Electromagnetic radiation -, Has Wikipedia got it wrong?

Hi Troc,

I appreciate your patience.

The reference you gave..

http://www.calphysics.org/articles/ColeHydrogenPRE.pdf

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0206/0206033.pdf

I've never seen this sort of thing before.. it looks very interesting. I'd like to spend some time looking at more papers in this direction. I'll see what these people have to say about electrons and maybe comment later if that's ok..

White noise .. ah! my white noise is like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_noise .. I call the specific frequencies due to state transitions 'line spectra' - that could be wrong too.

Any other frequency must be resonant.. to travel freely across/ through. My own view of how electricity travels changes almost daily but I don't think the type of resonance you describe is involved. One (of many) views is that the a conductor has elctrons which are relatively (like totally) free to move .. hence no frequency and no resonance involved. The common voltages and frequencies in use for electrical power distribution have no particular significance .. 110/120 volts (American Standard) isn't normally fatal, UK + ? standard of 240 volts is slightly more efficient for carrying power yet still 'low voltage' for convenience. 50 Hertz .. sensible choice.. 60 Hertz .. equally sensible - transformers are slightly smaller than for 50 Hertz but they are slightly more expensive to make. Historically different compromises were made and we're all pretty much stuck with what we've got.

Losses going through the wire.. 'mostly' resistive losses .. another swampy area.

Oscilloscopes are designed to pick up everything .. this can be a problem - noise is always there for any of a multitude of reasons. In the context of looking at the mechanism of wave propagation I see no objection to turning up the signal level until the noise has become insignificant. If the noise level rose with the signal .. we'd see it.

Holes.. ?? see Hall effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_effect.

Back to looking at that paper and references!

-C2.

Following a post from yquantum

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=141625

I thought it best to divde the thread


( This post copied from ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=141720 ) )

Hopefully we can continue here.

Best wishes,

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Nov 12 2006, 04:39 PM

Hey C2,


I had "lost" this thread!

Yes, you are right, maybe we should continue with parts of that conversation here.

Which part though?


I'll let you go first.




T.Roc

I guess we can start here.

I didn't know if you saw this post?

regards,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

Sorry about the delay (part domestic duties). I've spent some time on this but where I come from it's almost axiomatic that no new frequencies are generated so it's a bit difficult to prove the point from an axiom.

K sin(wt) = K sin (wt) !!

Can you help me by giving your expectation of the result?

Best wishes,

C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Nov 14 2006, 12:41 PM

C2,


My expectations?

The standard results are what I expect, with a realistic explanation.


I guess we are in the same, different boat together !



Just a few points:


At this size (the "smallest"), everything counts.

Every imperfection of every part. The temperature, vibrational, and rotational energies of every molecule present. The amounts "out of square", and/or out of parallel between the walls, laser -to- slit -to- screen geometry. Etc., etc.


For the MM experiment, and other "mirror based" ones, these mirror differences are "conserved". The 2 arms have (basically) the same mirrors. Any differences are symmetric, and offset each other. I don't think that there is any way do detect anything but the constant SOL with this device.


The DSE is a different story. In all my posting, the goal was only to explain the "anomalies", that required the "typical" QM hand-waving answers. This was done, to my satisfaction at least.

ONLY by NOT assuming that ANY possibility exists inside the machine to possibly effect the outcome, are explanations like those necessary. These are the "hand-waving" answers, IMO.

1. That there is ANY remote chance for a "particle" interpretation. There is NO WAY for a 100nm "particle" to go through a 50nm slit, or hole. So, you CAN NOT justify using "particle" to explain the loss of pattern on screen. It is a PROCESS REMOVAL. It is EXACTLY like a "finger assisted" whistle: take the finger away, the "noise" stops. Sound is a process, light is a process. Both require SENDER and RECEIVER to fully define the process. The TWO slits are BETTER described as ONE HOLE, DIVIDED in 2 by a fine line. That way, when the "change" is made, (to 1 slit) you get still ONE HOLE, but smaller, and no "whistle" line.

(this explanation is just "thrown" in there by hand wavers, to back up their "we understand/we don't understand" duality)

2. The explanation for the "removal" of the "which way" branch of the signal is just as hokey. They usually describe this as ONE photon, so IMMEDIATELY, this conflicts with the concept of "removing" something, and still having something to measure. The wave (photon) is divided into 2 parts, so now you have 2 waves. Very simple. Now matter how cleverly disguised, when you "cut a whistle in half", you get NO PROCESS. The concept of "before" and "after" that they use to defend when this change is made is BOGUS. There can be no definitive before or after when using TIME AVERAGES. There can be NO simultaneous measurement of these 2 parameters (position in time, momentum of energy). The "photon collapse" prevents this.

3. The explanation for the one at a time arrival pattern matching the bulk pattern. At least this one is not immediately obvious. Can you tell me WHEN each leaf (in a group), floating down a river, and caught up in an eddy, will exit the eddy? Not without a fantastic amount of CONTROL and CALCULATION. Will they ever (in any case) just stay there? NO. Can you tell me WHERE each leaf (in a group), floating down a river, and released from an eddy ONE AT A TIME will then flow through an opening (or 2) in a flood-gate (small dam)? Not without a fantastic amount of CONTROL and CALCULATION. Would it help any by calling the "group" of leaves a single LEAF, because they all came from THE SAME TREE? At that point, rational explanation becomes IMPOSSIBLE (which is what they want). A SINGLE PHOTON IS NOT A SINGLE MOVEMENT. VIBRATION REQUIRES 2 PARAMETERS TO begin to DEFINE IT, and 3 to provide an AVERAGE type description.

