Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Merry Christmas GE, C2, TRoc, and ALL!

GE, we are not talking about Electromagnetically Induced Transparency with
the frequencies at which the DSE experiments are being conducted. There is
nothing "transparent" except for the open area of the slits.

IMO, you are skirting the issues that I raised about the spherical wavefront
"exploring all paths" but not immediately collapsing upon interacting with matter.
I know that a definitive explanation would solve the dilemma and answer the
questions that science has been trying to solve since the DSE was first
scientifically observed.

A "directionalized" beam of energy, with a spherical wavefront, is developed
around an energy centerline vector. The entire EM field propagates evenly along
this "zero" polarity reference line which is the direction of travel. The only
place the EM energy can "collapse" is exactly on the vector centerline when
its direction of travel is obstructed by opaque matter, where its energy can be
absorbed and converted to another form (frequency) of EM energy.

This is the point of "collapse" of the original waveform. A new waveform is
propagated upon absorption, typically as an IR photon in a black body, or at a
different wavelength, plus IR, depending upon the atomic structure of the matter
absorbing the applied energy.

My point being that, a spherical wave front will only collapse along the centerline
of the direction of propagation, but a wavefront can be "distorted", as evidenced
by a wave being able to diffract or "go around" corners, or small obstructions,
that are within the confines of the beam EM profile.

This is what I mean regarding the energy of the photon being "divisible". The
EM fields can be "distorted", depending upon the wavelength of the photon.
If the EM field distortion is not severe enough to cause total wavefunction collapse,
the waveform will "reconstruct" its normal electrical and magnetic fields. It
will maintain the same frequency, but it may have diminished energy amplitude,
and it might exhibit a phase shift under the right conditions.
JMHO.


Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 25 2006, 06:50 AM

Hi Laserlight,Good Elf,

The experimental result here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif does show the photon counts for a single slit .. the result is fairly trivial and suggests the number of photons counted is a simple function of the classical diffraction explanation except 'intensity' has been replaced by counts. We could (you might object) suggest that the 'intensity' of an EM wave at a point IS the number of photons that will be counted at that point. We see that photons are not just found in the full ahead direction.

With both slits open the situation is more complicated (!) ..

The photon count still follows the 'classical wavefront' intensity (allowing for interference) .. but the interference is not just between a single wavefront from slit A and the same wavefront from slit B... they each interfere with any wavefront from the other slit .. by doing this they continue to suggest that the photon count is the same thing as the 'intensity' of an EM wave. We might suggest (many people do) that the classical concept of 'intensity' of a classical EM wave simply tells you where you are most likely to detect a photon. Since we don't know where the photon will be detected we have to wait and see. Once the photon is detected it canot be detected anywhere else .. hence the use of the words 'collapse of the wavefunction(-psi)' .. the 'collapse' is the removal of the probability of the photon being detected anywhere else .. it is unclear what you mean by 'collapse'.

Good Elf seeks to avoid wavefunction(-psi) collapse by suggesting the intensity map is already set up in advance and each photon has a property (from the start) that disposes it to choose one path from the many available to it.
To find what options are available all paths must be 'explored' in some way .. Good Elf has attempted to explain how this can be done in advance but seems to have a problem finding suitable walls to establish a standing wave solution for the real photons to follow. The other 'exploring' option is to accept that it MUST have happened to explain the results .. well that would be just another starting point if we wanted one.

Best wishes (happy Xmas)

-C2.

Hi Laserlight,

True... just emphasizing that the existence of barriers of "matter" is a very strong "illusion". It may take considerable technical expertize to dispel that "illusion".

Consider all the surface atoms of the cavity only one atom and one shell is capable of actually absorbing that photon... if a number of photons are already been absorbed they will stay absorbed for a small fraction of time. That is enough to ensure that most sites are actually "filled" along the direct line. If the photon is not actually a "bullet" traveling through the space of the cavity like in some of those stupid animations then I maintain the photon is still in "quantum space" where nothing really changes, still in a stationary state. The diffraction without loss of the qubit "costs nothing" only interactions which rob the photon of the qubit "cost anything" and so until it loses its qubit it is totally untouched. This is the experimental fact. If a photon undergoes interaction it must lose its original qubit then it will simply not take part in the ordered process of interference "fringing". That is a bottom line, there is no compromise, a photon can't interact and take part in fringes it is a quantum law you must accept and it is entirely logical. The qubit contains the phase information that is needed to connect it to the original source. The connection to the original source is linked with the standing waves. The optical distortion is simply that... a distortion in optics.

