we can turn around to everyone and say “Told you so”.
Unfortunately, things do not stand still … new revelations … new insights can turn everything upside down. All I can guarantee is the new revelations and insights will only surprise us with how we managed to miss them in the first place.
So, in my pet theory I wish to start from ‘nothing’ and build everything from there. My problem is that just the mention of a start from nothing will immediately turn off most … because they are certain I will be wrong before they have heard any arguments. Funnily, newbies read everything because they need ideas and knowledge. Also the experts read everything just in case you cut your own throat … betweenies are psychic, so I need say no more.
Aside:
I actually thought I gave a good description and reason of how light propagates and why it is 2D. Perhaps, I need to add a little more re dimensions because there are many systems at play in this thread. Basically, when describing dimensions I am referring to an (n + 2) model. For example it takes 5 dimensions to experience our 3D world. This is also intuitive for many reasons for example the maximum numbers of spheres that can all touch each other in 3D is 5 … and thus I use the spheres as the building blocks. Zero dimension is described through two spheres … for those who are looking for a start from there. Touching sphere configurations are also used in other models … though string theory is based on a torus (doughnut). I like string theory … if only a string was based on three touching spheres …
In general, higher dimensions are very small (compacted).
Here again further explanation is required. Firstly, the macro and the micro need some explanation. The questions that need to be answered are: what is in the macro and what is in the micro? Or, do you believe that the cut off is just about context?
In my theory, there is a ‘phase’ change between the macro and micro. By that I mean the micro is the inverse of macro. Again this is intuitive … how can things that are small have so much more energy. For example in the macro we blow up a balloon and increase its size to indicate it holds more energy … but in the micro when you blow up a balloon you will make it smaller to indicate it has more energy.
To conclude, in the macro higher dimensions are compacted and hold little energy … and in the micro the higher dimensions are huge and again hold little energy. In summary … we have our positive and negative which makes an entity.
If we now concentrate on the EM Spectrum diagram … this does us no favours. There is something very important missing …they are produced from different sources and are detected differently. For example the distinction between an x-ray wave and a gamma ray is that x-ray photons are generated by energetic electron processes whereas, gamma rays are produced by transitions within atomic nuclei and has nothing to do with its wavelength.
The photo electric effect by light photons is a fluke. If you measure photons of light before the effect you will find that they do not have the required energy … but nonetheless the effect takes places. Experimenters have ignored this … cannot explain it, then ignore it, is not unusual practice.
I’m only joking about the fluke … light has a special mechanism … Good Elf and those familiar with telecommunication in fibre glass transmission will be familiar with the mechanism.
Let’s return to my concept of light being 2D … a circle with the wave moving on the circumference. The maths is similar to a particle on a ring (the 2D Schrödinger equation) except the number of waves on the circumference has to be quantised to an even number. By wave I mean plain not sine wave because that is 3D … though a sine wave in 2D is a plane wave.
Firstly, light travels best in a vacuum … and difficulty through materials. In the photo electric effect light has a disaster. It crashes on the surface of a metal … like a car crashing into a wall … a concertina effect. The photon snaps together across its diameter. We end up with identical waves of the same amplitude but traveling in opposite directions … a standing wave. The standing wave does not propagate, but oscillates at twice its original amplitude. A true standing wave cannot transmit energy unless there is some mechanism for energy loss …in this case the electron is just the mechanism.
In other cases photons have mass (3D) so can use their weight, so to speak.
Either I’m wrong or our formulas need tweaking … don’t bother answering that.
Cheers
Janus
Oh well, no one interested in a 2D photon of light … then I won’t flog a horse that has difficulty standing.
It seems that many on this thread are happy with 4 Dimensions for our universe to explain everything … and so did Einstein. But, we have to remember that when he was developing his ideas … he believed in the ‘steady state’ theory for the universe … i.e. a sphere to hold everything … without anything outside of it. He developed the 4th dimension as time … to give the ‘steady state’ theory some meat. From this we get the curvature of space-time model… with some peculiar things that may happen. Also, we get lots of maths to show that this is the correct view because in some cases it is better at predicting than classical methods. Presently, we know that the universe is expanding … and the steady state theory is out of favour … though the maths still remains.
My take on all this is: all theories including crank theories have a modicum of correctness. So, the theory that we like will answers some questions correctly and the difficult questions we believe will get answered in due time. Conclusion, we always stay with our pet theory because it is only a matter of time before all will be revealed … and then we can turn around to everyone and say “Told you so”.
Unfortunately, things do not stand still … new revelations … new insights can turn everything upside down. All I can guarantee is the new revelations and insights will only surprise us with how we managed to miss them in the first place.
So, in my pet theory I wish to start from ‘nothing’ and build everything from there. My problem is that just the mention of a start from nothing will immediately turn off most … because they are certain I will be wrong before they have heard any arguments. Funnily, newbies read everything because they need ideas and knowledge. Also the experts read everything just in case you cut your own throat … betweenies are psychic, so I need say no more.
