I've heard that light can be both a wave and a particle. This sis not new but I'm remembering (or dreaming) that in experiments you have to choose one. That it is a wave or a particle, but not both for specific experimentation.
Why?
Because it's bein observed. Why does a particle's wavefunction collapse when it's bein observed? That's a mystery o physics, I think. I've never heard an answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave/particle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse
Somewhere in those two might be the answer if there is one, if not, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave/particle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse
Somewhere in those two might be the answer if there is one, if not, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics
There is one question. Is photons is particles and in double slit experiment and in martch-zender experiment behaving like waves in superposition, or there is always waves, which colapsing in some point?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 3 2008, 03:48 PM)
There is one question. Is photons is particles and in double slit experiment and in martch-zender experiment behaving like waves in superposition, or there is always waves, which colapsing in some point?
Yes.
Yes.
You maybe don't understand. Question is does when atom emiting photon, this photon is going on like particle, or atom emiting wave, which going like sphere -expanding and colpasing at measurmnt?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 3 2008, 11:51 AM)
You maybe don't understand.
There's a shocker.
Maybe if you LEARNED ENGLISH
There's a shocker.
Maybe if you LEARNED ENGLISH
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 3 2008, 04:51 PM)
You maybe don't understand. Question is does when atom emiting photon, this photon is going on like particle, or atom emiting wave, which going like sphere -expanding and colpasing at measurmnt?
Yes. Why did you even have to ask that?
Yes. Why did you even have to ask that?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jul 3 2008, 04:53 PM)
Yes. Why did you even have to ask that?
How in question does you stupid or smart is possible to answer "yes"?
How in question does you stupid or smart is possible to answer "yes"?
QUOTE (DavidD+Jul 3 2008, 05:38 PM)
How in question does you stupid or smart is possible to answer "yes"?
Because of the way you asked.
Because of the way you asked.
I probably must ask more clearly. Here is answers:
1. photon is waves and it don't expanding when time goes on;
2. photon is spherical wave and this sphere-wave expanding in space when time goes on.
Which answer is correct?
1. photon is waves and it don't expanding when time goes on;
2. photon is spherical wave and this sphere-wave expanding in space when time goes on.
Which answer is correct?
Hi Beer w/Straw, MjolnirPants, excaza, DavidD et al,
Firstly... we must remember that others may not use English as a primary language. Maybe people may not understand something in particular but because this is an international site we should be able to accept that there are enormous "opportunities" for misinterpretation. It is already almost impossible to communicate using this form of anonymous communication with people who have spent their whole life speaking and using only English with no other language... it can be worse in other circumstances where the "gap" can't be bridged by simple interpretation. So be patient with others.
Firstly... we must remember that others may not use English as a primary language. Maybe people may not understand something in particular but because this is an international site we should be able to accept that there are enormous "opportunities" for misinterpretation. It is already almost impossible to communicate using this form of anonymous communication with people who have spent their whole life speaking and using only English with no other language... it can be worse in other circumstances where the "gap" can't be bridged by simple interpretation. So be patient with others.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+)
I've heard that light can be both a wave and a particle. This sis not new but I'm remembering (or dreaming) that in experiments you have to choose one. That it is a wave or a particle, but not both for specific experimentation.
Why?
Why?
MjolnirPants has placed some good ideas there and I certainly see where he is coming from but I think it is an open secret that "particles" really do not exist. The idea of a particle is really a very primitive concept. It is a shame that it was used to describe the quantum reality around us. The particle is an idealization regarding some kind of underlying "solidity" in our Universe. This is an assumption that is... IMHO ... misplaced. I am not alone in this conviction and others with greater authority than the "elves" have also said it but the more it is said the more it is decried. A great number of reputations have rested on this concept and it is now holding back the advance of our understanding in many fields. The experimental evidence is stacking up now that some have had the trepidation to question the authority behind this "human machine".
Can "something" be a wave and a particle? If I asked "can an answer to a specific question be right and wrong?"... then you may become aware that there is no "absolute" answer that is impossible to be qualified in such a way to be accepted in some cases as "right" and in other cases "wrong"... depending on which qualifications are placed on it. It was stated in ancient times that man will never fly. They were certainly right... there are some restrictions on man as a species that cannot allow him to fly but luckily there are some restricted situations in which man is "allowed to fly", not with fluffy little feathers like the birds but in various ways and in many cases exceeding the abilities of mere birds. These "exceptions" will continue to be found even in our future (if mankind continues to have one).
A theory has been proposed by David Bohm (a prominent figure in the recent History of Physics and a student of Albert Einstein)... a "stalking horse" for the future to test existing particle theories against. David believed that matter was not the "thing" we thought it was and needed testing. David Bohm and Yakir Aharonov rediscovered the Aharonov-Bohm phenomenon in 1959. It involves the observation that "knowledge of the classical electromagnetic field acting locally on a particle is not sufficient to predict its quantum-mechanical behavior." A "stalking horse" was created by Bohm to test the boundaries of non-locality of the particle. It came to be know as Bohmian Mechanics and it embodied the idea of a particle "riding" a wave at the same time being a model of processes in our Universe.
Wikipedia: Aharonov-Bohm effect
Wikipedia: Bohm interpretation
Bohm knew that his theory was not the answer to the problems that already were surfacing in Physics. More questions were answered when John Bell stated "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." This was emphasized with the experiments testing this theory by Alain Aspect... the non-locality of entanglement of entities at "infinite velocity". You can run and you can hide but in the end this statement will find you in Quantum Mechanics since Quantum Mechanics is entirely based on a local theory of quantum phenomena. What I certainly do not mean by this is that quantum theory does not exist or that quantum phenomena are not real... what I am saying (subtly) is that the mathematical theory of quantum physics as it was formulated and entrenched in the Copenhagen Interpretation proposed by Neils Bohr is wrong. For 70 years this fact is being "buried" in turgid mathematics over and over in some frenetic effort to cover what should have been shouted from the rooftops way back then and it was something all the "main players" at the time knew but because of "personalities" at the time were very strong willed, and all the "t"'s were not crossed and the "i"'s dotted, a "myth" was perpetrated that the entire fraternity has been engaged in. A right of passage if you will. Unfortunately like all ancient rites they are simply formalisms that do not carry any "truth".
Now the "stalking horse" of Bohmian Mechanics is not "true"... for instance binary systems like waves and particles are not "both" things at the same time but the extreme cases of this phenomenon "mimic" classic particles and classic waves. The particle is really a packet... an entity that under normal conditions that cannot be destroyed easily. This occurs in different regimes. In high energy regimes the object called an electron behaves as a particles while in the other extremum the electron is a space filling wave... a de Broglie Matter Wave.
Wikipedia: de Broglie hypothesis
A further discussion of this matter is here ...
Physorg Forum: Any Bohmian's Here?
IMHO the "particle" is only a special kind of wave... some of them can be dissipated such as photons (the "electromagnetic wave") and others cannot be dissipated such as electrons (CPT stabilized "waves" a kind of stable soliton). The photons is the exchange force in our Universe while all the particles accept these energies as packets emitted from and generated by other "particle" sources. Bohm's theory created an intermediate interpretational "space" to map the particles into a continuously evolving worldline for each of the quantum "particles". Quantum Theory and specifically the Copenhagen Interpretation does not incorporate "worldlines" since the "particles" have no history, so particles of the same kid are "indistinguishable" and the theory is also "time symmetric". These three points rule out the Bohmian Interpretation. This is related to the underling postulate .... that the wave and the particle theory of quantum physics are identical.
A "selection" of approaches by Bohr using only local particle properties means that the operational non-local nature of our Physics excludes the concept of particle history and the theory is a purely statistical treatment. Now from here on I am taking a guess at these ratios for demonstration purposes... the actual numbers will not affect the overall assumptions. For instance if we were to view the statistics from the local Bureau of Statistics regarding the nature of the human population... statistically speaking each "instance" has a roughly 50% chance of being male and 50% chance of being female. Their individual will "cluster" with high probability in "cities". They own individually perhaps 10% of a home on average and they have 2.1 offspring when "paired" after a period of 10 years of nuptial association. Each member of the population will have a "career cross section" for instance an individual will be 12% Public Servant, 5% Industrial Worker, 25% "Homemaker", 0.001% Axe Murderer, 0.01% Physicist, 0.5% Millionaire with the remaining percentile being category "other".
Naturally this figure does not mean that you personally are a transsexual or a rich multidisciplinary Axe Murderer. What it means is you will be in a particular "state" with all these functions 100% determined at a particular point in time (on census night). What the census does not know and cannot predict is where you will be the day after or the day before or where you will be in 50 years. This is analogous to the Quantum Theory. It is unable to distinguish between you and the Axe Murderer down the street. The Axe Murderer down your street has a "history" you do not have that made him an Axe Murderer (by choice as a "career decision" or through some perceived "necessity"). Quantum Theory is exactly like this in its nature and works on probability density or by summing up "outcomes" of "trials"... it is not a tool that predicts a "path" for an individual "particle".
The new theories predict path and this invalidates the statistical and mathematical idealizations used in the past. I "smile" when I see the struggles that some are having with these theories as they wrestle with the "maths"... what the maths will not do is sort them out on the path to a new common sense concept of their Universe...
Read this poem and the "exploits" the Beaver and the Butcher and what is happening to everyone as they all "Hunt the Snark".
The Hunting of the Snark: Lewis Carroll
Now the "stalking horse" of Bohmian Mechanics is not "true"... for instance binary systems like waves and particles are not "both" things at the same time but the extreme cases of this phenomenon "mimic" classic particles and classic waves. The particle is really a packet... an entity that under normal conditions that cannot be destroyed easily. This occurs in different regimes. In high energy regimes the object called an electron behaves as a particles while in the other extremum the electron is a space filling wave... a de Broglie Matter Wave.
Wikipedia: de Broglie hypothesis
A further discussion of this matter is here ...
Physorg Forum: Any Bohmian's Here?
IMHO the "particle" is only a special kind of wave... some of them can be dissipated such as photons (the "electromagnetic wave") and others cannot be dissipated such as electrons (CPT stabilized "waves" a kind of stable soliton). The photons is the exchange force in our Universe while all the particles accept these energies as packets emitted from and generated by other "particle" sources. Bohm's theory created an intermediate interpretational "space" to map the particles into a continuously evolving worldline for each of the quantum "particles". Quantum Theory and specifically the Copenhagen Interpretation does not incorporate "worldlines" since the "particles" have no history, so particles of the same kid are "indistinguishable" and the theory is also "time symmetric". These three points rule out the Bohmian Interpretation. This is related to the underling postulate .... that the wave and the particle theory of quantum physics are identical.
A "selection" of approaches by Bohr using only local particle properties means that the operational non-local nature of our Physics excludes the concept of particle history and the theory is a purely statistical treatment. Now from here on I am taking a guess at these ratios for demonstration purposes... the actual numbers will not affect the overall assumptions. For instance if we were to view the statistics from the local Bureau of Statistics regarding the nature of the human population... statistically speaking each "instance" has a roughly 50% chance of being male and 50% chance of being female. Their individual will "cluster" with high probability in "cities". They own individually perhaps 10% of a home on average and they have 2.1 offspring when "paired" after a period of 10 years of nuptial association. Each member of the population will have a "career cross section" for instance an individual will be 12% Public Servant, 5% Industrial Worker, 25% "Homemaker", 0.001% Axe Murderer, 0.01% Physicist, 0.5% Millionaire with the remaining percentile being category "other".
Naturally this figure does not mean that you personally are a transsexual or a rich multidisciplinary Axe Murderer. What it means is you will be in a particular "state" with all these functions 100% determined at a particular point in time (on census night). What the census does not know and cannot predict is where you will be the day after or the day before or where you will be in 50 years. This is analogous to the Quantum Theory. It is unable to distinguish between you and the Axe Murderer down the street. The Axe Murderer down your street has a "history" you do not have that made him an Axe Murderer (by choice as a "career decision" or through some perceived "necessity"). Quantum Theory is exactly like this in its nature and works on probability density or by summing up "outcomes" of "trials"... it is not a tool that predicts a "path" for an individual "particle".
The new theories predict path and this invalidates the statistical and mathematical idealizations used in the past. I "smile" when I see the struggles that some are having with these theories as they wrestle with the "maths"... what the maths will not do is sort them out on the path to a new common sense concept of their Universe...
Read this poem and the "exploits" the Beaver and the Butcher and what is happening to everyone as they all "Hunt the Snark".
The Hunting of the Snark: Lewis Carroll
Fit the Fifth
THE BEAVER’S LESSON
Each thought he was thinking of nothing but “Snark”
And the glorious work of the day;
And each tried to pretend that he did not remark
That the other was going that way.
But the valley grew narrow and narrower still,
And the evening got darker and colder,
Till (merely from nervousness, not from goodwill)
They marched along shoulder to shoulder.
Then a scream, shrill and high, rent the shuddering sky,
And they knew that some danger was near:
The Beaver turned pale to the tip of its tail,
And even the Butcher felt queer.
He thought of his childhood, left far far behind—
That blissful and innocent state—
The sound so exactly recalled to his mind
A pencil that squeaks on a slate!
“’Tis the voice of the Jubjub!” he suddenly cried.
(This man, that they used to call “Dunce.”)
“As the Bellman would tell you,” he added with pride,
“I have uttered that sentiment once.
“’Tis the note of the Jubjub! Keep count, I entreat;
You will find I have told it you twice.
’Tis the song of the Jubjub! The proof is complete,
If only I’ve stated it thrice.”
The Beaver had counted with scrupulous care,
Attending to every word:
But it fairly lost heart, and outgrabe in despair,
When the third repetition occurred.
It felt that, in spite of all possible pains,
It had somehow contrived to lose count,
And the only thing now was to rack its poor brains
By reckoning up the amount.
“Two added to one—if that could but be done,”
It said, “with one’s fingers and thumbs!”
Recollecting with tears how, in earlier years,
It had taken no pains with its sums.
“The thing can be done,” said the Butcher, “I think.
The thing must be done, I am sure.
The thing shall be done! Bring me paper and ink,
The best there is time to procure.”
The Beaver brought paper,portfolio, pens,
And ink in unfailing supplies:
While strange creepy creatures came out of their dens,
And watched them with wondering eyes.
Click - The Beaver and the Butcher "cooperate" on the Mathematics
So engrossed was the Butcher, he heeded them not,
As he wrote with a pen in each hand,
And explained all the while in a popular style
Which the Beaver could well understand.
“Taking Three as the subject to reason about—
A convenient number to state—
We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out
By One Thousand diminished by Eight.
“The result we proceed to divide, as you see,
By Nine Hundred and Ninety Two:
Then subtract Seventeen, and the answer must be
Exactly and perfectly true.
“The method employed I would gladly explain,
While I have it so clear in my head,
If I had but the time and you had but the brain—
But much yet remains to be said.
