Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi TRoc,

I was contemplating posting the rather Zen optical thought:-

A wave starts where it begins and stiops when it arrives. All waves do this. If it is of more than one frequency then it must be more than one wave. To say that a wave that starts and stops must be made of more than one frequency is to fail to understand the nature of a wave.

As oracle touched on (?) .. it would seem photons couple ** with particles that have mass (eg electrons) and can appear to acquire some of the properties of 'mass'.. in particular (!) they no longer travel at the speed of light. Examples of the effect being prisms and focussing lenses which create paths for a photon that may or may not converge on a particular point in space.

In the DSE we have only two paths .. this is simplifies the analysis and increases the possibility that we might one day be able to understand what is really going on.

-C2.

** 'couple' is probably a word we need to be very careful with .

Hi LL,TRoc,

LL .. missed your post..

It's the flying pigs problem again .. if you see them do it ..

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi C2,

Now that's funny!

Thanks for the definition of decoherence. That is a much more comprehensive
explanation.

One of the reasons that I asked TRoc about the severely oblique angle and the
theory that photon EM fields always interact with an electron's EM fields, to emit a
new photon, was to make the point that total external reflection from an
small glancing angle may not require that process to occur.

I could be wrong about this, but they use small glancing angles to reflect
x-rays from a mirror. I'm not sure if the atoms in the mirror are
emitting a new x-ray photon. Does that violate a rule of QM or QED?

It may not even have any relevance, just a point of interest.

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



LL

Hi all,


My question wasn't worded very well (it was better said as 2 questions). I was looking for someone from the QM corner (anybody) to confirm the statement and/or answer the question. The way the "photon" is absorbed, is by an electron (orbital). The way energy continues, is the re-emission of a new "photon"

Lisa thinks that talking about entanglement is important, and I just want to clear that up before we do.


LL

Don't take my question about QM for an opinion of something. You know I think closer to your way than QM's ! hehe Can we see a "photon" traveling from side to side (not on a vector that enters our eye)? I think that, and the answers to your other questions, are dependent upon HOW close, and WHAT energy level (frequency), and the angle. I don't think the official version of QM agrees with that, though.

If we are going to suggest a "change" in the status quo, we need to be very sure what that is. And, we should all be aware of, and using the same model when having this discussion. QM has several models to chose from, just like string theory, AFAIC. Neither have the "hook" of a full, and reasonable solution, derived with self consistent, fundamental principles.


ciao,

T.Roc

Laserlight & Confused2, TRoc (did not see you post) , jal, all

Have you figured out your question I see your back to decoherence and I think this is the right approach.

About your other question: This could be old news but remember I do not know what all that has been covered.

http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/spectroscopy/basics.html

Let me know will check back later or tomorrow.

Duality/Lisa

This post has been edited by Duality on Dec 21 2006, 03:37 AM

C2,

No problem with that.

That's why they have the term "wave packet"; and the "wave" has TWO parts ( an E and B component) with an orthogonal relationship. They are NOT in the same place, at the same time.

You are failing to understand the dualistic nature of OSCILLATION. It is HERE for a 1/2 cycle, and THEN it is THERE, for a total of one cycle, but NOT all at the same time (therefore PLACE too, if moving with velocity > 0 )

You are also failing to understand the act of measuring. It is a "picture" frozen in time. We do NOT have "video" capability for this size scale. (everything is SIMULATED, like the "sine wave") When you take a measurement of these things, it is AT a specific moment in time, and can NEVER have both 1/2 cycles happening at the same time. So it is "blurred" in space, or the distance parameter.

It is like we have the BEST (fastest) film possible for our camera, but the picture is still BLURRY when we develop it. Everything on this scale is vibrating at incredible rates.


regards,

T.Roc

TRoc,

You had me worried. I wasn't sure where you were going.