Aside:
I actually thought I gave a good description and reason of how light propagates and why it is 2D. Perhaps, I need to add a little more re dimensions because there are many systems at play in this thread. Basically, when describing dimensions I am referring to an (n + 2) model. For example it takes 5 dimensions to experience our 3D world. This is also intuitive for many reasons for example the maximum numbers of spheres that can all touch each other in 3D is 5 … and thus I use the spheres as the building blocks. Zero dimension is described through two spheres … for those who are looking for a start from there. Touching sphere configurations are also used in other models … though string theory is based on a torus (doughnut). I like string theory … if only a string was based on three touching spheres …
In general, higher dimensions are very small (compacted).
Here again further explanation is required. Firstly, the macro and the micro need some explanation. The questions that need to be answered are: what is in the macro and what is in the micro? Or, do you believe that the cut off is just about context?
In my theory, there is a ‘phase’ change between the macro and micro. By that I mean the micro is the inverse of macro. Again this is intuitive … how can things that are small have so much more energy. For example in the macro we blow up a balloon and increase its size to indicate it holds more energy … but in the micro when you blow up a balloon you will make it smaller to indicate it has more energy.
To conclude, in the macro higher dimensions are compacted and hold little energy … and in the micro the higher dimensions are huge and again hold little energy. In summary … we have our positive and negative which makes an entity.
If we now concentrate on the EM Spectrum diagram … this does us no favours. There is something very important missing …they are produced from different sources and are detected differently. For example the distinction between an x-ray wave and a gamma ray is that x-ray photons are generated by energetic electron processes whereas, gamma rays are produced by transitions within atomic nuclei and has nothing to do with its wavelength.
The photo electric effect by light photons is a fluke. If you measure photons of light before the effect you will find that they do not have the required energy … but nonetheless the effect takes places. Experimenters have ignored this … cannot explain it, then ignore it, is not unusual practice.
I’m only joking about the fluke … light has a special mechanism … Good Elf and those familiar with telecommunication in fibre glass transmission will be familiar with the mechanism.
Let’s return to my concept of light being 2D … a circle with the wave moving on the circumference. The maths is similar to a particle on a ring (the 2D Schrödinger equation) except the number of waves on the circumference has to be quantised to an even number. By wave I mean plain not sine wave because that is 3D … though a sine wave in 2D is a plane wave.
Firstly, light travels best in a vacuum … and difficulty through materials. In the photo electric effect light has a disaster. It crashes on the surface of a metal … like a car crashing into a wall … a concertina effect. The photon snaps together across its diameter. We end up with identical waves of the same amplitude but traveling in opposite directions … a standing wave. The standing wave does not propagate, but oscillates at twice its original amplitude. A true standing wave cannot transmit energy unless there is some mechanism for energy loss …in this case the electron is just the mechanism.
In other cases photons have mass (3D) so can use their weight, so to speak.
Either I’m wrong or our formulas need tweaking … don’t bother answering that.
Cheers
Janus
QUOTE
light has a special mechanism
Actually, what we call "light" is only one region of the whole electromagnetic spectrum, and it all behaves fairly predictably with a minimum of hard concepts (but there are a couple aspects that defy explanation).
One of the relevant explanations is that the wavelength of the light is inversely proportional to the energy of the photons. In other words, the more energetic the photon, the smaller its wavelength.
There's a continuum of photons that this applies to, starting out at ELF frequencies (used for communicating with submerged submarines) which have very long wavelengths, going through the AM band, through the FM band, through the microwaves that are used by cell phones and radars and satellite uplinks/downlinks, through millimeter-waves which are also used for radars, through the TeraHertz band, which will soon make Spock's TriCorder possible (identifying chemical compounds from a distance), CO2 lasers at the same wavelength that our bodies radiate at called "blackbody radiation" and FLIRS work at, through shorter-wavelength lasers including weapons-grade lasers, to the near-IR lasers that are used in TV remote controls and autofocus cameras to determine how far the subject is from the camera, to visible light we can see. Beyond violet is UV, which, having a shorter wavelength, has more energy per photon, enough to break some chemical compounds with a single photon, to X-rays, which definitely have sufficient energy to tear chemical compounds apart (but have so much energy that they tend not to interact with most chemicals but tend to zip straight through unless they hit a big, heavy nucleus, to gamma rays, which are like X-rays on steroids. They all obey the same basic laws of optics.
That's a general trend in quantum mechanics, the more energetic, the smaller it is. So the smaller the universe, the more energetic is it, if we want to extrapolate from QM to Cosmology. Those extra dimensions "curled-up" inside subatomic particles don't have less energy, they'd have more.
I personally don't buy the "extra dimensions coiled-up inside" explanation of where the higher-order dimensions are, and I suspect that the people who came up with that explanation don't believe it, either. It's just easier to describe that than what's more likely (IMO), which is that we're living in a black hole inside a greater universe, one with higher-order dimensions, and while we can't see out, the higher-order space *can* see in.