“In one moment I’ve seen what has hitherto been
Enveloped in absolute mystery,
And without extra charge I will give you at large
A Lesson in Natural History.”
In his genial way he proceeded to say
(Forgetting all laws of propriety,
And that giving instruction, without introduction,
Would have caused quite a thrill in Society),
“As to temper the Jubjub’s a desperate bird,
Since it lives in perpetual passion:
Its taste in costume is entirely absurd—
It is ages ahead of the fashion:
“But it knows any friend it has met once before:
It never will look at a bribe:
And in charity-meetings it stands at the door,
And collects—though it does not subscribe.
“ Its flavour when cooked is more exquisite far
Than mutton, or oysters, or eggs:
(Some think it keeps best in an ivory jar,
And some, in mahogany kegs:)
“You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue:
You condense it with locusts and tape:
Still keeping one principal object in view—
To preserve its symmetrical shape.”
The Butcher would gladly have talked till next day,
But he felt that the lesson must end,
And he wept with delight in attempting to say
He considered the Beaver his friend.
While the Beaver confessed, with affectionate looks
More eloquent even than tears,
It had learned in ten minutes far more than all books
Would have taught it in seventy years.
They returned hand-in-hand, and the Bellman, unmanned
(For a moment) with noble emotion,
Said “This amply repays all the wearisome days
We have spent on the billowy ocean!”
Such friends, as the Beaver and Butcher became,
Have seldom if ever been known;
In winter or summer, ’twas always the same—
You could never meet either alone.
And when quarrels arose—as one frequently finds
Quarrels will, spite of every endeavour—
The song of the Jubjub recurred to their minds,
And cemented their friendship for ever!
In the context of this poem... the "Beaver" and the "Butcher" were "natural enemies". What they both learned is what joined them inseparably together was their common interests and not what was so different about them individually.
Indeed... 70 years have passed and now we must learn the answers to the "Snark"...
Can "something" be a wave and a particle? If I asked "can an answer to a specific question be right and wrong?"... then you may become aware that there is no "absolute" answer that is impossible to be qualified in such a way to be accepted in some cases as "right" and in other cases "wrong"... depending on which qualifications are placed on it. It was stated in ancient times that man will never fly. They were certainly right... there are some restrictions on man as a species that cannot allow him to fly but luckily there are some restricted situations in which man is "allowed to fly", not with fluffy little feathers like the birds but in various ways and in many cases exceeding the abilities of mere birds. These "exceptions" will continue to be found even in our future (if mankind continues to have one).
A theory has been proposed by David Bohm (a prominent figure in the recent History of Physics and a student of Albert Einstein)... a "stalking horse" for the future to test existing particle theories against. David believed that matter was not the "thing" we thought it was and needed testing. David Bohm and Yakir Aharonov rediscovered the Aharonov-Bohm phenomenon in 1959. It involves the observation that "knowledge of the classical electromagnetic field acting locally on a particle is not sufficient to predict its quantum-mechanical behavior." A "stalking horse" was created by Bohm to test the boundaries of non-locality of the particle. It came to be know as Bohmian Mechanics and it embodied the idea of a particle "riding" a wave at the same time being a model of processes in our Universe.
Wikipedia: Aharonov-Bohm effect
Wikipedia: Bohm interpretation
Bohm knew that his theory was not the answer to the problems that already were surfacing in Physics. More questions were answered when John Bell stated "No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics." This was emphasized with the experiments testing this theory by Alain Aspect... the non-locality of entanglement of entities at "infinite velocity". You can run and you can hide but in the end this statement will find you in Quantum Mechanics since Quantum Mechanics is entirely based on a local theory of quantum phenomena. What I certainly do not mean by this is that quantum theory does not exist or that quantum phenomena are not real... what I am saying (subtly) is that the mathematical theory of quantum physics as it was formulated and entrenched in the Copenhagen Interpretation proposed by Neils Bohr is wrong. For 70 years this fact is being "buried" in turgid mathematics over and over in some frenetic effort to cover what should have been shouted from the rooftops way back then and it was something all the "main players" at the time knew but because of "personalities" at the time were very strong willed, and all the "t"'s were not crossed and the "i"'s dotted, a "myth" was perpetrated that the entire fraternity has been engaged in. A right of passage if you will. Unfortunately like all ancient rites they are simply formalisms that do not carry any "truth".
QUOTE
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 June 23. 2008
Quantum physics’ new world order - The National June 23. 2008
Now the "stalking horse" of Bohmian Mechanics is not "true"... for instance binary systems like waves and particles are not "both" things at the same time but the extreme cases of this phenomenon "mimic" classic particles and classic waves. The particle is really a packet... an entity that under normal conditions that cannot be destroyed easily. This occurs in different regimes. In high energy regimes the object called an electron behaves as a particles while in the other extremum the electron is a space filling wave... a de Broglie Matter Wave.
Wikipedia: de Broglie hypothesis
A further discussion of this matter is here ...
Physorg Forum: Any Bohmian's Here?
IMHO the "particle" is only a special kind of wave... some of them can be dissipated such as photons (the "electromagnetic wave") and others cannot be dissipated such as electrons (CPT stabilized "waves" a kind of stable soliton). The photons is the exchange force in our Universe while all the particles accept these energies as packets emitted from and generated by other "particle" sources. Bohm's theory created an intermediate interpretational "space" to map the particles into a continuously evolving worldline for each of the quantum "particles". Quantum Theory and specifically the Copenhagen Interpretation does not incorporate "worldlines" since the "particles" have no history, so particles of the same kid are "indistinguishable" and the theory is also "time symmetric". These three points rule out the Bohmian Interpretation. This is related to the underling postulate .... that the wave and the particle theory of quantum physics are identical.
A "selection" of approaches by Bohr using only local particle properties means that the operational non-local nature of our Physics excludes the concept of particle history and the theory is a purely statistical treatment. Now from here on I am taking a guess at these ratios for demonstration purposes... the actual numbers will not affect the overall assumptions. For instance if we were to view the statistics from the local Bureau of Statistics regarding the nature of the human population... statistically speaking each "instance" has a roughly 50% chance of being male and 50% chance of being female. Their individual will "cluster" with high probability in "cities". They own individually perhaps 10% of a home on average and they have 2.1 offspring when "paired" after a period of 10 years of nuptial association. Each member of the population will have a "career cross section" for instance an individual will be 12% Public Servant, 5% Industrial Worker, 25% "Homemaker", 0.001% Axe Murderer, 0.01% Physicist, 0.5% Millionaire with the remaining percentile being category "other".
Naturally this figure does not mean that you personally are a transsexual or a rich multidisciplinary Axe Murderer. What it means is you will be in a particular "state" with all these functions 100% determined at a particular point in time (on census night). What the census does not know and cannot predict is where you will be the day after or the day before or where you will be in 50 years. This is analogous to the Quantum Theory. It is unable to distinguish between you and the Axe Murderer down the street. The Axe Murderer down your street has a "history" you do not have that made him an Axe Murderer (by choice as a "career decision" or through some perceived "necessity"). Quantum Theory is exactly like this in its nature and works on probability density or by summing up "outcomes" of "trials"... it is not a tool that predicts a "path" for an individual "particle".
The new theories predict path and this invalidates the statistical and mathematical idealizations used in the past. I "smile" when I see the struggles that some are having with these theories as they wrestle with the "maths"... what the maths will not do is sort them out on the path to a new common sense concept of their Universe...
Read this poem and the "exploits" the Beaver and the Butcher and what is happening to everyone as they all "Hunt the Snark".
The Hunting of the Snark: Lewis Carroll
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 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 June 23. 2008 |
Now the "stalking horse" of Bohmian Mechanics is not "true"... for instance binary systems like waves and particles are not "both" things at the same time but the extreme cases of this phenomenon "mimic" classic particles and classic waves. The particle is really a packet... an entity that under normal conditions that cannot be destroyed easily. This occurs in different regimes. In high energy regimes the object called an electron behaves as a particles while in the other extremum the electron is a space filling wave... a de Broglie Matter Wave.
Wikipedia: de Broglie hypothesis
A further discussion of this matter is here ...
Physorg Forum: Any Bohmian's Here?
IMHO the "particle" is only a special kind of wave... some of them can be dissipated such as photons (the "electromagnetic wave") and others cannot be dissipated such as electrons (CPT stabilized "waves" a kind of stable soliton). The photons is the exchange force in our Universe while all the particles accept these energies as packets emitted from and generated by other "particle" sources. Bohm's theory created an intermediate interpretational "space" to map the particles into a continuously evolving worldline for each of the quantum "particles". Quantum Theory and specifically the Copenhagen Interpretation does not incorporate "worldlines" since the "particles" have no history, so particles of the same kid are "indistinguishable" and the theory is also "time symmetric". These three points rule out the Bohmian Interpretation. This is related to the underling postulate .... that the wave and the particle theory of quantum physics are identical.
A "selection" of approaches by Bohr using only local particle properties means that the operational non-local nature of our Physics excludes the concept of particle history and the theory is a purely statistical treatment. Now from here on I am taking a guess at these ratios for demonstration purposes... the actual numbers will not affect the overall assumptions. For instance if we were to view the statistics from the local Bureau of Statistics regarding the nature of the human population... statistically speaking each "instance" has a roughly 50% chance of being male and 50% chance of being female. Their individual will "cluster" with high probability in "cities". They own individually perhaps 10% of a home on average and they have 2.1 offspring when "paired" after a period of 10 years of nuptial association. Each member of the population will have a "career cross section" for instance an individual will be 12% Public Servant, 5% Industrial Worker, 25% "Homemaker", 0.001% Axe Murderer, 0.01% Physicist, 0.5% Millionaire with the remaining percentile being category "other".
Naturally this figure does not mean that you personally are a transsexual or a rich multidisciplinary Axe Murderer. What it means is you will be in a particular "state" with all these functions 100% determined at a particular point in time (on census night). What the census does not know and cannot predict is where you will be the day after or the day before or where you will be in 50 years. This is analogous to the Quantum Theory. It is unable to distinguish between you and the Axe Murderer down the street. The Axe Murderer down your street has a "history" you do not have that made him an Axe Murderer (by choice as a "career decision" or through some perceived "necessity"). Quantum Theory is exactly like this in its nature and works on probability density or by summing up "outcomes" of "trials"... it is not a tool that predicts a "path" for an individual "particle".
The new theories predict path and this invalidates the statistical and mathematical idealizations used in the past. I "smile" when I see the struggles that some are having with these theories as they wrestle with the "maths"... what the maths will not do is sort them out on the path to a new common sense concept of their Universe...
Read this poem and the "exploits" the Beaver and the Butcher and what is happening to everyone as they all "Hunt the Snark".
The Hunting of the Snark: Lewis Carroll
Fit the Fifth
THE BEAVER’S LESSON
Each thought he was thinking of nothing but “Snark”
And the glorious work of the day;
And each tried to pretend that he did not remark
That the other was going that way.
But the valley grew narrow and narrower still,
And the evening got darker and colder,
Till (merely from nervousness, not from goodwill)
They marched along shoulder to shoulder.
Then a scream, shrill and high, rent the shuddering sky,
And they knew that some danger was near:
The Beaver turned pale to the tip of its tail,
And even the Butcher felt queer.
He thought of his childhood, left far far behind—
That blissful and innocent state—
The sound so exactly recalled to his mind
A pencil that squeaks on a slate!
“’Tis the voice of the Jubjub!” he suddenly cried.
(This man, that they used to call “Dunce.”)
“As the Bellman would tell you,” he added with pride,
“I have uttered that sentiment once.
“’Tis the note of the Jubjub! Keep count, I entreat;
You will find I have told it you twice.
’Tis the song of the Jubjub! The proof is complete,
If only I’ve stated it thrice.”
The Beaver had counted with scrupulous care,
Attending to every word:
But it fairly lost heart, and outgrabe in despair,
When the third repetition occurred.
It felt that, in spite of all possible pains,
It had somehow contrived to lose count,
And the only thing now was to rack its poor brains
By reckoning up the amount.
“Two added to one—if that could but be done,”
It said, “with one’s fingers and thumbs!”
Recollecting with tears how, in earlier years,
It had taken no pains with its sums.
“The thing can be done,” said the Butcher, “I think.
The thing must be done, I am sure.
The thing shall be done! Bring me paper and ink,
The best there is time to procure.”
The Beaver brought paper,portfolio, pens,
And ink in unfailing supplies:
While strange creepy creatures came out of their dens,
And watched them with wondering eyes.
Click - The Beaver and the Butcher "cooperate" on the Mathematics
So engrossed was the Butcher, he heeded them not,
As he wrote with a pen in each hand,
And explained all the while in a popular style
Which the Beaver could well understand.
“Taking Three as the subject to reason about—
A convenient number to state—
We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out
By One Thousand diminished by Eight.
“The result we proceed to divide, as you see,
By Nine Hundred and Ninety Two:
Then subtract Seventeen, and the answer must be
Exactly and perfectly true.
“The method employed I would gladly explain,
While I have it so clear in my head,
If I had but the time and you had but the brain—
But much yet remains to be said.
“In one moment I’ve seen what has hitherto been
Enveloped in absolute mystery,
And without extra charge I will give you at large
A Lesson in Natural History.”
In his genial way he proceeded to say
(Forgetting all laws of propriety,
And that giving instruction, without introduction,
Would have caused quite a thrill in Society),
“As to temper the Jubjub’s a desperate bird,
Since it lives in perpetual passion:
Its taste in costume is entirely absurd—
It is ages ahead of the fashion:
“But it knows any friend it has met once before:
It never will look at a bribe:
And in charity-meetings it stands at the door,
And collects—though it does not subscribe.
“ Its flavour when cooked is more exquisite far
Than mutton, or oysters, or eggs:
(Some think it keeps best in an ivory jar,
And some, in mahogany kegs:)
“You boil it in sawdust: you salt it in glue:
You condense it with locusts and tape:
Still keeping one principal object in view—
To preserve its symmetrical shape.”
The Butcher would gladly have talked till next day,
But he felt that the lesson must end,
And he wept with delight in attempting to say
He considered the Beaver his friend.
While the Beaver confessed, with affectionate looks
More eloquent even than tears,
It had learned in ten minutes far more than all books
Would have taught it in seventy years.
They returned hand-in-hand, and the Bellman, unmanned
(For a moment) with noble emotion,
Said “This amply repays all the wearisome days
We have spent on the billowy ocean!”
Such friends, as the Beaver and Butcher became,
Have seldom if ever been known;
In winter or summer, ’twas always the same—
You could never meet either alone.
And when quarrels arose—as one frequently finds
Quarrels will, spite of every endeavour—
The song of the Jubjub recurred to their minds,
And cemented their friendship for ever!
In the context of this poem... the "Beaver" and the "Butcher" were "natural enemies". What they both learned is what joined them inseparably together was their common interests and not what was so different about them individually.
Indeed... 70 years have passed and now we must learn the answers to the "Snark"...