LL

Parp, Parp .... Ahoy there!,

Thought it time to reiterate my far from mainstream suppositions, might help with what going on @ the mo':

Electromagnetism is a reciprocal duality stemming from endo/exo wave propagation with regards to an event horizon produced by condesation of the said wave in lower dimensionality. The ultimate state of condensation is the waves occupance of zero space i.e a zero-space singularity (electric maxima/point charge/mass), a point at which the event reversal component (magnetism) reaches it's minima as its energy/wave now occupies it's original high dimensional 'birth-space' therefore is at it most diffuse. Imagine our 'perceived' universe was just a propagating 'magnetic' wavefront produced by nothing more than a super high energy sub atomic wave approaching singularity state . All matter on this 'magnetic' wavefront component, simply an affect of embedded singularities from 'offsping' wavicles as this 'field/wavefront' undergoes 'in-transit' dimensional decay. Our perspective: singularities within a magnetic wavefront appearing infinitely huge but @ the same time being near infinitely small.

This post has been edited by fivedoughnut on Dec 21 2006, 06:03 AM

Hi Duality, Laserlight, Yquantum, Fivedoughnut, Confused2, TRoc, Jal et al,

You may recall this illustration I prepared previously to illustrate how continuous wave is generated from discrete photons that "emulate" the simplest of functions possible ... the Sync Function.

What we see is since this is a complex function in reality the wavelets "jostle" for position after undergoing "stimulated emission" from a source. They immediately arrange themselves "perfectly" on the wave to propagate as a bosonic "disturbance". More than one photon can occupy the same space ... in fact an infinity of photons can occupy the same space that is the beauty of being a photon. I also call your attention to the fact that the photon is its own "antiparticle" or rather the photon does not have an "antiparticle" but can be in either phase. Not so fermions (like electrons for instance). Fermions are distinct entities and only two can occupy the same place at the same time. This is "space quantization" as we all know, it occurs with great predictability on the quantum scale. There is also another factor... a very important factor that has great bearing on this problem you are all alluding to here ... "Dirac's Party Trick". It is very easy to show that all "hard" particles have a symmetry in spacetime (that even includes you) that to return any fermion or collection of fermions to its original "state" it must be rotated exactly twice in its own space. It is very hard to get people to truly understand this topological anomaly. I kid you not. You literally "must" rotate yourself twice before you can occupy the same state in space. This is not true of photons which require only a single rotation in space to return a photon to its original position. I have spoken of this property many times and we are not speaking of esotericism here "it was Dirac's Party Trick"... and he did it at parties after he had knocked a couple down. He he he!

You could easily do this with a tennis ball and a card with a few strings. The truth is even though the last statement "seems" to be true we can understand that in principle and as a point of fact topologically it is not true and this property must extend to macroscopic objects too... like the tennis ball.

So in the case of all objects as they move in space through time, depending on their size they must "rotate" and for fermions they not only rotate but for identical particles two may occupy a single state if they have sustained different integer rotations. This is indeed the case for "Cooper Pairs" and paired electrons in orbitals. Not only that even numbers of "Cooper Pairs" form de facto bosons and take on some of the characteristics of bosons... even atoms can be bosons since the spins can add to integers. Some atoms are naturally bosons and others can have a bosonic state ""thrust upon them" by combining two half integer particles to make an integer particle. It should be acknowledged that everything is "connected" to some "invisible" background state from which things take an "orientation".

Now I would like you to confirm this for yourselves and to realize this world is not all it initially seems.

Then you need to also think about the nature of the deBroglie Wave on an electron and how this internal "structure" of a circulating photon that needs to circulate twice before it returns to the original state... due to spin 1/2 symmetry. Unlike the photon that travels through "space" as a frozen instant in time where the group and phase velocity remain both "locked" at the speed of light and while it does not "change" between source and destination, what must happen is it must also "rotate" as well but as integer rotations in space to return the particle to its original state. I would like to also say that the photon is entirely spacelike and has no timelike worldline component (no time expires in the frame of the photon, from source to destination). This rotation will define an internal phase that allows identical particles to occupy the same state... the state of "propagating light". An infinity of these can occupy that state. On the other hand the deBroglie particle (such as an electron) works in a reciprocal space where we have the relationship...

