Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Laserlight!

My understanding is that TRoc's approach won't change that.

That's a situation that I hope will be addressed by TRoc's approach.
The math has to stay valid.
Axiously waiting for TRoc
jal

Hi all,


WELL NOW! I think everyone needed a little break from the norm.


Let me say just a few things, that have been misinterpreted, before I try to put together another post.

First, green is my FAVORITE color, I am NOT trying to "kill it". I am not saying it doesn't exist, just that it is not primary, from ALL frames of reference. AE warned about going too far in theorizing from a "preferred frame".

Did everyone (who doesn't have their own prism) LOOK at the un-doctored, color photographs in THIS link? http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/ea/v7n19/encarte19.pdf

I have a hard time believing that, after seeing those photos, you would not understand what I'm saying.

The changing of the angle of diffraction REMOVES green from the rainbow (yes, LL, I've seen a few of those ). You are left with 2 pairs of colors, red/yellow, and cyan/violet. With THESE 4 colors, ALL known colors can be produced. This is not true of ANY of the existing schemes that you all now have links to.

LL, I think if you dig DEEP into the engineering literature of color monitors, TV, printers, copiers, etc., you will find that R-B-G is NOT the complete, easiest, and/or cheapest way to get the effect of "real life" images. M-Y-C does it (with a little black) cheaper, and better. I don't have any links for this, and my memory could be wrong.

This goes back to the FACT that it TAKES some "violet" to make "violet". Now, IF you "tweak" the R-G-B spectrum into R-B-V, that would do it. Again, since this is Science, I really DON"T like it when "they" (not you, THEY) say one thing, but mean another.


GE, yes! Thanks for the links. This was just a "side-note", about the superimposed B&W photos making "full color" prints. I did glean a TELLING statement there, that seems to KEEP coming up, when I search for things that are supposed to be FUNDAMENTAL to our TOWER of Science.

http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm

WOW!

(emphasis added)


The other thing I need to make clear: the change in frames of reference of the observer.

The "standard" (Newton) prism experiment goes through this sequence:

SOURCE>>>SLIT---PRISM===WALL===EYE

and produces a "sturdy" (unchangeable), or fixed "rainbow".

My "twist" in the storyline goes this way:

SOURCE>>>SLIT--WALL--PRISM=EYE

and this produces a "changeable" rainbow, where you can eliminate green from the center. The PAIRS (dualistic representations of E and M components?) of colors that remain, maintain a "polar" relationship.

What this does is allow us to view the diffraction pattern, normally seen in black & white, in a "new light"; colored that is.


Finally, the diffraction grating. This is a MANY SLIT version of the DSE. From http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c1

yet,

Apparently, the laser had more than one frequency, because it was dispersed into FIVE different places on the screen. You could also say that it went to the CENTER, and 2 PAIRS of symmetric locations, or "side lobes". That way, you only have to account for THREE frequencies: the fundamental, @ 632.8nm , and two others, BOTH having some position symmetry, or steady RATIO of frequencies. The intensity also falls off away from center in this experiment.


Some experimental set ups DO NOT allow for a "changing of frame of reference", and some do. I am suggesting (just as in the photon/electron relationship) that we look at BOTH, and then COMBINE what we learned. What are the SIMILARITIES?


ciao,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 19 2006, 08:08 PM

TRoc,

I've worked on CRT TV's and rear projection TV's and their electronic schematics.
RGB is the standard. If you look closely at the pixels on your monitor (just
put a drop of water on the screen) you will see RGB pixels.

As for color inkjet printers Black, Cyan, magenta,
and yellow are the typical inkjet refills.



LL

Good Day!
As to where the action happens .... duh.... more than one place
SOURCE>>>SLIT---PRISM===WALL===EYE
SOURCE>>>SLIT--WALL--PRISM=EYE
In the range that we are now talking about, we mean electrons changing their energy level.
jal


This post has been edited by jal on Dec 19 2006, 08:39 PM

Hi LL et al,

I think you are suggesting the slits are firing blanks in certain directions .. ?? We could be back to definition problems here.

Using the ripple tank appplet

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

Select Double Slit
Mouse=Edit Walls

Close up the slits that the applet gave you and open new ones towards each end of the wall (mousing on a wall makes it go away).

Hopefully you see the slits firing in all directions .. the interference 'appears' afterwards.

You see it?

Thoughts? Comments?

Best wishes,

-C2.

As a point of minor interest .. I think a chap called Ashfar claimed he could put bits of wire in the null zones and it made no difference .. I'm not sure it proved anything other than that he had a very steady hand .. anyway.. one can have fun putting walls down the destructive interference lines and wondering what (if anything) it all proves.

Edit.. if you try putting walls in the interference nulls .. it might be interesting to make some comment about standing waves -

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 19 2006, 08:49 PM

LL,


OK, thanks. I knew my memory was a little "fuzzy". I haven't worked on either TV's or printers, so I'll defer to your expertise.


Can you address HOW violet is produced on a TV?

Or, is there some problem with the real reproduction of that color.