QUOTE (Albert Einstein and Carver Mead+)
In the period that Einstein was active as a professor, one of his students came to him and said: "The questions of this year's exam are the same as last years!" "True," Einstein said, "but this year all answers are different."
"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. ... The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles."
(Carver Mead, Professor Emeritus at Caltech. Received $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize in 1999)
Don't just simply "vanish away"...
Cheers
"It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics. ... The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles."
(Carver Mead, Professor Emeritus at Caltech. Received $500,000 Lemelson-MIT Prize in 1999)
Don't just simply "vanish away"...
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Jul 3 2008, 08:08 PM)
Hi Beer w/Straw, MjolnirPants, excaza, DavidD et al,
Firstly... we must remember that others may not use English as a primary language. Maybe people may not understand something in particular but because this is an international site we should be able to accept that there are enormous "opportunities" for misinterpretation. It is already almost impossible to communicate using this form of anonymous communication with people who have spent their whole life speaking and using only English with no other language... it can be worse in other circumstances where the "gap" can't be bridged by simple interpretation. So be patient with others.
We do remember. DavidD claims English IS his primary language, or we wouldn't be making such an issue out of it.
Firstly... we must remember that others may not use English as a primary language. Maybe people may not understand something in particular but because this is an international site we should be able to accept that there are enormous "opportunities" for misinterpretation. It is already almost impossible to communicate using this form of anonymous communication with people who have spent their whole life speaking and using only English with no other language... it can be worse in other circumstances where the "gap" can't be bridged by simple interpretation. So be patient with others.
We do remember. DavidD claims English IS his primary language, or we wouldn't be making such an issue out of it.
Where I leading? If atoms radiating waves which expanding like spheres quadraticaly, when times goes on, then for example in optical quantum computer noise increase quadraticaly at distance or in over words, energy needs quadraticaly depending on distance lenght.
If photons is like tiny waves, but particles, which don't expanding like sphere, but always taking small compact space and only becoming like waves, then there is some obstacles of they lenght like single photon interference and difraction, when they coming through small holes, double slits, in martc-zenderh interferometer...
But I think nobody of you don't understand about what i am talking and this is not english problem, but knowledges...
And by the way if atom rdiating spherical waves, then possible that there no any colpase but only sum up of many waves, i am not sure...need more to think...
If photons is like tiny waves, but particles, which don't expanding like sphere, but always taking small compact space and only becoming like waves, then there is some obstacles of they lenght like single photon interference and difraction, when they coming through small holes, double slits, in martc-zenderh interferometer...
But I think nobody of you don't understand about what i am talking and this is not english problem, but knowledges...
And by the way if atom rdiating spherical waves, then possible that there no any colpase but only sum up of many waves, i am not sure...need more to think...
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Jul 4 2008, 03:16 AM)
I've heard that light can be both a wave and a particle. This sis not new but I'm remembering (or dreaming) that in experiments you have to choose one. That it is a wave or a particle, but not both for specific experimentation.
Why?
I've always used the analogy of a coin.
We know that a coin is both heads and tails.
However, we can only see a coin as heads, or tails (loosely speaking).
And any experiment that can only see heads, or tails, will always see all coins as heads, or all coins as tails.
Simply, the experiments we currently have can't see both wave aspects and particle aspects at the same time.
Another way (I suppose) of thinking about it, is that a wave packet is just a particle blurred by the HUP, and a particle is just a wave packet with a very very very short wavelength.
Of course, bearing all that in mind, Molecular orbital theory deals with electron standing waves that span nanometers (and you could argue that mains electricity uses electron standing waves with wavelengths on the order of kilometers (but then, that's not that different from photons is it?)
Why?
I've always used the analogy of a coin.
We know that a coin is both heads and tails.
However, we can only see a coin as heads, or tails (loosely speaking).
And any experiment that can only see heads, or tails, will always see all coins as heads, or all coins as tails.
Simply, the experiments we currently have can't see both wave aspects and particle aspects at the same time.
Another way (I suppose) of thinking about it, is that a wave packet is just a particle blurred by the HUP, and a particle is just a wave packet with a very very very short wavelength.
Of course, bearing all that in mind, Molecular orbital theory deals with electron standing waves that span nanometers (and you could argue that mains electricity uses electron standing waves with wavelengths on the order of kilometers (but then, that's not that different from photons is it?)
Hi Beer w/Straw, MjolnirPants, excaza, DavidD, Trippy et al,
QUOTE (DavidD+)
If photons is like tiny waves, but particles, which don't expanding like sphere, but always taking small compact space and only becoming like waves, then there is some obstacles of they lenght like single photon interference and difraction, when they coming through small holes, double slits, in martc-zenderh interferometer...
But I think nobody of you don't understand about what i am talking and this is not english problem, but knowledges...
And by the way if atom rdiating spherical waves, then possible that there no any colpase but only sum up of many waves, i am not sure...need more to think...
But I think nobody of you don't understand about what i am talking and this is not english problem, but knowledges...
And by the way if atom rdiating spherical waves, then possible that there no any colpase but only sum up of many waves, i am not sure...need more to think...
I don't think David understands I have been saying "approximately" that for all the time I have been on this Forum... and that is "quite a while". Photons expand on the surface of a sphere as a wave but remain a packet and when collapsed they are absorbed into a single atomic sink for optical photons and into larger more extended structures for microwaves and radio frequencies. In the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory (in conjunction with his Quantum Electrodynamics Many Paths Theory) there is a time symmetry for these processes which ensures that there is a spatial symmetry as well to this wave expansion. The solution to this apparent contradiction is not being able to "see or experience" the advanced wave. It is easier to understand this is true for a single photon in an interferometer, a single photon needs no other photons to interfere with since it is not responding to the propagation of the photon itself but to the "matter wave cavity" it is propagating in. The one photon is emitted as a relatively compact packet from the source and also from the sink as part of a single event starting when the photon leaves the source and ending only when it reaches the destination. In the interim it is occupying the cavity composed of de Broglie Matter Waves.They "fill the cavity" as a single wave as it were "responding to the structure of the surrounding matter through their space spanning waves then becoming localized once again as a resonant phenomenon in the sink matching in time and space the original resonant emission event (along a zero length null geodesic) ... the only difference is the two apparent disparate events that are separate in our space and time are part of the one event in the rest frame of the photon. The "collapse" as everyone is saying separates these "non-local resonant happenings" from each other which is "instantaneous" communication of the presence through the intervening space. But "entanglement" could also be considered as simply this instantaneous connection even without the collapse... for when two things are quantum entangled they are entangled even when they are in transit and unseen through the interaction of advanced and retarded waves... like linked hoops... and a collapse will not "force" the event to occur that is in actuality occurring all the time because they are "co-resonant" events at source and at the sink. The net result of this "spreading" both from source and from the sink of a single "negotiated" transaction as stated by John Cramer in his Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Theory (based on Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory) is a mixing in space and time to form a progressive standing wave... a Fourier composed wavepacket that travels from source to sink... The quantized Photon.
Click - Wheeler-Feynman Helical Model of a Photon after JE Carroll 2006
An infinite 'amount' is the answer. If you think about this, it explains why the predominantly ‘spherical’ shape adorns the Cosmos.
ALL 'things' are the standing spherical wave-motions of Space. A single 'SSW' has no relevance, as it cannot exist singularly. The 'in-wave' is also the 'out-waves' from the rest of existence.
With an 'infinite number' of waves simultaneously converging, it is possible to understand how the myriad of different frequencies (speeds of motion) produce the diversity we observe.
Yes, it is quite a radical departure from the ways in which we have conditioned ourselves to think, and as such takes some time to adjust to, but it explains many things, and not just the 'physics'.
g.
Click - Wheeler-Feynman Helical Model of a Photon after JE Carroll 2006
QUOTE (Abstract of Carroll's Paper - lanl.arXiv.org > quant-ph > arXiv:quant-ph/0609156+)
A photon-like wavepacket based on novel solutions of Maxwell's equations is proposed. It is believed to be the first 'classical' model that contains so many of the accepted quantum features. In this new work, novel solutions to Maxwell's classical equations in dispersive guides are considered where local helical twists with an arbitrary angular frequency W modulate a classical mode (angular frequency w, group velocity vg). The modal field patterns are unchanged, apart from the twist, provided that the helical velocity vh equals vg. Pairs of resonating retarded and advanced waves with modal and helical frequencies (w,W) and (w,-W)respectively, trap one temporal period of the underlying classical mode forming a photon-like packet provided W = (M+1/2)w: 'Schrodinger' frequencies. This theory supports experimental evidence that the photon velocity does not change with M in dispersive systems. Promotion and demotion increase or decrease the helical frequencies in units of w. An energy of interaction between retarded and advanced waves in the wave-packet is also proportional to these helical frequencies W = (M+1/2)w similar to Planck's law. Group velocity and polarisation are unaffected by the value of M. Advanced waves enable phase and polarisation to be predicted along all future paths and may help to explain the outcomes of experiments on delayed-choice interference and entanglement, without causality being violated.
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll
So it is a relatively small step to progress from the action of waveguides to propagation inside of much larger cavities... even our Universe... or even much smaller cavities... even atomic cavities. Then there is David Bohm and his Holographic Universe and the possibility that compact dimensions lead to a potentially never ending series of "Russian Dolls" where entire Universes may be packed inside a single sub-atomic particle. Us and everything in our universe may be Alice's Looking Glass People constructed from holographic matter waves... not waves of light... a tiny "dark quantum Universe" based on Juan Maldacena's Conjecture of AdS-CFT.... Or "infinities in a grain of sand". Who can really know where this all ends... there is ample experimental evidence for much of this already. It now depends on the way things "turn out" as to if the universe is constructed "holistically" and the deconstructionism of recent years may finally give way to a "pristine symmetry" of holism.
The standing "matter waves" in a waveguide as measured/illuminated in a particular type of apparatus using an atomic force "microscope".... the "field intensity" (of ensembles of coherent radiant photons) is equated with the "probability density" of conventional theory
... this leads to the interpretation..
Schrodinger's Equation in a cavity
... notice the close resemblance to...
The electromagnetic wave equation in a cavity... both according to Shen's Paper
"The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory"... by Jian Qi Shen 2004
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405007
Example of Wheeler Feynman-Absorber Theory (this cannot be observed but if it could...)
PS: I do not "exactly" agree what the interpretation of WSM as indicated by Milo Wolff. This is a single ended view of an event which "must" be dual ended for a transaction to progress. The Wheeler Feynman Absorber Transaction cannot be "blocked" since the transaction is made with where the particle will be in the future and not necessarily where it is now.
Regarding David... If David is having some problem with language regardless of his own statements that he has English as a first language, then perhaps we need to be more careful what we are saying because he (she?) is not being precise enough to convey any useful information. Barriers between individuals are great enough and misunderstanding is so easy without any "face to face" contact. He may not know just how hard this can be even without any "deliberate noise" entered into the data stream. I hope he realizes he is not doing himself any favors here by being "cleaver" with a linguistically dumb style. I won't make any comments if David used a better level of communication... I am certain all of us would very much prefer that David try harder to communicate with all of us. We also don't know what age he is so it can also be very difficult as well from that direction. Hey David what is it with this style of lingo you are using?... can you tell us about why you are doing this? ... From our point of view it appears that either current English as it is written in the west does not correlate with the English you are using. Of course you could be anywhere on the surface of the planet and relatively isolated from the rest of us. I want you to retain your anonymity but this "disembodied spirit communication" needs to be fleshed out sometimes so we can gain what it is that is going through your mind. We roughly know how much you add to the topics and we understand you are "pumping us for information"... that's fine but the question is why the "heavy mask"?
Cheers
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll
So it is a relatively small step to progress from the action of waveguides to propagation inside of much larger cavities... even our Universe... or even much smaller cavities... even atomic cavities. Then there is David Bohm and his Holographic Universe and the possibility that compact dimensions lead to a potentially never ending series of "Russian Dolls" where entire Universes may be packed inside a single sub-atomic particle. Us and everything in our universe may be Alice's Looking Glass People constructed from holographic matter waves... not waves of light... a tiny "dark quantum Universe" based on Juan Maldacena's Conjecture of AdS-CFT.... Or "infinities in a grain of sand". Who can really know where this all ends... there is ample experimental evidence for much of this already. It now depends on the way things "turn out" as to if the universe is constructed "holistically" and the deconstructionism of recent years may finally give way to a "pristine symmetry" of holism.
The standing "matter waves" in a waveguide as measured/illuminated in a particular type of apparatus using an atomic force "microscope".... the "field intensity" (of ensembles of coherent radiant photons) is equated with the "probability density" of conventional theory
... this leads to the interpretation..
Schrodinger's Equation in a cavity
... notice the close resemblance to...
The electromagnetic wave equation in a cavity... both according to Shen's Paper
"The resemblances in mathematical structures between the optical constants of artificial electromagnetic media and some physical phenomena in field theory"... by Jian Qi Shen 2004
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0405007
Example of Wheeler Feynman-Absorber Theory (this cannot be observed but if it could...)
PS: I do not "exactly" agree what the interpretation of WSM as indicated by Milo Wolff. This is a single ended view of an event which "must" be dual ended for a transaction to progress. The Wheeler Feynman Absorber Transaction cannot be "blocked" since the transaction is made with where the particle will be in the future and not necessarily where it is now.
Regarding David... If David is having some problem with language regardless of his own statements that he has English as a first language, then perhaps we need to be more careful what we are saying because he (she?) is not being precise enough to convey any useful information. Barriers between individuals are great enough and misunderstanding is so easy without any "face to face" contact. He may not know just how hard this can be even without any "deliberate noise" entered into the data stream. I hope he realizes he is not doing himself any favors here by being "cleaver" with a linguistically dumb style. I won't make any comments if David used a better level of communication... I am certain all of us would very much prefer that David try harder to communicate with all of us. We also don't know what age he is so it can also be very difficult as well from that direction. Hey David what is it with this style of lingo you are using?... can you tell us about why you are doing this? ... From our point of view it appears that either current English as it is written in the west does not correlate with the English you are using. Of course you could be anywhere on the surface of the planet and relatively isolated from the rest of us. I want you to retain your anonymity but this "disembodied spirit communication" needs to be fleshed out sometimes so we can gain what it is that is going through your mind. We roughly know how much you add to the topics and we understand you are "pumping us for information"... that's fine but the question is why the "heavy mask"?
Cheers
So if wave expanding like sphere and then colpase into one point, then amplitude of wave must always decrease. But how in reletivistic speed, then time goes slower and electrons rotating slower, but then radiation of waves isn't slower. thus who seeing inside spaceship radiation of photons he seeing in stoping time efect and he seeing actualy not one photon, but many photons and he saying, that this is single photon, but actualy there is many photons, becouse when time "stops", where more photons rdiated per time unit, becosue they must be visible for observer not in spacecraft. Thus in reletivistic speed there is more waves-photons packed rdaited by atom for spaceship observer, but becouse atom moving slower then it seems, that was radiated only one photon. Thus electron around atom flying slower, but jumping from orbit to orbit also in same speed c (colapsing). Thus there probably no such understanding like one photon, becouse there is many of them always...