The group and the phase velocity have quite a different relationship... The group velocity remains usually far below the speed of light and the phase velocity remains far above the speed of light, sometimes reaching an infinite speed. What happens is that this disturbance "fades" rapidly with distance from the source and is entirely "evanescent". Nothing that I have just said is in dispute, it is simply "ignored". It is at the very foundation of Quantum Theory. Can we say this "wavefunction" is not something we can understand as being related to the electromagnetic wave? I think we can identify the wavefunction with an electromagnetic wave in all cases with different topology especially in the case of the photon and the electrom and most probably in the case of other fermions.

Now we came to these "vacuoles" hanging in space whose size depends on the wavelength of the "excitation" of the light and we need to understand just "where" these photons are to be located in space and just how orientation affects the nature of these particles and their attendant energy. I will leave that for you to contemplate for a little while.

Laserlight remarked just how illusory light can really be when Land Theory of Color Mixing shows that you can reconstruct all sensible colors from just two separate images taken taken with a camera filtered by two interference filters set at two nearby separate frequencies "mixing" them in space in only the "red" end of the spectrum. A spectrometer "observing" this phenomena sees only the two component frequencies but the human eye sees the entire rainbow of light we take for granted that composed the original scene. I just thought I would throw that in to add "mystery" as to those of you who actually believe what you see is "real"... he he he!
http://www.greatreality.com/PrimaryFrame.htm
http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-7/p43.html

"There is no place like home... There is no place like home... There is no place like home... " [...] "Gee, Toto, I don't think we are in Kansas anymore..." ~ Dorothy Gayle

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 21 2006, 01:17 PM

ALL,

Just interesting information I believe that will go with what Good Elf has given? Sometimes the old papers are the best, you do not have to pay for them.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf

Happy Holidays
Try and not find out the classical side until I return,

Duality/Lisa

Hi Duality,.... et al,

At least someone is thinking about this here... what if there are no magnetic monopoles that leaves the electric charges as the anomaly and there should not be any "electric monopoles" either... This is the whole box and dice for "particle theory".

Cheers

Hi Laserlight, Yquantum, Fivedoughnut, Duality, TRoc, jal et al,

Setting up the the ripple tank like this



Bigger

suggests the slits are not firing blanks in some directions .. the addition/subtraction (interference) from the two slits is 'constructed' at the point of detection.

The ripple tank is just showing solutions in space of the construction shown here.

http://www.hmi.de/bereiche/info/dualismus/exp.java_en.html

Or 'The DSE Equation' see http://schools.matter.org.uk/Content/Inter...ce/formula.html

Best wishes,

C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 21 2006, 10:45 PM

Anyone having a look at this thread for the first time ..

This is the experiment we have been considering for some time now.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi all,


Although it's very hard to tell, I think GE is supporting my statement that Newton's theory of light is wrong, or at least, just part of the whole picture.


Newton: "Light contains all colors"

This is patently false, for anyone who ponders it in 'light' of modern knowledge. (pun)

Although we know that "photons" (energy) can superimpose with "no limit", we also know, in the REAL Universe, that the energy is NOT all in one place, nor could be, and still be referred to as "the Universe". (at least by the then non-existent observers)

Since we NOW know that energy and frequency are inter-related, we can NOT have an arbitrarily high frequency, or sum of frequencies in one "place" and "time". This statement is within the limits of what we would then call mass, and the "black hole". We are NOT talking about black holes here, for sure.


My statement is this: Light CAN be ANY color (frequency).

This requires a model that has the correct geometry to be changeable, in a very specific, repetitive way.

This is regardless of human (or any "eye") perception, unlike Newton's claim, which ONLY includes the colors that we can see.


What is hard for some people to understand, is that the pattern that exists is what we can see, exists in the next octave above visible light, and the next octave below visible light. This pattern extends down into audible levels; this pattern extends down into consciousness itself.

From the Universe, and on down, there is a pattern. It requires a fundamental understanding of duality, and of singularity. This fundamental understanding is missing from the Textbooks; many parts of it can be found "scattered around" in various Texts, some very new, and others very old.