But that's just my conjecture.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 23 2008, 04:45 PM)
I've been looking through motion mountain; a free downloadable physics book, and it says that continuous space and time does not exist. (p.11) This makes sense.
But the wikipedia gives an equation. Equation_of_time
Except that does not define time. The equation of time is a simple mechanism of subtracting two universal time frames. It has nothing to do with the OP. It subtracts the time of year found from a sundial, and that of a clock. There is nothing that defines the value of time in this experiment.
But the wikipedia gives an equation. Equation_of_time
Except that does not define time. The equation of time is a simple mechanism of subtracting two universal time frames. It has nothing to do with the OP. It subtracts the time of year found from a sundial, and that of a clock. There is nothing that defines the value of time in this experiment.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Oct 26 2008, 08:44 PM)
I personally don't buy the "extra dimensions coiled-up inside" explanation of where the higher-order dimensions are, and I suspect that the people who came up with that explanation don't believe it, either. It's just easier to describe that than what's more likely (IMO), which is that we're living in a black hole inside a greater universe, one with higher-order dimensions, and while we can't see out, the higher-order space *can* see in.
But that's just my conjecture.
I like your conjecture.
I do not think, however, that the "greater Universe" has more than just four dimensions: All of them space-dimensions and no time dimension. Our Universe is unfurling to again become part of the greater Universe. Since time does not exist within the greater Universe Entropy must be zero. Thus contrary what is believed in present day Cosmology, we started off at high entropy and will again end at zero entropy. This is the only way in which "symmetry-breaking" can occur without violating thermodynamics.
I can expand on the latter; which is my conjecture!
But that's just my conjecture.
I like your conjecture.
I do not think, however, that the "greater Universe" has more than just four dimensions: All of them space-dimensions and no time dimension. Our Universe is unfurling to again become part of the greater Universe. Since time does not exist within the greater Universe Entropy must be zero. Thus contrary what is believed in present day Cosmology, we started off at high entropy and will again end at zero entropy. This is the only way in which "symmetry-breaking" can occur without violating thermodynamics.
I can expand on the latter; which is my conjecture!
QUOTE: "Thus contrary what is believed in present day Cosmology, we started off at high entropy and will again end at zero entropy. This is the only way in which "symmetry-breaking" can occur without violating thermodynamics.
I can expand on the latter; which is my conjecture! "
Yes - please -
I can expand on the latter; which is my conjecture! "
Yes - please -
QUOTE (bukh+Oct 27 2008, 02:07 PM)
QUOTE: "Thus contrary what is believed in present day Cosmology, we started off at high entropy and will again end at zero entropy. This is the only way in which "symmetry-breaking" can occur without violating thermodynamics.
I can expand on the latter; which is my conjecture! "
Yes - please -
It forms part of a manuscript I have written on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is too long to attach here. But basically what it means thermodynamically is that our Universe is not an adiabatic entity. It is a "leaky vessel", but not all types of energy can leak from it.
Before the Big Bang there was no "vessel". At, and after the big Bang the vessel has been created and evolved as it is still evolving. If the entropy is increasing from zero to a maximum, as is at present assumed, it means that we must be evolving towards a highly symmetric state. This is what happens when entropy increases. However, we all agree that symmetry breaking occurred; or else we would not have been here!. This only happens when a vessel is not an adiabatic vessel: i.e. when entropy decreases towards zero.
Thus what is happening is that "before" the Big bang we had zero entropy. The Big Bang generated a high density of energy "locally" (Our evolving Universe) which must have had a high entropy. We are thus moving back to zero entropy. This requires energy exchange with the original time-less zero-entropy state: i.e. energy must disappear over boundaries at which time does not exist. This is the case at the event horizons of black holes.
I do not want to ramble on too long: But the latter is my hypothesis: Which like any hypothesis in physics could be wrong: However, it makes a lot of sense to me
I can expand on the latter; which is my conjecture! "
Yes - please -
It forms part of a manuscript I have written on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is too long to attach here. But basically what it means thermodynamically is that our Universe is not an adiabatic entity. It is a "leaky vessel", but not all types of energy can leak from it.
Before the Big Bang there was no "vessel". At, and after the big Bang the vessel has been created and evolved as it is still evolving. If the entropy is increasing from zero to a maximum, as is at present assumed, it means that we must be evolving towards a highly symmetric state. This is what happens when entropy increases. However, we all agree that symmetry breaking occurred; or else we would not have been here!. This only happens when a vessel is not an adiabatic vessel: i.e. when entropy decreases towards zero.
Thus what is happening is that "before" the Big bang we had zero entropy. The Big Bang generated a high density of energy "locally" (Our evolving Universe) which must have had a high entropy. We are thus moving back to zero entropy. This requires energy exchange with the original time-less zero-entropy state: i.e. energy must disappear over boundaries at which time does not exist. This is the case at the event horizons of black holes.
I do not want to ramble on too long: But the latter is my hypothesis: Which like any hypothesis in physics could be wrong: However, it makes a lot of sense to me
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.