Good Elf:
I agree with you on the assessment of another's writing. It's possible that the problem can be more a deficiency in the comprehension capabilities of the reader than the writer.
I find it quite refreshing to see these ideas looked upon from a wave perspective. And as you mention, scientists for over a half a century have swept under the carpet ideas of Einstein, Schrodinger, Everett and others.
In reading what you and others have written, there are several areas I'd appreciate some clarification on.
The first is several ideas related to matter (de Broglie) waves, which when waves of similar frequencies pass through one another they spawn standing patterns, which give the appearance to our senses and instrumentation (through orthogonally producing photonic waves) of producing matter. It would seem there are so many of these spherical matter waves incoming and outgoing from all directions (at least 3-dimensionally), waves of say the same frequency converging at a single location from different directions. I mean, like, how many of these wave fronts does it take to create a 3D spherical standing wave? 1,2, 3, 1000? Are there different possible types of patterns depending on the number of waves simultaneously converging?
And it would seem that each of the standing patterns would be unique, not only with respect to weightings depending on the angles of convergence, but with respect to each individual's unique world-line? In essence, would every 'what we would consider a particle' in a certain respect be unique? And not only with relation to world-line, but to actual composition? Are no two particles alike?
Another thing that comes to mind is while you've spoken about the source and sink of photons, would the source and sink of matter waves be looked upon similarly except existing in a compacted dimension?
Do these spherical matter waves create the components of the subatomic particles like the quarks, and would the interactions and resonances between the vibratory patterns of these more elementary parts (through photons?) or other matter waves create what we might conceive of as a particle such as a proton?
You mention there being a number of compacted dimensions. Would waves of more deeply compacted dimensions be responsible for creating the deBroglie waves in a fashion similar to the de Broglie waves spawning the photonic realm? How deep would they go dimensionally?
I hope in at least in some dimension that these questions make some sense.
Exciting stuff.
Best
I agree with you on the assessment of another's writing. It's possible that the problem can be more a deficiency in the comprehension capabilities of the reader than the writer.
I find it quite refreshing to see these ideas looked upon from a wave perspective. And as you mention, scientists for over a half a century have swept under the carpet ideas of Einstein, Schrodinger, Everett and others.
In reading what you and others have written, there are several areas I'd appreciate some clarification on.
The first is several ideas related to matter (de Broglie) waves, which when waves of similar frequencies pass through one another they spawn standing patterns, which give the appearance to our senses and instrumentation (through orthogonally producing photonic waves) of producing matter. It would seem there are so many of these spherical matter waves incoming and outgoing from all directions (at least 3-dimensionally), waves of say the same frequency converging at a single location from different directions. I mean, like, how many of these wave fronts does it take to create a 3D spherical standing wave? 1,2, 3, 1000? Are there different possible types of patterns depending on the number of waves simultaneously converging?
And it would seem that each of the standing patterns would be unique, not only with respect to weightings depending on the angles of convergence, but with respect to each individual's unique world-line? In essence, would every 'what we would consider a particle' in a certain respect be unique? And not only with relation to world-line, but to actual composition? Are no two particles alike?
Another thing that comes to mind is while you've spoken about the source and sink of photons, would the source and sink of matter waves be looked upon similarly except existing in a compacted dimension?
Do these spherical matter waves create the components of the subatomic particles like the quarks, and would the interactions and resonances between the vibratory patterns of these more elementary parts (through photons?) or other matter waves create what we might conceive of as a particle such as a proton?
You mention there being a number of compacted dimensions. Would waves of more deeply compacted dimensions be responsible for creating the deBroglie waves in a fashion similar to the de Broglie waves spawning the photonic realm? How deep would they go dimensionally?
I hope in at least in some dimension that these questions make some sense.
Exciting stuff.
Best
QUOTE
I mean, like, how many of these wave fronts does it take to create a 3D spherical standing wave? 1,2, 3, 1000? Are there different possible types of patterns depending on the number of waves simultaneously converging?
An infinite 'amount' is the answer. If you think about this, it explains why the predominantly ‘spherical’ shape adorns the Cosmos.
ALL 'things' are the standing spherical wave-motions of Space. A single 'SSW' has no relevance, as it cannot exist singularly. The 'in-wave' is also the 'out-waves' from the rest of existence.
With an 'infinite number' of waves simultaneously converging, it is possible to understand how the myriad of different frequencies (speeds of motion) produce the diversity we observe.
Yes, it is quite a radical departure from the ways in which we have conditioned ourselves to think, and as such takes some time to adjust to, but it explains many things, and not just the 'physics'.
g.
QUOTE (excaza+Jul 4 2008, 01:41 AM)
We do remember. DavidD claims English IS his primary language, or we wouldn't be making such an issue out of it.
I didn't think it was his primary language and was going to tell him to write up jis theory of 'smallest spheres' in his own language and then have it translated.
I didn't think it was his primary language and was going to tell him to write up jis theory of 'smallest spheres' in his own language and then have it translated.
Gorgeous, I'm definitely getting some mileage from your comments - thanks.
Best
Best
QUOTE (Neuralize+Jul 4 2008, 08:40 AM)
Gorgeous, I'm definitely getting some mileage from your comments - thanks.
Best
You're very welcome.
g.
Best
You're very welcome.
g.
Hi Beer w/Straw, MjolnirPants, excaza, DavidD, Trippy, Neuralize, Gorgeous et al,
I think David is making a good attempt at trying to get his message across. And it is difficult to get the message across to others as commented by Neuralize... it is more difficult to communicate at the readers end than it is commonly appreciated. I know I have problems. If you looked at some of my earlier attempts at this form of communication you would understand just how inadequate I was and still am. In my case I am exceedingly "picky" about what I am saying... obsessively so... even after an hour of modifying the result of a post I am still sometimes unhappy about things I have said.
I will answer David's questions first...
I think David is making a good attempt at trying to get his message across. And it is difficult to get the message across to others as commented by Neuralize... it is more difficult to communicate at the readers end than it is commonly appreciated. I know I have problems. If you looked at some of my earlier attempts at this form of communication you would understand just how inadequate I was and still am. In my case I am exceedingly "picky" about what I am saying... obsessively so... even after an hour of modifying the result of a post I am still sometimes unhappy about things I have said.
I will answer David's questions first...
QUOTE (DavidD+)
So if wave expanding like sphere and then colpase into one point, then amplitude of wave must always decrease.
Not really because of the quantum nature of photons they are not dissipated by spreading. Similarly they are "re-focused" when they collapse back to the size and the frequency they were initiated in the source. It is an operational fact of photons that they expand into a "complex" space along the "i" direction where i = √-1. This is because of the simple nature of the normalized form of the Einstein-Lorentz Factor √(1 - v˛/C˛). This is Pythagoras' Theorem in flatspace where the relative velocity of a particle is v and the relative velocity of light is always C... normalized. If you multiply this factor inside th bracket by C˛ you will see that this Factor becomes √(C˛ - v˛)/C where -v˛ is the square of iv an orthogonal "particle" velocity and the hypotenuse becomes √(1 - v˛/C˛). The particle velocity (or the speed of light is always i times the the speed or visa versa. Every Radio Tech knows these things because of the complex nature of waveguide calculations lead to these entities which are vectorially orthogonal in direction to the various matter components. While resistance is "real" the "electromagnetic components" of capacitance and inductance are orthogonal (in different directions). It is no different when considering the propagation of electromagnetic waves and the complex impedance of "spacetime" that the directions of propagation of material particles at rest or otherwise is always orthogonal to the speed of light. Another way to say this is no matter how fast you travel relative to material particles the speed of light remains the same.... because it is mathematically "orthogonal". It is clear that Special Relativity is about the way light propagates in flatspace on the surface of an expanding sphere and so represents a kind of Pythagoras Theorem in higher dimensions because Pythagoras was the one who showed that simple relationship.
"Relativity" Speaking: PhysOrg
"Relativity" Speaking: PhysOrg
QUOTE (DavidD+)
But how in reletivistic speed, then time goes slower and electrons rotating slower, but then radiation of waves isn't slower. thus who seeing inside spaceship radiation of photons he seeing in stoping time efect and he seeing actualy not one photon, but many photons and he saying, that this is single photon, but actualy there is many photons, becouse when time "stops", where more photons rdiated per time unit, becosue they must be visible for observer not in spacecraft. Thus in reletivistic speed there is more waves-photons packed rdaited by atom for spaceship observer, but becouse atom moving slower then it seems, that was radiated only one photon. Thus electron around atom flying slower, but jumping from orbit to orbit also in same speed c (colapsing). Thus there probably no such understanding like one photon, becouse there is many of them always...
It is not possible to notice any change in the operational nature of physical law due to "absolute speed" in a rest frame. We are surrounded by Relativity but we are not experiencing any of the effects in our frame. We "see" things that are influenced by relativity but they are either "far off" and large or usually incredibly small and close bye and related and mixed with the quantum phenomena. Still... all events affect what we "see". The events are external to the observer frame. The numbers of photons radiated by a source in relative motion is independent of the observer (... this is just saying that the number of photons emitted by a torch or flashlight, for instance, does not depend on who is observing it elsewhere... very obvious really). The observer cannot do any physics that shows that he is in motion in any absolute sense. The "energy" that each photon transfers in direct interactions may only depend on the relative velocity of the material source and the photon itself that was emitted in that rest frame of the originating source (... that bit of matter from which the light was emitted). The unexpected consequences of relativity exist "between" relatively moving frames not within a moving frame. Though there are many proviso's here since it is the nature of sub-atomic particles to be in some kind of "internal" motion they will be subject to relativistic effects that we are grossly unaware of.
The "slowing of time" exists only "between" frames, not "in" single frames. It is all about "comparisons" not direct measurements. Our direct measurements are affected by relative motion when we measure properties of relatively moving systems. In the material space ship there is no awareness of any effect due to Special Relativity... In fact this is one of it's basic tenants... motion is not "internally detectable"... and this is called the Principle of Equivalence... All inertial frames of reference are equivalent. We "think" that we live in a basically motionless universe... this is not true... everything is in motion. Measurable influences in Relativity can exist between the successive floors in a single building or the motion of airplanes... imagine what effects due to motion and gravity have over cosmic distances and times. No influence is too small or too large to be ignored at any scale. Indeed... in a piecemeal way everything has been measured and probed over and over to such an extent that the "facts" are well and truly known but unfortunately they are not "understood" as a whole. Our science is "deconstructionist" in it's nature and this means that Physics has evolved in a compartmentalized fashion... like atomic secrets... our knowledge is also "atomic" and broken down into the smallest elements... it is not possible for the deconstructionist's mind to grasp holistic facts... this "deconstructionism" is the way we keep information and knowledge from spreading and it should not be the way we teach our science to students. Along with the adage "shut up and calculate"... Physicists have become "human calculators" and not "holistic thinkers". The caution is I can find a computerized calculator for any function I would hope to find on the Web. This can make a "mathematician" out of anyone who uses it with intelligence. An "expert system" can do much more than even this. What then is a real Physicist...???
The observation of externally propagated light depends on the relative motion of the sources.... it is the matter "sources" that is relatively moving out there and not the speed of the emitted light which is unaffected by motion. A consequence of this relative motion is the Relativistic Doppler Effect which is similar to common Doppler Effect in sound where a train whistle or siren in motion passes a stationary observer.... you can have a stationary observer with sound (check out the recent thread on this forum where I have made a number of comments) but in the context that we are discussing here the "observer" always has a velocity of C w.r.t. the speed of light simply because velocity is a complex vector.
Why Light Has Constant Speed W.r.t Any Observer?
I used a simple argument there that is correct but limited in scope and content to the "audience" asking this question. Please be aware that thread answers only a single simple question from my point of view.
Quantum Events are by their very nature "invisible"... detection of the event destroys some of it's quantum properties. Photons are "bosons", they obey Bose-Einstein Statistics in a flatspace, and they can move freely without any permanent effect through other co-moving and contra-moving photons. Not so "fermion" particles, they obey the Fermi-Dirac Statistics of matter wave "particles". There is no "destruction" or "weakening or dissipation" while the quantized photons are propagating and the same applies in general to fermions (ignoring the interactions between fermions and bosons). There are differences though... Bosons can be created and dissipated without any restrictions while fermions have selection rules whereby their creation and dissipation require certain symmetry rules to be obeyed... CPT Symmetry Rules.
Wikipedia: CPT Symmetry
Please be aware that some statements made in this article in Wikipedia are not "universally" true and are subject to a great deal of interpretation but as a means of producing interest it can be very thoughtful.
Propagating photons are also "invisible in transit" and they are only visible when you detect them (in your eye or detector... and this is a Wheeler-Feynman Transaction). This is unlike a rocket for instance where it is possible to see the rocket in transit because it is a "particle".... However the "smaller the particle" the stronger the disturbing interaction. To detect "small" particles we need equally "small" photons, big photons cannot work in detecting the small particle. Small particles mean more and more massive elementary particles (contrary to common wisdom). Small photons mean more and more energetic photons. Clearly there is a "divergence" between the need to measure a position and momentum and the influence this measurement causes to the subsequent position and momentum of a particle. As long as we never measure the particle the motion is "somewhat predictable" and any measurement of a particle in motion will affect it's trajectory in a way that "appears to be random". Recent experiments show this to be a wrong assumption and this would lead to other topics such as 'squeezed light"... I will not branch there now.
Be aware that the propagation of light from a source is not the same everywhere. At a source in the rest frame, there is the near (evanescent) field where time is evolving as it is for the observers, and the far field of propagation away from sources and sinks time is no longer progressing relative to the observers (whom as we have just said can't observe anything unless they "become" a near field sink). In the near field the speed of light is not strictly limited and can propagate at infinite velocity and in the far field the speed of light is constant and time is not evolving for the propagating photon packet (though the packet is still "spreading"). These are not new ideas and should be pretty obvious and they are not accounted for in most university courses as part of an overall phenomenon. These phenomena are due essentially to the distributed nature of the sources or sinks... they are of finite size.
I think that answers David question (and may even partially answer Neuralize's questions as well).