I do have some expertise in WATCHING TV !

From my "full time Scientific mind", I have gathered that the RECEPTION clarity (what I IMAGINE to be "reception" problem) gets kicked in the arse when my TV tries to reproduce colors in the magenta to violet range. So, my "imagination" is probably wrong, and this is not a reception (signal) problem, and the common denominator is the problematic reproduction of higher energy colors than RGB allow for (easily, or within standards).

Is the "power drop" in apparent reception clarity caused by the energy conservation inside the TV, when energy is "borrowed" from the system to reproduce these higher energy colors?


T.Roc

Jal,

Talking about the DSE, the mixing takes place at/near the slit cavities. The rest
of the observed result is due to reflection and detection. IMO, there is no
mixing taking place at the screen.

TRoc,

A shadow contains no energy. The dark bands also contain no energy from
the arriving photons, they are "shadows" where no photons are falling.
The lighted bands contain energy from arriving photons. The energy of the
photons as they leave the DSE "mixing zone" determines their trajectory and
where they hit the screen.

The phase angle of the incident photons determines how they are additively
mixed and their resultant flight path toward the screen. Notice that each
lighted band has a "range" (spread) of energy. IMO, this is the phase
angle variability (uncertainty) of exactly where, in the phase angle, the
E and B field amplitude is.


LL

Hi TRoc,

If you've got microsoft 'Paint' or any graphics program .. click on custom colour (or something similar and you can find the RGB content for violet. I'm colour blind so I can't help.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi TRoc,

What? See attached! Is your RGB monitor able to show these clearly?







LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 19 2006, 09:10 PM

Hi all,


OK, perfect timing.


C2's statement:

and LL's statement:

We have found a difference in opinions, very good.

Some info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission

(emphasis added)

That is what I said earlier. "Heat" (or phonons) has been explained statistically by the laws of thermodynamics. Now, it's NOT enough to measure, but THERE IS ENERGY being delivered to the dark bands. The "photons" were NOT "destructively" evaporated.

Faster than our RADIATIVE measurements.

However, the EM field IS ALREADY QUANTIZED, in terms of "photons", and energy.

This is the problem of "the electromagnetic field is quantized at every point in space, .. with one photon in it". This leads to the interpretation of "free energy" in the "zero point field". This is not the "whole picture", something is obviously wrong.

Before the FIRST act of quantization, the parameters are LIMITED. AFTER the SECOND quantization, they are INFINITE. I can not agree with this approach.


regards,

T.Roc

Color bars:

Wikipedia color bars

Composite video signals:
CRT Pixels

LL

LL,


I just can't type fast enough to keep up with you !!




I think we may have had a "non-conversation"; I was just talking about my TELEVISION, not my monitor.

My TV picture has MAJOR problems reproducing certain frequencies, WHILE maintaining the same quality picture.

My computer monitor has an EXTRA power source (transformer?) in the cable itself. This was not the case about 10 years ago. I think I remember a similar "loss of quality" in the OLD computer monitors, but I could be wrong.


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

If the definitions of RGB are "tweaked" to include some violet (indigo, for instance), I have no problem with the effectiveness of RGB. However, AS STATED, RGB can NOT produce all colors MOST effectively.


T.Roc

TRoc,

I don't want you to get the impression that we are "out to get you" ,
it is just that we/I am questioning your line of logic as it pertains to the
DSE experimental results.

HHmmmm, If you shine a flashlight beam at a wall, is there energy from the
beam hitting the wall 2 feet away from the "spot". Energy is applied at 1 general
location of the beam, areas outside of that location are not receiving photons/energy. (same with a laser)

This relates perfectly to the PM on the atomic "lattice" that I sent to you last week.

Yes, the instantaneous position of the electron in its orbit is uncertain. Its
dipole relationship to the nucleus is in constant motion, so it can emit a photon
in any perpendicular direction to the dipole moment at the instant of energy
level transition to a lower level. IMO, surface photon emissions are the only ones
that couple to free space. In general, internally generated photons stimulate the atomic
matrix structure surrounding them, until they "migrate" to the "skin" of the
surface layer, where they couple to space in all directions and radiate away.

Even inside a laser, there are photons that escape thru the sides of the laser
media and are not part of the laser beam generated in the cavity between the
mirrors. There is not 100% energy coupling efficiency or lossless photon laser beam
generation. Much loss is thru heat and spurious random light leakage.

Time for that HDTV set that you've been eyeing???

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 19 2006, 10:03 PM

Hi TRoc,

I think you might have found the key to Pandora's box that yquantum mentioned a while back .

If a photon were confined to a box it would it not have have modes .. resonances .. whatever you wish to call it. Could it be that the only single mode cavity is one with no walls? .. infinite? .. still the one quantization .. just ... !

Best wishes,

-C2.

C2
Ashfar experiment controversy.
TRoc is saying that there cannot be loss of energy. Makes sense.
Does all the energy show up at the "light" spots?
I don't think TRoc is saying that. Something needs to be explained.
Comments??
jal