The choices here are:

DO THE CALCULATIONS, no matter how hard.

or

Make up a ridiculous story about the wave going down every possible path (AT THE SAME TIME), breaking one of the few, measurable constants (sol), and insulting common sense. Require that, even with this "miraculous ability", the waves choose a "random" pattern (just to amuse the experimenters) at first, but then, change their mind, and form the same pattern that is always formed. For good measure, you can quote Einstein saying "Spooky...", say that this QM world is just NOT explainable in every day terms, make up self contradictory terminologies, like "wave-particle" duality. After all, "what the bleep do they know".



ciao!

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Nov 14 2006, 05:11 PM

Hi TRoc,

I'm not convinced we are using the same standard results as standard.

I think it is evident from (at least) microwave frequencies to (at least) visible light - there is constructive interference where the path difference is an integer number of wavelengths and destructive interference where the path differs by half a wavelength? The same result is also seen in the ripple tank version of the DSE. I don't think this consistent result can be explained by suggesting every experimenter accidentally creates the result as a consequence of unintended geometry.
From here.. (just one of many)
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInte...DoubleSlit.html

Do you agree that the DSE pattern might ** always be the same because the cause is the same (or similar) ?

-C2.

If you agree then I'll try to work through some handwaving .. which could be tricky!

C2,


You have misunderstood me. Let me try to be more clear.


When I said "

, and

I mean, that the diffraction pattern is standard. That is not being debated, at all. Nothing I have said (anywhere) is about explaining the pattern. It is adequately, and logically explained already, by several methods.

Everything that I talked about was to remove the incorrect, unfounded model that some (ok, most) QM practitioners put forth. It is their "story" (model) that generates the next generation of math to explain it. Math is just a language, to communicate QUANTITY. When it becomes "just a number machine", through excessively complex symbology, and operations, ANY NUMBER can be CONJURED to match the desired outcome. Just like your weekend astrologers. Generalities, Statistics (probabilities), and Flattery will get you a LONG way.. but NOT ALL THE WAY HOME!

The most simple truths, are the most overlooked. They also are impossible to disprove, by the definition of "having removed all other possibilities, thus far observed (anywhere)". "Possible" does NOT mean anything that you can imagine, it means everything that has been observed & recorded. I impose the same rules for Scientific theory that the Courts impose on their trial lawyers.


regards,

T.Roc

What about the interference pattern? Standard or not?

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Nov 14 2006, 07:26 PM

C2,



The Pattern is the same.


It doesn't matter if you want to call it interference, diffraction, resonance, dissonance, grated, banded, striped, light & dark, opposing, contrasting, dualistic, zebra, tiger, ETC. ad nauseum.


I do not understand WHAT your question is?


I also do not understand how you can read about this, and IGNORE the verbatim, direct quotes, that I show you. There is no room for mis-interpretation here. YOU offer the "evidence", and I show you, very clearly, why your evidence does not support (their) theory. DON"T BUY IT!!


One more time.

From YOUR link, a very good description of the DSE. This is for students, and is presented HONESTLY. There is a SALES PITCH, asking you to "buy now", and I'm saying "it costs too much", "don't do it."


http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml[/URL]

Here is the first point: a shift in wavelength is a change in frequency. You must use more than 1 frequency to solve this.

"More like a black box" = More like a non-linear medium, or cavity

Arranging the parameters to SHOW the desired outcome. This is not Science, it is dramatization.

C2, they "MUST BE SET" to "REJECT THE DARK CURRENT". This is direct EVIDENCE for the FACT that there is MORE THAN ONE FREQUENCY to account for. And try to find "dark current" in the "Textbook"; it is uncommon, and therefore vague, and ill equipped to communicate clearly. (HAND-WAVING begins)

At this level of education, THE STUDENT ALREADY KNOWS "PROPER" COUNTING METHODS. The reality here is that this is INDOCTRINATION into the QM world. This is the "seed" that is going to generate the "desire to purchase" (As Seen On TV).

No comment necessary.

It is HERE, that I ask you, not to "CONVINCE" yourself of the ILLOGICAL position taken by mainstream. You DO NOT need to PASS this class, so you don't need to memorize the Agenda. This is the REAL world.





IN WHAT VERSION OF SLIT ARRANGEMENTS DO YOU NOT SEE 3 FREQUENCIES ("photons") PRESENT?



That is what I'm saying, C2.

(sorry if I yelled too much)



T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Nov 14 2006, 08:44 PM

TRoc,

If you were not inerested in this topic then neither of us would be posting here. THAT aside .. I have never seen such a rubbish DSE result before in my life. (I haven't seen that many but that one is rubbish). Back to the mother thread and basic phyiscs... if that's ok with you.

-C2.

OK C2, point taken. Of course I'm having FUN!

But I thought HONESTY was the best POLICY !!


I was going to say that that was the MOST TRUTHFUL description of the DSE that I have ever seen! (and I have seen everything from "accidental verb slippage" to "almost letting the cat out of the bag", but NEVER "spilling ALL the beans on the FLOOR!!"




Alas, after reading your last post (on the other thread), I think we may be 'rounding the corner!

I'll post there.


ciao!

T.Roc




This post has been edited by TRoc on Nov 15 2006, 02:33 AM