The "slowing of time" exists only "between" frames, not "in" single frames. It is all about "comparisons" not direct measurements. Our direct measurements are affected by relative motion when we measure properties of relatively moving systems. In the material space ship there is no awareness of any effect due to Special Relativity... In fact this is one of it's basic tenants... motion is not "internally detectable"... and this is called the Principle of Equivalence... All inertial frames of reference are equivalent. We "think" that we live in a basically motionless universe... this is not true... everything is in motion. Measurable influences in Relativity can exist between the successive floors in a single building or the motion of airplanes... imagine what effects due to motion and gravity have over cosmic distances and times. No influence is too small or too large to be ignored at any scale. Indeed... in a piecemeal way everything has been measured and probed over and over to such an extent that the "facts" are well and truly known but unfortunately they are not "understood" as a whole. Our science is "deconstructionist" in it's nature and this means that Physics has evolved in a compartmentalized fashion... like atomic secrets... our knowledge is also "atomic" and broken down into the smallest elements... it is not possible for the deconstructionist's mind to grasp holistic facts... this "deconstructionism" is the way we keep information and knowledge from spreading and it should not be the way we teach our science to students. Along with the adage "shut up and calculate"... Physicists have become "human calculators" and not "holistic thinkers". The caution is I can find a computerized calculator for any function I would hope to find on the Web. This can make a "mathematician" out of anyone who uses it with intelligence. An "expert system" can do much more than even this. What then is a real Physicist...???
The observation of externally propagated light depends on the relative motion of the sources.... it is the matter "sources" that is relatively moving out there and not the speed of the emitted light which is unaffected by motion. A consequence of this relative motion is the Relativistic Doppler Effect which is similar to common Doppler Effect in sound where a train whistle or siren in motion passes a stationary observer.... you can have a stationary observer with sound (check out the recent thread on this forum where I have made a number of comments) but in the context that we are discussing here the "observer" always has a velocity of C w.r.t. the speed of light simply because velocity is a complex vector.
Why Light Has Constant Speed W.r.t Any Observer?
I used a simple argument there that is correct but limited in scope and content to the "audience" asking this question. Please be aware that thread answers only a single simple question from my point of view.
Quantum Events are by their very nature "invisible"... detection of the event destroys some of it's quantum properties. Photons are "bosons", they obey Bose-Einstein Statistics in a flatspace, and they can move freely without any permanent effect through other co-moving and contra-moving photons. Not so "fermion" particles, they obey the Fermi-Dirac Statistics of matter wave "particles". There is no "destruction" or "weakening or dissipation" while the quantized photons are propagating and the same applies in general to fermions (ignoring the interactions between fermions and bosons). There are differences though... Bosons can be created and dissipated without any restrictions while fermions have selection rules whereby their creation and dissipation require certain symmetry rules to be obeyed... CPT Symmetry Rules.
Wikipedia: CPT Symmetry
Please be aware that some statements made in this article in Wikipedia are not "universally" true and are subject to a great deal of interpretation but as a means of producing interest it can be very thoughtful.
Propagating photons are also "invisible in transit" and they are only visible when you detect them (in your eye or detector... and this is a Wheeler-Feynman Transaction). This is unlike a rocket for instance where it is possible to see the rocket in transit because it is a "particle".... However the "smaller the particle" the stronger the disturbing interaction. To detect "small" particles we need equally "small" photons, big photons cannot work in detecting the small particle. Small particles mean more and more massive elementary particles (contrary to common wisdom). Small photons mean more and more energetic photons. Clearly there is a "divergence" between the need to measure a position and momentum and the influence this measurement causes to the subsequent position and momentum of a particle. As long as we never measure the particle the motion is "somewhat predictable" and any measurement of a particle in motion will affect it's trajectory in a way that "appears to be random". Recent experiments show this to be a wrong assumption and this would lead to other topics such as 'squeezed light"... I will not branch there now.
Be aware that the propagation of light from a source is not the same everywhere. At a source in the rest frame, there is the near (evanescent) field where time is evolving as it is for the observers, and the far field of propagation away from sources and sinks time is no longer progressing relative to the observers (whom as we have just said can't observe anything unless they "become" a near field sink). In the near field the speed of light is not strictly limited and can propagate at infinite velocity and in the far field the speed of light is constant and time is not evolving for the propagating photon packet (though the packet is still "spreading"). These are not new ideas and should be pretty obvious and they are not accounted for in most university courses as part of an overall phenomenon. These phenomena are due essentially to the distributed nature of the sources or sinks... they are of finite size.
I think that answers David question (and may even partially answer Neuralize's questions as well).
QUOTE (Neuralize+)
The first is several ideas related to matter (de Broglie) waves, which when waves of similar frequencies pass through one another they spawn standing patterns, which give the appearance to our senses and instrumentation (through orthogonally producing photonic waves) of producing matter. It would seem there are so many of these spherical matter waves incoming and outgoing from all directions (at least 3-dimensionally), waves of say the same frequency converging at a single location from different directions. I mean, like, how many of these wave fronts does it take to create a 3D spherical standing wave? 1,2, 3, 1000? Are there different possible types of patterns depending on the number of waves simultaneously converging?
Do not make the simple error regarding matter waves and light waves.... they are certainly not the same. Matter waves are the result of the existence of matter... and light waves do not exhibit "matter" or "mass". Matter or mass by definition is "curved spacetime"... obviously curved in higher dimensions than the four "elementary" dimensions of space and time of Minkowski Spacetime (clearly most current theory does not ask the question "what lies beneath"? It is a controversial question but is answerable if we accept the ideas that Einstein was convinced with. Recent developments only reinforce these concepts not weaken them.... though through a much more complicated picture than what Einstein had initially considered. It is not possible to curve spacetime in a context of a simple flatspace. This curvature is mass... by definition... Einstein's definition. Mass is not to be confused with the sources of charge or fields of any kind. De Broglie Matter Waves propagate only in curved spacetime and light waves propagate in a pseudo-Minkowskian flatspace. When you are falling freely in space far away from the sources of matter then spacetime takes on the character of Minkowski Spacetime. The Minkowski Spacetime flatspace is "four dimensional" and other compact embedded dimensional spaces (particles with mass) are existing in more than four dimensions because they are embedded in the Minkowski Spacetime of four dimensions as "additional dimensions" to their compact dimensions. In one sense the electromagnetic wave exists "within a cavity flatspace" while matter waves exist outside the flatspaces in which light is propagating. Spacetime appears to have "two sides" ... an inside and an outside. What I mean by "sides" are really "relative surfaces/hypersurfaces"... not the interiors of the "bubbles" which remain undefined until something is discovered within that cavity (... such as more particles). These represent the one and same surface but are complementary ways to describe the single phenomenon. The "Looking Glass Universe" of Alice Liddel of Carroll's Imagination.
Wikipedia: Alice Liddel
Click - Through the Looking Glass
But not this "rosy world" of fairy tales (... or of "elves") but a "dark Universe" of "Quantum Matter Waves" devoid of the communicating property of light... the Mott Insulator "Band Gap". Electromagnetic waves "propagate" in space and time as packets while gravity and mass are non-propagating as such they are evanescent fields... similar to inductive fields or static fields... like bar magnets or static charges... Stationary quantized states that affect space but are not varying with respect to time. De Broglie Matter Waves are "evanescent waves" (all the way to infinity) in which the temporal frequency is "frozen" and only spatial frequencies are being exhibited. This is "obvious" from the experiments that involve them right from the start. Richard Feynman noted just how important these waves were to his theory of Quantum Electrodynamics, for which he shared a Nobel Prize. Every reasonable person would agree his theory is the most elegant and the easiest to use in practice and provide the same level of an answer that other theories supply with less "angst". His theory has "suffered" from a certain disbelief in the scientific community and a lack of acceptance of the basic underlying concept that there really is only one property in nature ... mass... that is responsible for all interactions. His Feynman Diagrams express very elegantly in particle terms the essence of spacetime as simple interactions. I would also say this theory is also very "turgid" in it's most abstract form. Charge and fields are not an essential part of this theory and this has been definitively analyzed by the work of David Bohm and Yakir Aharonov on the Aharonov-Bohm Effect and brilliantly experimentally demonstrated by Akira Tonomura (.. I previously noted). The phenomenon is an influence of the "potential" and not the electric or magnetic field and it is entirely non-local with an action all the way out to "infinity" with spacetime "dislocations" that never dissipate due to any influence of distance and lead to very interesting global properties linked "most probably" with entanglement (I have discussed entanglement elsewhere and some of my comments on it are here).
World's Largest Quantum Bell Test Spans Three Swiss Towns
... here is the original paper here...
Space-like Separation in a Bell Test assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses
... You can see from the context of this paper just what it is they are identifying with "Gravitationally Induced Collapses". Remember this paper is an experimental paper not a theoretical paper. Matter Wave communication is through the interferometer "phases" or 'interferences".
Quantum Entanglement, Compact Dimensions Explain Entanglement?
These "waves" interact with light in various ways... take soap bubbles for instance... the matter waves of regularly spaced and placed matter particles sum and subtract to produce "spatial interference filters" for the light that "opportunistically" pass through it. It is hard to imagine that people do not yet understand that light is affected by matter waves and it is the waves of matter that are influencing the light not the light itself... In that sense light is reactive to matter waves and does not cause them. Light "deposits" energy as a result of the patterns of matter wave energy gradients. Spatial as well as temporal phases interact to produce the outcome.
The next point to note is that no number of interacting photons normally create "photonic solitons" (suggest you look up "bright matter solitons"... the energy required if you look at matter - antimatter creation events (in reverse) requires a certain antisymmetry and a threshold not normally found in the natural world. They also need to be source correlated. In the normal process of the affairs of electromagnetics... photons are like ships passing in the night.... they can't even collide... they are like "ghost ships".... Instantaneously their phases sum and subtract but after that crossing... zilch!
Wikipedia: Alice Liddel
Click - Through the Looking Glass
But not this "rosy world" of fairy tales (... or of "elves") but a "dark Universe" of "Quantum Matter Waves" devoid of the communicating property of light... the Mott Insulator "Band Gap". Electromagnetic waves "propagate" in space and time as packets while gravity and mass are non-propagating as such they are evanescent fields... similar to inductive fields or static fields... like bar magnets or static charges... Stationary quantized states that affect space but are not varying with respect to time. De Broglie Matter Waves are "evanescent waves" (all the way to infinity) in which the temporal frequency is "frozen" and only spatial frequencies are being exhibited. This is "obvious" from the experiments that involve them right from the start. Richard Feynman noted just how important these waves were to his theory of Quantum Electrodynamics, for which he shared a Nobel Prize. Every reasonable person would agree his theory is the most elegant and the easiest to use in practice and provide the same level of an answer that other theories supply with less "angst". His theory has "suffered" from a certain disbelief in the scientific community and a lack of acceptance of the basic underlying concept that there really is only one property in nature ... mass... that is responsible for all interactions. His Feynman Diagrams express very elegantly in particle terms the essence of spacetime as simple interactions. I would also say this theory is also very "turgid" in it's most abstract form. Charge and fields are not an essential part of this theory and this has been definitively analyzed by the work of David Bohm and Yakir Aharonov on the Aharonov-Bohm Effect and brilliantly experimentally demonstrated by Akira Tonomura (.. I previously noted). The phenomenon is an influence of the "potential" and not the electric or magnetic field and it is entirely non-local with an action all the way out to "infinity" with spacetime "dislocations" that never dissipate due to any influence of distance and lead to very interesting global properties linked "most probably" with entanglement (I have discussed entanglement elsewhere and some of my comments on it are here).
World's Largest Quantum Bell Test Spans Three Swiss Towns
... here is the original paper here...
Space-like Separation in a Bell Test assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses
... You can see from the context of this paper just what it is they are identifying with "Gravitationally Induced Collapses". Remember this paper is an experimental paper not a theoretical paper. Matter Wave communication is through the interferometer "phases" or 'interferences".
Quantum Entanglement, Compact Dimensions Explain Entanglement?
These "waves" interact with light in various ways... take soap bubbles for instance... the matter waves of regularly spaced and placed matter particles sum and subtract to produce "spatial interference filters" for the light that "opportunistically" pass through it. It is hard to imagine that people do not yet understand that light is affected by matter waves and it is the waves of matter that are influencing the light not the light itself... In that sense light is reactive to matter waves and does not cause them. Light "deposits" energy as a result of the patterns of matter wave energy gradients. Spatial as well as temporal phases interact to produce the outcome.
The next point to note is that no number of interacting photons normally create "photonic solitons" (suggest you look up "bright matter solitons"... the energy required if you look at matter - antimatter creation events (in reverse) requires a certain antisymmetry and a threshold not normally found in the natural world. They also need to be source correlated. In the normal process of the affairs of electromagnetics... photons are like ships passing in the night.... they can't even collide... they are like "ghost ships".... Instantaneously their phases sum and subtract but after that crossing... zilch!
QUOTE (Neuralize+)
Another thing that comes to mind is while you've spoken about the source and sink of photons, would the source and sink of matter waves be looked upon similarly except existing in a compacted dimension?
Do these spherical matter waves create the components of the subatomic particles like the quarks, and would the interactions and resonances between the vibratory patterns of these more elementary parts (through photons?) or other matter waves create what we might conceive of as a particle such as a proton?
Do these spherical matter waves create the components of the subatomic particles like the quarks, and would the interactions and resonances between the vibratory patterns of these more elementary parts (through photons?) or other matter waves create what we might conceive of as a particle such as a proton?
I have commented previously on the reciprocal nature of spacetime and the relationship to de Broglie "Particles". Carver Mead has a Book that I suggest everyone gets if at all possible called "Collective Electrodynamics". To me Carver Mead represents a "living legend" who has understood the nature of the Superconducting State in greater fundamental depth than anyone alive. He is also a "science maverick" and former close associate of Richard Feynman. He is no "slouch". You can read a little here...
An early paper...
An early paper...
QUOTE (Collective electrodynamics I: Carver Mead+)
Conclusion
We took to heart Einstein’s belief that the electrons and the fields were two aspects of the same reality, and were able to treat the macroscopic quantum system and the electromagnetic field as elements of a unified subject. We heeded Mach’s advice that classical mechanics was not the place to start, followed Feynman’s directive that interactions change the wavelengths of waves, and saw that there is a correspondence limit more appropriate than the classical-mechanics version used in traditional introductions to quantum theory. We found Newton’s law masquerading as one of Maxwell’s equations. We were able to derive a number of important results using only the simplest properties of waves, the Einstein postulate relating frequency to energy, the deBroglie postulate relating momentum to wave vector, and the discrete charge of the electron. It thus appears possible to formulate a unified, conceptually correct introduction to both the quantum nature of matter and the fundamental laws of electromagnetic interaction without using either Maxwell’s equations or standard quantum formalism.
Collective electrodynamics I
...Here is a discussion with the man that may give insight...
The Complete "An Interview with Carver Mead"
We took to heart Einstein’s belief that the electrons and the fields were two aspects of the same reality, and were able to treat the macroscopic quantum system and the electromagnetic field as elements of a unified subject. We heeded Mach’s advice that classical mechanics was not the place to start, followed Feynman’s directive that interactions change the wavelengths of waves, and saw that there is a correspondence limit more appropriate than the classical-mechanics version used in traditional introductions to quantum theory. We found Newton’s law masquerading as one of Maxwell’s equations. We were able to derive a number of important results using only the simplest properties of waves, the Einstein postulate relating frequency to energy, the deBroglie postulate relating momentum to wave vector, and the discrete charge of the electron. It thus appears possible to formulate a unified, conceptually correct introduction to both the quantum nature of matter and the fundamental laws of electromagnetic interaction without using either Maxwell’s equations or standard quantum formalism.