D/L's link to the Fermi-lab news.pub was great! I see that GE has commented on that as well. No monopoles found yet, so some theories are left quite short of being "correct". Charge is not the same, so that is a key difference between the "entanglement" of the E and B components.


SO, let's chat a bit about what we know.

At the "fundamental" level of "matter" we have the Hydrogen atom (H). The ground state of H, which is the ONLY example (in the Table of Elements) that has this "charge singularity" at the nucleus, which for H, is just the positively charged Proton. Of course, in "orbit" of this fundamental Proton, is one electron. The orbit shape is circular.

While the nucleus is a charge "monopole", the atom is not. It achieves a balanced state. It is interesting, that the Neutron decays when it is not part of a nucleus. Its' neutrality does not suit the Universe; while balance does. Given the size ratio between the proton and the electron, it's safe to say that balance does NOT always come from "equal" parts. This is also clearly demonstrated by the energy to frequency (& wavelength) relationship, with smaller wavelengths having more energy.

All the elements taken as a whole, show that the "perfect circle" is the exception, and NOT the rule. A few dozen pages ago, I talked about the problem with depending on pi for so much, and for it forcing Physics down the "hard way". Again, historically, this story has already played out with Kepler, and the "new" idea of elliptical orbits.

We (on Earth) are NOT in a circular orbit; while this (hopefully) is not news to you, the story of "why" might not be in your mind.

It is because we are not alone. No, not "x-files stuff", I'm talking about our neighboring Planets. As it works out, the interactions of the other masses affects our orbit, causing it to "change" from circular, to elliptical.

-Wikipedia, Orbital Shape
(emphasis added)

Tuck that bold note "the semi-major axis is an adiabatic invariant" away, it will be VERY important later, when we talk about thermodynamics.

Now, I KNOW that the historical model of comparing the atomic orbital to planetary orbits was "a mistake", but according to the Texts, they still include it for students, because "it helps understanding of the basics". That doesn't sound like bad medicine, does it?

-Wikipedia, Orbital Shape
(emphasis added)

People with good memory, and who understand numerical "uncertainty" (how HUP affects measurements, aka "numbers") will probably not argue that I have strayed "too far" from these values, with "Z" and "R" (1.026, 1.059).

People with a decent imagination will be able to "see" the affect, on a sine wave's circular motion, that amplitude has on its' "shape". It make the circle change towards elliptical, in a steady (due to constant velocity) manner.

Now, from D/L's link http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-05-15.pdf
Department of (Missing) Energy

Only a Fundamental force will do this. Resonance, by "constructive", or "destructive" interference, has this feature.

Perhaps my cynical "surprised" response was misunderstood. Having a "full color" photo assembled from 2 wavelengths is to be expected, when you see that the pattern does form from such simple, oscillating, dualistic properties.

Light and dark are dualistic, and the shades in between represent everything in existence. Only on the MOST minuscule level, like our own bodies, and our planet, does something like "color" mean anything specific.

The pattern is pure, simple math. As long as the "units" are the same, the patterns holds true. When you cast light through an aperture, you make a clear "image" of the light, upon a dark background. At the edge of these 2 dualities, there "should be" a sharp line, but there is NOT. There are distinct bands of different shades.

The Eye of Yin, is the Body of Yang, and vice versa, as far as "colors" go.

The Yin/Yang shape is circular; yet, they would have an elliptical shape, if "in orbit". Unseen masses, then, help to maintain the balance of things.

How does the H atom not have this, otherwise decaying (destructive interaction with the background radiation) neutral part of the picture? (the Neutron) Could it be that the orbiting electron in the H atom absorbs this "missing" radiation, and is able to achieve "the perfect circle" thusly? That "anomaly" would disappear as soon as another electron was able to perform that duty.


The Universe, Energy, and Matter are all non-linear. Linearity is an illusion of frame of reference.



regards,

T.Roc

All,

It looks like until the weather gets better, I am still looking for a way to bring both camps together. I have not given up on this post, now the other just might be another story?

Still digging and that can be taken literally or figuratively, will check back, unless it warms up.

Duality/Lisa