Collective electrodynamics I
...Here is a discussion with the man that may give insight...
The Complete "An Interview with Carver Mead"
QUOTE (Neuralize+)
Another thing that comes to mind is while you've spoken about the source and sink of photons, would the source and sink of matter waves be looked upon similarly except existing in a compacted dimension?
Do these spherical matter waves create the components of the subatomic particles like the quarks, and would the interactions and resonances between the vibratory patterns of these more elementary parts (through photons?) or other matter waves create what we might conceive of as a particle such as a proton?
You mention there being a number of compacted dimensions. Would waves of more deeply compacted dimensions be responsible for creating the deBroglie waves in a fashion similar to the de Broglie waves spawning the photonic realm? How deep would they go dimensionally?
Do these spherical matter waves create the components of the subatomic particles like the quarks, and would the interactions and resonances between the vibratory patterns of these more elementary parts (through photons?) or other matter waves create what we might conceive of as a particle such as a proton?
You mention there being a number of compacted dimensions. Would waves of more deeply compacted dimensions be responsible for creating the deBroglie waves in a fashion similar to the de Broglie waves spawning the photonic realm? How deep would they go dimensionally?
To the first question... Not exactly truly separate dimensional "cavities" would be energetically decoupled from our Universe... they would not normally be capable of exchanges... Of course the ever present exception to rules is particle and antiparticle creation. Cavities in atoms represent stable stationary states in which the electron and even photons can be captured for a time. If the photon can get in the photon may be able to get out. The frequency of incident radiation defines the de Broglie Matter Wave response since the particle gets a boost. A photon or a particle might be able to enter through the near field depending if the states are resonantly matched to the sources.
The Matter Waves "are" the Matter Component of the particles and they "respect" the CPT Symmetry Laws along the way for stable states. There is a realm of high energy physics that represent "resonances" in states. I am really only placing as a theory that a simple expression of this extended realm to the way states collapse is expressible in the way Richard Feynman has already described as events through his Feynman Diagrams. The existence of these states do not predict the masses involved and this is a weakness of the theory but I suggest that no theory presently predicts this aspect of quantum theory. The mass of a particle appears to be a complex phenomenon and I would say in defense of these notions we really have not explored these "regions" which are a kind of Geometrodynamics as espoused by John Archibald Wheeler (a close associate of Feynman and somebody Feynman always admired for his brilliant mind)... in that theory...
The Matter Waves "are" the Matter Component of the particles and they "respect" the CPT Symmetry Laws along the way for stable states. There is a realm of high energy physics that represent "resonances" in states. I am really only placing as a theory that a simple expression of this extended realm to the way states collapse is expressible in the way Richard Feynman has already described as events through his Feynman Diagrams. The existence of these states do not predict the masses involved and this is a weakness of the theory but I suggest that no theory presently predicts this aspect of quantum theory. The mass of a particle appears to be a complex phenomenon and I would say in defense of these notions we really have not explored these "regions" which are a kind of Geometrodynamics as espoused by John Archibald Wheeler (a close associate of Feynman and somebody Feynman always admired for his brilliant mind)... in that theory...
QUOTE (Wikipedia: Geometrodynamics+)
As described by Wheeler in the early 1960s, geometrodynamics attempts to realize three catchy slogans
* mass without mass,
* charge without charge,
* field without field.
These slogans (due to Wheeler himself), which are discussed in more detail below, capture the general hope that geometrodynamics would "do more with less".
Wikipedia: Geometrodynamics
All the "good things" that I am discussing here.
Yeah... I know... Feynman, Feynman, Feynman.... atom bombs and all... everything seems to revolve around him. This is a vision he never saw but was central to it's development in some way. Just gotta love this guy!!
ALL 'things' are the standing spherical wave-motions of Space. A single 'SSW' has no relevance, as it cannot exist singularly. The 'in-wave' is also the 'out-waves' from the rest of existence.
* mass without mass,
* charge without charge,
* field without field.
These slogans (due to Wheeler himself), which are discussed in more detail below, capture the general hope that geometrodynamics would "do more with less".
Wikipedia: Geometrodynamics
All the "good things" that I am discussing here.
Yeah... I know... Feynman, Feynman, Feynman.... atom bombs and all... everything seems to revolve around him. This is a vision he never saw but was central to it's development in some way. Just gotta love this guy!!
QUOTE (Gorgeous+)
QUOTE
I mean, like, how many of these wave fronts does it take to create a 3D spherical standing wave? 1,2, 3, 1000? Are there different possible types of patterns depending on the number of waves simultaneously converging?
An infinite 'amount' is the answer. If you think about this, it explains why the predominantly ‘spherical’ shape adorns the Cosmos.ALL 'things' are the standing spherical wave-motions of Space. A single 'SSW' has no relevance, as it cannot exist singularly. The 'in-wave' is also the 'out-waves' from the rest of existence.
While what Georgeous has said is very good stuff, being "picky" I would say that a single stationary matter wave is a very important concept since it can only really exist as this "infinite sum", in fact a glimpse of this matter wave "whispering wall" can be understood through the experimentally generated "truncated Airy Packet" and its ability to self accelerate. It is "just a beam of coherent light" but it has amazing properties. The packet is truncated using a simple "Fourier mask" created on transparent screen (made up of simple pixels)... A technique I often have pointed to in my posts... The Optical Fourier Processor
Optical Fourier Transform Processor "Device"
Just a couple of simple lenses and a mask with a coherent source of light.... The "input plane" takes the "transparency"... a single pinhole for the generation of your "Airy Packets"... they are "focused" spatially then a "spatial filter" is placed in the "transform plane" which "trims" the Airy packets... easy peezy! he he he! You can also see how the stationary 2D frequency plane is created from dynamic frequencies. The packet truncation can be considered as an analog to what may happen when light encounters the inner surface of "spacetime" as a "wall" defined by the speed of light... Light travels along this curving "whispering wall" in spacetime to form particles. "Flatspace" light curves spacetime into "matter" because light now moves along this new "null" geodesic. Furthermore the reciprocal nature to this transform on the outer surface of particles through quantum penetration are the source of the static "de Broglie Matter Waves"... the mass. The reciprocal "matter wave" frequency is exceedingly high compared with optical wavelengths.
Scientists make first observation of Airy optical beams
I would link this with other properties such as the Ehrenfest Paradox and Brian Keating's Paper...
The Curvature of the Relativistic Rotating Disk
In one sense... In and out waves are a "result" of gravity in the inductive field and not the cause. The result of "the rest of existence"... through Mach's Principle (as it were).... More immediately "stuff on the outside of the particle cavity"... the "box" the particle is in.
One day all of this will be "Optics 101"
Cheers
Optical Fourier Transform Processor "Device"
Just a couple of simple lenses and a mask with a coherent source of light.... The "input plane" takes the "transparency"... a single pinhole for the generation of your "Airy Packets"... they are "focused" spatially then a "spatial filter" is placed in the "transform plane" which "trims" the Airy packets... easy peezy! he he he! You can also see how the stationary 2D frequency plane is created from dynamic frequencies. The packet truncation can be considered as an analog to what may happen when light encounters the inner surface of "spacetime" as a "wall" defined by the speed of light... Light travels along this curving "whispering wall" in spacetime to form particles. "Flatspace" light curves spacetime into "matter" because light now moves along this new "null" geodesic. Furthermore the reciprocal nature to this transform on the outer surface of particles through quantum penetration are the source of the static "de Broglie Matter Waves"... the mass. The reciprocal "matter wave" frequency is exceedingly high compared with optical wavelengths.
Scientists make first observation of Airy optical beams
I would link this with other properties such as the Ehrenfest Paradox and Brian Keating's Paper...
The Curvature of the Relativistic Rotating Disk
In one sense... In and out waves are a "result" of gravity in the inductive field and not the cause. The result of "the rest of existence"... through Mach's Principle (as it were).... More immediately "stuff on the outside of the particle cavity"... the "box" the particle is in.
One day all of this will be "Optics 101"
Cheers
Supose that there flying object (spaceship) from left to right (at relativistic speed) and we radiating x-rays on it and thus, becouse time going slowly in spaceship, there will come more photons than "usualy" and this x-rays will kill all personal in spaceship. Of course you may say that lenght is smaller of object, but I think it is just iliusion. But supose that object flying into as with reletivistic speed then we radiate small amount of x-rays and killing all spaceship personal, becouse time going on slower in spaceship and thus more radiation is taken by spaceship. (for example, thus this means, that at reletivistic speed traveling aliens will be killed by very small radiation 
, except if they traveling somthing like 0.5c) 
If object flying from us at reletivistic speed then our x-rays will be the same dangerouse as for us, becouse will be redshif of waves. But I can't good understand what realy becoming if we radiating at spaceship small amount of x-rays radiation to spaceship, which flying from elft to right and we only waching it. Is tehre some vectors adition and x-rays frenquency decreas (redshift)? I think that this is possible
Thus enstein formule about shorter lenght I think is actualy redshif of energy into (one) side of spaceship. Thus personal in spaceship will not be killed by our not dangerouse (for us) x-rays. 
Thus maybe my theory must be corected... But how realy explaining curernt physics my example of radiating x-rays into side of spaceship flying at relativistic speed?
, except if they traveling somthing like 0.5c) If object flying from us at reletivistic speed then our x-rays will be the same dangerouse as for us, becouse will be redshif of waves. But I can't good understand what realy becoming if we radiating at spaceship small amount of x-rays radiation to spaceship, which flying from elft to right and we only waching it. Is tehre some vectors adition and x-rays frenquency decreas (redshift)? I think that this is possible
Thus enstein formule about shorter lenght I think is actualy redshif of energy into (one) side of spaceship. Thus personal in spaceship will not be killed by our not dangerouse (for us) x-rays. Thus maybe my theory must be corected... But how realy explaining curernt physics my example of radiating x-rays into side of spaceship flying at relativistic speed?
On the over hand if need the same amount of energy to kill with x-rays inside spaceship people, what on earth, then becouse all processes going on slower in spaceship, then radiation from one side os spaceship x-rays, must be very weak, becouse proceses going on slower. Thus my theory (for which I want nobel price;) is right. Becouse for example if elnght of spaceship decrease. So what? It is still don't mean that more energy need, just need more concentrated ray. And if this ray will be some vector with spaceship and energy will decrease, then radiation from spaceship also must decrease energy, but this all is ridiculouse, energy is the same if it is radiated into spaceship or from space ship, but only one diference, that from spaceship becouse time going on slower energy must be radiated smaller and thus we must be able to kill people in space ship with smaller energy radiation than needed to earth people to kill!!! But don't you think that somthing wrong with it? Yes. Thus there is my theory, that in spaceship one atom need to absorb more photons from earth, to get excided! This theory explaining, that photons are only waves and not particles and explaining entanglement about which I write in quantum mechanic post.
Okey, according to classical theory must change object lenght and size, becouse decreasing wave-lenght of particles, thus atom must become smaller and spaceship must become smaller and thus then cosmic radiation into one side of spaceship will no be dengerouse, BUT! I inserting correction into this statement with smallest balls theory, that atom can't become smaller, becouse atom can't be smaller than smallest sphere. And thus decreasing only wavelenght of protons and electrons in atom, etc, but atom size iteself don't decreasing, thus lenght of spaceship don't decreasing!!! Thus need more energy in stoped time from earth to kill with x-ray radiation spacehip personal-stuff. This is possible that either most waves going through spacehsip and don't hiting it becosue electrons ant protons wavelenght is smaler and particles thus itself smaller and harder to bunch for x-rays to target-electrons/protons, or for highly ineterter particles need more energy to excide...
WHERE IS MY NOBel price?
WHERE IS MY NOBel price?
Where no exist proof for large object lenght decreasing, there is only such proff for small particles, where lenght of particles (electrons, protons, neutrons) decreasing at relativistic speed. Thus must increase acording to classical enshtein teory not only lengh of spaceship, but also size and spacehsip must become smaller and smaller in another case even small radiation will kill spaceship... Thus my theory predicting that spaceship size don't decreasing, but decreasing only lenghts of elementary particles (like protons and electrons) and lenght of atoms also don't decreasing! Thus at reletivistc speed less waves can interact with particle or body! It's explains all... WITH MY THEORY!!!!
EDIT: But no, size of particles also can't decrease, becouse then in spaceship will be more radiated energy than absorbed, thus there unknow does particle wave-lenght decreasing. OR in another case, which is not my theory, at reletivistic speed all matter becoming smaller! But then spaceship will become smaller than photon and it would be very strange, but... but possible! Then only very small energy will be observed. This another theory only can fit with my theory about infinity small particles of any diferent sizes... But this then don't explaining entanglement, except...
if spaceship is much smaller than photon then all energy is taken only small, but this means, that must be energy wasting and body must become cold, but this don't happening, becouse from cosmos coming over waves, which filling energy and this inside body waves are only like triger. thus it mean, that wave always taking all space don't matter that we measuring it longer, but then it's still mean, that wave is on small spacehip and through this wave comunicating two entangled parts. But I think more realistic is previous theory, that atom time at relativistic speed don't decreasing!! I wonder do such experiments was performed?
EDIT: But no, size of particles also can't decrease, becouse then in spaceship will be more radiated energy than absorbed, thus there unknow does particle wave-lenght decreasing. OR in another case, which is not my theory, at reletivistic speed all matter becoming smaller! But then spaceship will become smaller than photon and it would be very strange, but... but possible! Then only very small energy will be observed. This another theory only can fit with my theory about infinity small particles of any diferent sizes... But this then don't explaining entanglement, except...
if spaceship is much smaller than photon then all energy is taken only small, but this means, that must be energy wasting and body must become cold, but this don't happening, becouse from cosmos coming over waves, which filling energy and this inside body waves are only like triger. thus it mean, that wave always taking all space don't matter that we measuring it longer, but then it's still mean, that wave is on small spacehip and through this wave comunicating two entangled parts. But I think more realistic is previous theory, that atom time at relativistic speed don't decreasing!! I wonder do such experiments was performed?
So decreasing atom theory depeinding on speed is rdicilus and even de boglie theory don't states this, but saying, that wavelenght changing and not size... So this means, that at 1GeV electron should be smaller than 1/10^20 m. Stupid, isn't? But what if realy electron size decreasing like proton, but atom size don't increasing? Well, then most x-rays must go through spaceship. But if electron realy rotating slower then thus must be easier to hit him and thus this leads again to my theory, that at relativistic speed electron mass is bigger and need more photons to excide him. Thus lenght decreasing at relativistic speed is lie - it is fake and even if it decrease it still obviouse that with smaller doze of x-rays possible to kill everybody in relativistic speed having spaceship. thus in spaceship need more doze of photons, becouse mass of particles is bigger and harder to excide them, but time goes slower... Thus we always flying with relativistic speed and photons always going more to us than one, but we just think that there is one photon... So in entanglement there is many many photons which going through and reflecting and going back and again reflecting and so on... But we are in reletivistic speed and we think that there is only one but actualy this one photon consist of many many waves-subphotons-actual photons, thus in spaceship each atom radiating more waves. (also possible some stupid solution, that body radiating electroamgnetic waves which compensating small radiation of relativistic object 
, which must be seen us equal radiation for on earth existing observer ).
So there is my statement. In any object don't matter at what speed he flying there is equal amount of radiated photons, but to excide relativistic atom need more photons than non-relativistic. And there imposible to find such object, which is not relativistic and thus radiation of atoms is always more than one at a time.
, which must be seen us equal radiation for on earth existing observer ). So there is my statement. In any object don't matter at what speed he flying there is equal amount of radiated photons, but to excide relativistic atom need more photons than non-relativistic. And there imposible to find such object, which is not relativistic and thus radiation of atoms is always more than one at a time.
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 4 2008, 07:42 AM)
I've always used the analogy of a coin.
We know that a coin is both heads and tails.
However, we can only see a coin as heads, or tails (loosely speaking).
And any experiment that can only see heads, or tails, will always see all coins as heads, or all coins as tails.
Simply, the experiments we currently have can't see both wave aspects and particle aspects at the same time.
Another way (I suppose) of thinking about it, is that a wave packet is just a particle blurred by the HUP, and a particle is just a wave packet with a very very very short wavelength.
Of course, bearing all that in mind, Molecular orbital theory deals with electron standing waves that span nanometers (and you could argue that mains electricity uses electron standing waves with wavelengths on the order of kilometers (but then, that's not that different from photons is it?)
Electrons one the one hand can be point particles or on the other hand waves, but not both at the same time am I correct?
If so, is the point particle described as a scalar and the wave a vector?
Don't feel the need to answer if these questions are stupid BTW
We know that a coin is both heads and tails.
However, we can only see a coin as heads, or tails (loosely speaking).
And any experiment that can only see heads, or tails, will always see all coins as heads, or all coins as tails.
Simply, the experiments we currently have can't see both wave aspects and particle aspects at the same time.
Another way (I suppose) of thinking about it, is that a wave packet is just a particle blurred by the HUP, and a particle is just a wave packet with a very very very short wavelength.
Of course, bearing all that in mind, Molecular orbital theory deals with electron standing waves that span nanometers (and you could argue that mains electricity uses electron standing waves with wavelengths on the order of kilometers (but then, that's not that different from photons is it?)
Electrons one the one hand can be point particles or on the other hand waves, but not both at the same time am I correct?
If so, is the point particle described as a scalar and the wave a vector?
Don't feel the need to answer if these questions are stupid BTW
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 5 2008, 09:56 AM)
WSM on Wheeler/Feynman equations...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Feynman-QED.htm
g.
Still pushing Wolff's crackpottery? Did he send you his "book" free or did you waste money paying for that junk?
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Wolff-Feynman-QED.htm
g.
Still pushing Wolff's crackpottery? Did he send you his "book" free or did you waste money paying for that junk?
QUOTE (Wolff+)
D. Solutions of the Scalar Wave Equation
If Wheeler and Feynman had begun with the scalar wave equation they would have found only two solutions:
Outward wave = Fout = (1/r) Fo exp(iwt - kr) (1a)
Inward wave = Fin = (1/r) Fo exp(iwt + kr) (1b)
Above, Wolff is smearing both Feynman and Wheeler in one sentence because he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory:
1. It is not exp(iwt - kr) , it is exp(iwt - ikr) (do you know why?)
2. It is not exp(iwt +kr) , it is exp(iwt + ikr) (do you know why?)
3. It is not kr, it is kr (do you know why?)
I don't expect crank followers like you to understand the hilarious mistakes on the webpage you keep pushing.
If Wheeler and Feynman had begun with the scalar wave equation they would have found only two solutions:
Outward wave = Fout = (1/r) Fo exp(iwt - kr) (1a)
Inward wave = Fin = (1/r) Fo exp(iwt + kr) (1b)
Above, Wolff is smearing both Feynman and Wheeler in one sentence because he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory:
1. It is not exp(iwt - kr) , it is exp(iwt - ikr) (do you know why?)
2. It is not exp(iwt +kr) , it is exp(iwt + ikr) (do you know why?)
3. It is not kr, it is kr (do you know why?)
I don't expect crank followers like you to understand the hilarious mistakes on the webpage you keep pushing.
QUOTE (Trout+Jul 5 2008, 04:15 AM)
Still pushing Wolff's crackpottery? Did he send you his "book" free or did you waste money paying for that junk?
QUOTE (Wolff+)
D. Solutions of the Scalar Wave Equation
If Wheeler and Feynman had begun with the scalar wave equation they would have found only two solutions:
Outward wave = Fout = (1/r) Fo exp(iwt - kr) (1a)
Inward wave = Fin = (1/r) Fo exp(iwt + kr) (1b)
Above, Wolff is smearing both Feynman and Wheeler in one sentence because he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory:
1. It is not exp(iwt - kr) , it is exp(iwt - ikr) (do you know why?)
2. It is not exp(iwt +kr) , it is exp(iwt + ikr) (do you know why?)
3. It is not kr, it is kr (do you know why?)
I don't expect crank followers like you to understand the hilarious mistakes on the webpage you keep pushing.
I shall continue to promote Real science, if that's what your gibberish means.
I no longer expect you to understand much of anything at all.
So, which new hobby have you chosen, then? Stalker or clown? Maybe you'll excel yourself and try both at once!
g.
Above, Wolff is smearing both Feynman and Wheeler in one sentence because he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory:
1. It is not exp(iwt - kr) , it is exp(iwt - ikr) (do you know why?)
2. It is not exp(iwt +kr) , it is exp(iwt + ikr) (do you know why?)
3. It is not kr, it is kr (do you know why?)
I don't expect crank followers like you to understand the hilarious mistakes on the webpage you keep pushing.
I shall continue to promote Real science, if that's what your gibberish means.
I no longer expect you to understand much of anything at all.
So, you don't know why is wrong and hilarious
You have your head too far up Wolff's a$$
This is simplest possible explanation of particle wave duality by my opinion.
Zephir, go away.
If Wheeler and Feynman had begun with the scalar wave equation they would have found only two solutions:
Outward wave = Fout = (1/r) Fo exp(iwt - kr) (1a)
Inward wave = Fin = (1/r) Fo exp(iwt + kr) (1b)
Above, Wolff is smearing both Feynman and Wheeler in one sentence because he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory:
1. It is not exp(iwt - kr) , it is exp(iwt - ikr) (do you know why?)
2. It is not exp(iwt +kr) , it is exp(iwt + ikr) (do you know why?)
3. It is not kr, it is kr (do you know why?)
I don't expect crank followers like you to understand the hilarious mistakes on the webpage you keep pushing.
I shall continue to promote Real science, if that's what your gibberish means.
I no longer expect you to understand much of anything at all.
So, which new hobby have you chosen, then? Stalker or clown? Maybe you'll excel yourself and try both at once!
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 5 2008, 03:57 PM)
QUOTE (Trout+)
Above, Wolff is smearing both Feynman and Wheeler in one sentence because he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory:
1. It is not exp(iwt - kr) , it is exp(iwt - ikr) (do you know why?)
2. It is not exp(iwt +kr) , it is exp(iwt + ikr) (do you know why?)
3. It is not kr, it is kr (do you know why?)
I don't expect crank followers like you to understand the hilarious mistakes on the webpage you keep pushing.
I shall continue to promote Real science, if that's what your gibberish means.
I no longer expect you to understand much of anything at all.
So, you don't know why is wrong and hilarious
You have your head too far up Wolff's a$$
So, you've gone for the third option, then!
You're learning!
g.
You're learning!
g.
QUOTE (Aether+Jul 5 2008, 05:32 PM)
This is simplest possible explanation of particle wave duality by my opinion.
Zephir, go away.
QUOTE (Aether+Jul 6 2008, 05:32 AM)
By Aether Wave theory the vacuum is composed from many particles, the mutual density fluctuation of which are leading to so called "string net liquid", similar to foam, which occurs during condensation of supercritical fluid
www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325954.200
www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/People/CMR/images/scco24.jpg
The typical property of foam is, energy waves are making it more dense temporarily (the foam gets more dense during shaking), therefore every wave is spreading through vacuum like less ore more dense wave packet, i.e. the particle.
superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/dynamic_foam.gif
This is simplest possible explanation of particle wave duality by my opinion.
Still peddling the same drivel i see.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325954.200
www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/People/CMR/images/scco24.jpg
The typical property of foam is, energy waves are making it more dense temporarily (the foam gets more dense during shaking), therefore every wave is spreading through vacuum like less ore more dense wave packet, i.e. the particle.
superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/dynamic_foam.gif
This is simplest possible explanation of particle wave duality by my opinion.
Still peddling the same drivel i see.
Trout, you are a deceitful fraud.
Trout
Trout
QUOTE
QUOTE (Wolff)
D. Solutions of the Scalar Wave Equation
A. You are not quoting Dr. Wolff (nor from his site), you are quoting the philosopher "side kick", Hasselhurst (sp?)
B. You knew this, because:
(your post here ) Trout
You are not quoting Dr. Wolff (nor from his site), you are quoting the philosopher "side kick", Hasselhurst (sp?)
One idiot or another, what's the difference? They are both idiots.
Which leads to:
A. Dr. Wolff is not smearing Feynman and Wheeler.
Right, the other idiot is. His "collaborator".
Right, the other idiot is. His "collaborator".
Get with the program, you anti-science, fraudulent wanna-be debunker!
Coming from you, who think that c in E=mc^2 is a vector, that's rich.
Typo, you *****. Stick to the actual paper, if you want to "debunk".
Typo, you *****. Stick to the actual paper, if you want to "debunk".
Coming from you, who think that c in E=mc^2 is a vector, that's rich
Liar.
Stick to the context, for my "thoughts".
D. Solutions of the Scalar Wave Equation
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (Wolff) D. Solutions of the Scalar Wave Equation If Wheeler and Feynman had begun with the scalar wave equation they would have found only two solutions: Outward wave = Fout = (1/r) Fo exp(iwt - kr) (1a) Inward wave = Fin = (1/r) Fo exp(iwt + kr) (1b) Above, Wolff is smearing both Feynman and Wheeler in one sentence because he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory: 1. It is not exp(iwt - kr) , it is exp(iwt - ikr) 2. It is not exp(iwt +kr) , it is exp(iwt + ikr) |
A. You are not quoting Dr. Wolff (nor from his site), you are quoting the philosopher "side kick", Hasselhurst (sp?)
B. You knew this, because:
(your post here ) Trout
QUOTE
I chose one of his "papers" , from here..
Which leads to:
A. Dr. Wolff is not smearing Feynman and Wheeler.
B. You are the one who has shown that "he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory".
And, why did you run away from the main discussion, and come to this thread? You actually have said more here, in another, separate thread, than in the one you're supposed to be answering.
Get with the program, you anti-science, fraudulent wanna-be debunker!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I chose one of his "papers" , from here.. (Wolff) A. Assumption I - The Wave Equation. The Wave-equation for the electron, in spherical coordinates, is: d2(AMP)/dr 2 + 2/r{d(AMP)/dr} - 1/c2x d2(AMP)/dt 2= 0 [1] where AMP is a continuous scalar amplitude with values everywhere in space and c is the propagation speed. This equation has two spherical wave solutions for the amplitude AMP: One of them is a converging IN wave and the other is a diverging OUT wave, shown in Figure 1, AMPIN = (1/r) Ao e(iwt + ikr) [2] AMPOUT = (1/r) Ao e(iwt - ikr) |
Which leads to:
A. Dr. Wolff is not smearing Feynman and Wheeler.
B. You are the one who has shown that "he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory".
And, why did you run away from the main discussion, and come to this thread? You actually have said more here, in another, separate thread, than in the one you're supposed to be answering.
Get with the program, you anti-science, fraudulent wanna-be debunker!
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 6 2008, 12:49 AM)
You are not quoting Dr. Wolff (nor from his site), you are quoting the philosopher "side kick", Hasselhurst (sp?)
One idiot or another, what's the difference? They are both idiots.
QUOTE
Which leads to:
A. Dr. Wolff is not smearing Feynman and Wheeler.
Right, the other idiot is. His "collaborator".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Which leads to: A. Dr. Wolff is not smearing Feynman and Wheeler. |
Right, the other idiot is. His "collaborator".
Get with the program, you anti-science, fraudulent wanna-be debunker!
Coming from you, who think that c in E=mc^2 is a vector, that's rich.
QUOTE
what's the difference?
Typo, you *****. Stick to the actual paper, if you want to "debunk".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| what's the difference? |
Typo, you *****. Stick to the actual paper, if you want to "debunk".
Coming from you, who think that c in E=mc^2 is a vector, that's rich
Liar.
Stick to the context, for my "thoughts".
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 6 2008, 01:36 AM)
Stick to the actual paper, if you want to "debunk".
So, what's a vector, dumbo?
Do you still think that c in E=mc^2 is a vector?
What is the difference between Wolff's blunder "kr" and the correct expression "kr"
So, what's a vector, dumbo?
Do you still think that c in E=mc^2 is a vector?
What is the difference between Wolff's blunder "kr" and the correct expression "kr"
Why don't you ask those questions in the right thread?
There's no sense in trashing two threads with your nonsense.
There's no sense in trashing two threads with your nonsense.
Hi Beer w/Straw, Aether, Trout, MjolnirPants, excaza, DavidD, Trippy, Neuralize, Gorgeous et al,
While I respect everyone's opinion I do not support these points...
1. Digressions in Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory in the style of Milo Wolff. Only the theory as originally proposed (with recent extensions) is able to be supported. The original Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory did not have any packet formulation. Packets are a fact and must be accounted for in any recent extension of the theory. I have provided a suitable starting point for that "model" ... here is that reference...
Trout is correct that the link I provided earlier appears to have type errors in it. Well spotted both of you. However, inQZtive is totally correct that this is not due to Milo Wolff. Here is a link to the correct Milo Wolff interpretation...
http://members.tripod.com/mwolff/body_spin.html
Another link, another comedy of errors:
While I respect everyone's opinion I do not support these points...
1. Digressions in Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory in the style of Milo Wolff. Only the theory as originally proposed (with recent extensions) is able to be supported. The original Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory did not have any packet formulation. Packets are a fact and must be accounted for in any recent extension of the theory. I have provided a suitable starting point for that "model" ... here is that reference...
QUOTE (Abstract of Carroll's Paper - lanl.arXiv.org > quant-ph > arXiv:quant-ph/0609156+)
A photon-like wavepacket based on novel solutions of Maxwell's equations is proposed. It is believed to be the first 'classical' model that contains so many of the accepted quantum features. In this new work, novel solutions to Maxwell's classical equations in dispersive guides are considered where local helical twists with an arbitrary angular frequency W modulate a classical mode (angular frequency w, group velocity vg). The modal field patterns are unchanged, apart from the twist, provided that the helical velocity vh equals vg. Pairs of resonating retarded and advanced waves with modal and helical frequencies (w,W) and (w,-W)respectively, trap one temporal period of the underlying classical mode forming a photon-like packet provided W = (M+1/2)w: 'Schrodinger' frequencies. This theory supports experimental evidence that the photon velocity does not change with M in dispersive systems. Promotion and demotion increase or decrease the helical frequencies in units of w. An energy of interaction between retarded and advanced waves in the wave-packet is also proportional to these helical frequencies W = (M+1/2)w similar to Planck's law. Group velocity and polarisation are unaffected by the value of M. Advanced waves enable phase and polarisation to be predicted along all future paths and may help to explain the outcomes of experiments on delayed-choice interference and entanglement, without causality being violated.
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll
A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll
All "commentators" know of this link to a reasonable exposition that provide the natural extensions to the inductive processes of the evanescent field effects.
Here is another exposition by John Cramer....
Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox : John Cramer
2. I absolutely positively do not accept any concept where "Wave Particle Duality" implies the treatment of a "particle" as a "point particle"... such entities are totally "impossible". What exists are "sources" which may be thought of as "particles" or packets (destructible or largely non-destructible... depending on their basic property of boson or fermion). The concept of a "idealized" particle is wrong and cannot embody the idea of non-locality. Our Universe is definitely "connected" in ways that are largely ignored by conventional science. Unless the conventional approach is entirely discarded and supplanted with a more accurate treatment using distributed sources there can be no progress. It is not necessary to use any "String Theory" for a proper treatment of this subject and the conventional "String Theory" is also completely "broken" with the concepts of "particles" as well... this is dooming any progress. An accurate treatment of sources can be found in many texts that are classically based but unfortunately "not recently" except in the case of "quantum optics" where it is making a "comeback". Of course these treatments do not usually use Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. Naturally a packetized view of photons must be introduced into the wave... This is no big deal if a packet is thought of as a sum of Fourier Components... pictorially it can be demonstrated this way...
A single "distributed" particle and its wave can be illustrated as it time domain and it's frequency domain representations (particle and wave )
Click - One dimensional distributed pules and it's frequency domain "twin"
These represent the time domain and the frequency domain representations. The time domain is the equivalent of the pulse and the frequency domain is a sinc function which is a simple packet... The time and the frequency domains are "reciprocal entities". You may construct from this continuous waves by "summation of these packets"... like this...
Click - Composition of a wave...
I also reject the stupid ray treatment that is presented to many high school and University students . It is "wrong"... Photons are spreading "waves" and there is no such thing as photon "rays" composed of "compact particles".
3. I do not subscribe to Aether's (zephir's) WSM...
Just so everyone realizes none of this is what I am about. The individuals "push their own barrows" and I am relying on the results of confirmed experiment for my conclusions. A few years ago I could not have claimed that but experiment has progressed so far and fast I am very pleased to report that i am very confident (at the level of current experiment) my approach is arguably the "most correct" so far.
As has been stated...
In the past I have "extensively" quoted Goldstein and others and I think that his approach which is to use the "stalking horse" approach to Bohmian Mechanics is "OK" as far as it goes. It is only one tiny step along a very long path that I suspect he sees as well. There is relatively simple experimental verification of his theory of Canonical Typicality. It can be found but I do not have an open reference. I would point all of you to S Lakshmibala Paper on the "real meaning" of the Uncertainty Principle...
Any Bohmian's Here? Good Elf
... I point you here because her original reference on the Web has been "trashed"... I have reproduced it "in part"... I hope without too much of a loss. All these ideas undermine the concept of "particle" and reinforce the concept of a "wave" with a non-local resonance transfer via the Null Geodesic.
Cheers
Here is another exposition by John Cramer....
Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox : John Cramer
2. I absolutely positively do not accept any concept where "Wave Particle Duality" implies the treatment of a "particle" as a "point particle"... such entities are totally "impossible". What exists are "sources" which may be thought of as "particles" or packets (destructible or largely non-destructible... depending on their basic property of boson or fermion). The concept of a "idealized" particle is wrong and cannot embody the idea of non-locality. Our Universe is definitely "connected" in ways that are largely ignored by conventional science. Unless the conventional approach is entirely discarded and supplanted with a more accurate treatment using distributed sources there can be no progress. It is not necessary to use any "String Theory" for a proper treatment of this subject and the conventional "String Theory" is also completely "broken" with the concepts of "particles" as well... this is dooming any progress. An accurate treatment of sources can be found in many texts that are classically based but unfortunately "not recently" except in the case of "quantum optics" where it is making a "comeback". Of course these treatments do not usually use Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory. Naturally a packetized view of photons must be introduced into the wave... This is no big deal if a packet is thought of as a sum of Fourier Components... pictorially it can be demonstrated this way...
A single "distributed" particle and its wave can be illustrated as it time domain and it's frequency domain representations (particle and wave )
Click - One dimensional distributed pules and it's frequency domain "twin"
These represent the time domain and the frequency domain representations. The time domain is the equivalent of the pulse and the frequency domain is a sinc function which is a simple packet... The time and the frequency domains are "reciprocal entities". You may construct from this continuous waves by "summation of these packets"... like this...
Click - Composition of a wave...
I also reject the stupid ray treatment that is presented to many high school and University students . It is "wrong"... Photons are spreading "waves" and there is no such thing as photon "rays" composed of "compact particles".
3. I do not subscribe to Aether's (zephir's) WSM...
Just so everyone realizes none of this is what I am about. The individuals "push their own barrows" and I am relying on the results of confirmed experiment for my conclusions. A few years ago I could not have claimed that but experiment has progressed so far and fast I am very pleased to report that i am very confident (at the level of current experiment) my approach is arguably the "most correct" so far.
As has been stated...
QUOTE
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 June 23. 2008
Quantum physics’ new world order - The National June 23. 2008
In the past I have "extensively" quoted Goldstein and others and I think that his approach which is to use the "stalking horse" approach to Bohmian Mechanics is "OK" as far as it goes. It is only one tiny step along a very long path that I suspect he sees as well. There is relatively simple experimental verification of his theory of Canonical Typicality. It can be found but I do not have an open reference. I would point all of you to S Lakshmibala Paper on the "real meaning" of the Uncertainty Principle...
Any Bohmian's Here? Good Elf
... I point you here because her original reference on the Web has been "trashed"... I have reproduced it "in part"... I hope without too much of a loss. All these ideas undermine the concept of "particle" and reinforce the concept of a "wave" with a non-local resonance transfer via the Null Geodesic.
Cheers
QUOTE (inQZtive+Jul 5 2008, 01:49 PM)
Trout, you are a deceitful fraud.
Trout
Above, Wolff is smearing both Feynman and Wheeler in one sentence because he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory:
1. It is not exp(iwt - kr) , it is exp(iwt - ikr)
2. It is not exp(iwt +kr) , it is exp(iwt + ikr) [/QUOTE]
A. You are not quoting Dr. Wolff (nor from his site), you are quoting the philosopher "side kick", Hasselhurst (sp?)
B. You knew this, because:
(your post here ) Trout[/QUOTE]
Which leads to:
A. Dr. Wolff is not smearing Feynman and Wheeler.
B. You are the one who has shown that "he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory".
And, why did you run away from the main discussion, and come to this thread? You actually have said more here, in another, separate thread, than in the one you're supposed to be answering.
Get with the program, you anti-science, fraudulent wanna-be debunker!
inQZtive,
Once again, good work here.
Trout is correct that the link I provided earlier appears to have type errors in it. Well spotted both of you. However, inQZtive is totally correct that this is not due to Milo Wolff. Here is a link to the correct Milo Wolff interpretation...
http://members.tripod.com/mwolff/body_spin.html
Geoff Haselhurst is not, however, a 'side-kick'. The two have approached the same problem from very different perspectives, and come up with the same answer, as you would expect, being that it is correct.
Reality is not a purely 'mathematical' affair. Therefore, ALL methods of its deduction must correlate in order that we gain the most plausible understanding. We may look at existence in many ways and via many metaphors. When we understand these to be in agreement, we then have something 'plausible'. The more agreement, the more plausibility.
I will attempt to contact the spaceandmotion web-site to inform them of the error. The response will be reported back here, if that is ok with everyone?
g.
Trout
Above, Wolff is smearing both Feynman and Wheeler in one sentence because he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory:
1. It is not exp(iwt - kr) , it is exp(iwt - ikr)
2. It is not exp(iwt +kr) , it is exp(iwt + ikr) [/QUOTE]
A. You are not quoting Dr. Wolff (nor from his site), you are quoting the philosopher "side kick", Hasselhurst (sp?)
B. You knew this, because:
(your post here ) Trout[/QUOTE]
Which leads to:
A. Dr. Wolff is not smearing Feynman and Wheeler.
B. You are the one who has shown that "he simply doesn't understand elementary wave theory".
And, why did you run away from the main discussion, and come to this thread? You actually have said more here, in another, separate thread, than in the one you're supposed to be answering.
Get with the program, you anti-science, fraudulent wanna-be debunker!
inQZtive,
Once again, good work here.
Trout is correct that the link I provided earlier appears to have type errors in it. Well spotted both of you. However, inQZtive is totally correct that this is not due to Milo Wolff. Here is a link to the correct Milo Wolff interpretation...
http://members.tripod.com/mwolff/body_spin.html
Geoff Haselhurst is not, however, a 'side-kick'. The two have approached the same problem from very different perspectives, and come up with the same answer, as you would expect, being that it is correct.
Reality is not a purely 'mathematical' affair. Therefore, ALL methods of its deduction must correlate in order that we gain the most plausible understanding. We may look at existence in many ways and via many metaphors. When we understand these to be in agreement, we then have something 'plausible'. The more agreement, the more plausibility.
I will attempt to contact the spaceandmotion web-site to inform them of the error. The response will be reported back here, if that is ok with everyone?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+Jul 6 2008, 02:51 AM)
Trout is correct that the link I provided earlier appears to have type errors in it. Well spotted both of you. However, inQZtive is totally correct that this is not due to Milo Wolff. Here is a link to the correct Milo Wolff interpretation...
http://members.tripod.com/mwolff/body_spin.html
Another link, another comedy of errors:
QUOTE (Wolff+)
2. Wave Structure of the Electron
The structure of the electron consists of solutions of a general wave equation (Wolff, 1990). This equation governs the behavior of all particle waves in space, and is:
(grad)2(AMP) - (1/c2) d 2 (AMP)/ dt2= 0 [1]
where AMP is a scalar amplitude, c is the velocity of light, and t is the time. These waves are scalar quantum waves, not electromagnetic waves. This wave equation has two spherical solutions for the amplitude of the electron: one of them is an inward wave converging to the center; the other is a diverging outward wave. The two solutions are:
{IN-amplitude} = (1/r) {AMP-max} exp(iwt + ikr)
{OUT-amplitude} = (1/r) {AMP-max} exp(iwt - ikr) [2]
where:
w = 2pi mc2/h = the angular frequency
k = 2pi/{wave length} = the wave number.
1. (1/r) {AMP-max} exp(iwt + ikr) is not a solution for eq(1). Something else is.
2. (1/r) {AMP-max} exp(iwt - ikr) is not a solution for eq(1). Something else is.
3. Standard Model is the correct description for the electron (and for all the other elementary particles). Wolff's theory is just crackpottery.
The structure of the electron consists of solutions of a general wave equation (Wolff, 1990). This equation governs the behavior of all particle waves in space, and is:
(grad)2(AMP) - (1/c2) d 2 (AMP)/ dt2= 0 [1]
where AMP is a scalar amplitude, c is the velocity of light, and t is the time. These waves are scalar quantum waves, not electromagnetic waves. This wave equation has two spherical solutions for the amplitude of the electron: one of them is an inward wave converging to the center; the other is a diverging outward wave. The two solutions are:
{IN-amplitude} = (1/r) {AMP-max} exp(iwt + ikr)
{OUT-amplitude} = (1/r) {AMP-max} exp(iwt - ikr) [2]
where:
w = 2pi mc2/h = the angular frequency
k = 2pi/{wave length} = the wave number.
1. (1/r) {AMP-max} exp(iwt + ikr) is not a solution for eq(1). Something else is.
2. (1/r) {AMP-max} exp(iwt - ikr) is not a solution for eq(1). Something else is.
3. Standard Model is the correct description for the electron (and for all the other elementary particles). Wolff's theory is just crackpottery.
Hi Beer w/Straw, Aether, Trout, inQZtive, MjolnirPants, excaza, DavidD, Trippy, Neuralize, Gorgeous et al,
I respect everyone's views on this thread so zephir deserves his say. It is up to the rest of you to comment or not. So far I really have nothing specific to say about his theory. However he is currently very courteous and what he says may be worth listening to. In the past zephir has said some interesting things that I have noted and used. He may be "off the wall" but he is a "true believer" and not like the members of that rabble that assault any of us, who have new ideas, from "behind the scenes". He engages the dialog. Many others believe "nothing" other than what they have been told. What all of you need is some recent experimental results that support your cases and damn mine (or support it if you wish). As with Trout, he can have his say as well but IMHO it should be confined to the science not to the smearing of the personality. Trout is actually more intelligent that he shows himself but he chooses to keep his light "hidden under a bushel" for his own reasons that he is preferring not to speak about... that is fine as long as we all know that. It really does not matter from my point of view I listen to all of your opinions.... if you have a good argument all of us who are still thinking will listen. We do not need to be Stephen Hawking or Edward Witten saying it... the argument should stand or fall on it's own merits. Since neither Stephen Hawking or Edward Witten would not be seen "dead" on
I respect everyone's views on this thread so zephir deserves his say. It is up to the rest of you to comment or not. So far I really have nothing specific to say about his theory. However he is currently very courteous and what he says may be worth listening to. In the past zephir has said some interesting things that I have noted and used. He may be "off the wall" but he is a "true believer" and not like the members of that rabble that assault any of us, who have new ideas, from "behind the scenes". He engages the dialog. Many others believe "nothing" other than what they have been told. What all of you need is some recent experimental results that support your cases and damn mine (or support it if you wish). As with Trout, he can have his say as well but IMHO it should be confined to the science not to the smearing of the personality. Trout is actually more intelligent that he shows himself but he chooses to keep his light "hidden under a bushel" for his own reasons that he is preferring not to speak about... that is fine as long as we all know that. It really does not matter from my point of view I listen to all of your opinions.... if you have a good argument all of us who are still thinking will listen. We do not need to be Stephen Hawking or Edward Witten saying it... the argument should stand or fall on it's own merits. Since neither Stephen Hawking or Edward Witten would not be seen "dead" on