A short time after absorption the photon may re-emit as light ... that is what we are seeing as observers... the tiny flash. It no longer has the original qubit and this light is now "diffuse". The effect of the qubit can be seen as the image in the screen... a residual of the information. If instead of two small apertures there was only one this would show that image with its colors and form. Since we have two "correlated" sources then they will interfere. It makes sense to reduce the source to a point source and of a single frequency. In such cases you get the experiment that Thomas Young performed. Correlation will occur naturally due to the ordering process I have mentioned previously. It is better to use a relatively pure source with the correlation built in but that is entirely incidental to the original experiment.

Naturally if you can believe me when I say that the wave phenomena is actually "not" the photon but simply a shadow from higher dimensions of the deBroglie "stationary state" then each photon is propagating "one at a time" as a sync pulse expanding on the surface of a sphere at the speed of light, just one little ripple at a time, on and through the slits... It is in the seek all paths mode, a wave only. Its crest strikes a large portion of the screen, not actually being absorbed but able to penetrate as much as a wavelength into the surface. Somewhere a suitable site will be found depending on some dynamic of the original emission at source. While all photons on the one crest move as one in the boson state they are still dynamically individuals. Remember the eye of the hurricane analogy. That center for all the photons on this crest must be distributed according to specific phase rotation as if on the surface of a sphere. This is the Berry Phase.

This "phase" is due to optical rotations in the "cavity" time and time again parallel transporting the vector around a loop as in spin... over and over until the dice being rolled so many times they can be analyzed using the Monte-Carlo method. These relate back to the isospin and orbital angular quantum numbers. This can be simply put as inflicting a nett transverse "kick" to the source such that some component of momentum of the photon becomes transverse to the slit. This does not affect the scalar plane image. What it means is this "center" is deflected randomly (as far as we can determine) through a phase angle from the direct path. This is exactly what the Feynman Many-Paths method is able to simulate.

Optical Analog of Uncertainty Principle This is the "dumbed down" version of this story for "undergrads" but is "partially true".

No energy loss EVER in photons that partake in the diffraction pattern... just check this point out and you will need to accept that experiment and theory are at one with this most important point.

Think of this as if the photon "wave" in their own frame of reference "appear" to be like expanding "beachballs" that has a printed surface pattern and not like "pancakes" as I see them from our frame of reference, then this is like rolling that "ball" around "en route" and it finally coming up with a pattern "on top" depending on the path that it took to get there.. The photon still has the same energy but the center of the pattern is in a physically different rotation than the "straight through path".

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 25 2006, 10:44 AM

Sorry.. I should have put in a reference to wavefunction(-psi) collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse -C2.

Sorry GE ..

Please disregard mny comments about GE setting up his waves in advance .. he states his case in the post before this one.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 25 2006, 10:44 AM

Hi Confused2,

No objection, I welcome it. All I would say is you have now identified the electromagnetic fields with the quantum uncertain numbers of psi squared for many particles. That means that that pretty blue picture with the expanding "pancakes" is a measure of the quantum waves position for each and every "coherent" photon.

Now if the electric field loops are as shown then the photons are also as shown... just that they can co-habit the same space. This is "good" since it admits that there is a classical equivalent to the quantum result. Now I realize this method of analysis is difficult but it admits more data to analyse. But if we have a one to one mapping of the wave, and its "pancakes", to the expanding photon "shadow" in our physical space we have made huge progress. The matter of just where the photon ends up is given by the discussion of Berry Phase in my previous post... Not that I would actually know in an individual case exactly which photon ends where since any physical measurement will critically alter this parameter and lead to "dephasing".

Another analogy of Berry Phase is a spinning top forced to execute an irregular path (different paths) across a hemispherical depression. The final "tilt" of the axis will depend on the path taken even if the top ends up on the same final spot. This is in a totally conserved system where no energy is actually lost (at least in theory). I would also point out Berry Phase is a "Classical Parameter" and is also critical to understanding such phenomena as Aharanov-Bohm Geometric Phase Effect actually being demonstrated. This "sphere" and its attendant Berry Phase is a Universal Global Phenomena... a "dislocation" that effects "everywhere" in our Universe.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 25 2006, 11:25 AM

Hi GE,LL et al,

I have to go and enjoy Christmas with as much 'good grace' as I can muster. My wife wants me 'off the net' for a while. Rats!

Best to all,
-C2.

Hi Confused2,

Merry Xmas and have a good time. I will be back and we can discuss these points later.

That goes for everyone, time to call a break. Down here in Australia we are having a White Christmas in Victoria... this is pretty crazy stuff at this time of the year. Even elves may need to rug up if this strange weather spreads. It is the height of midsummer here... He he he!

Xmas Cheers to all

Hi GE and C2, I think we are the only ones online today.

GE

Ok, now we are getting to the "meat" of the issue. We have finally skinned this
"critter". I had stated this photon "phase rotation" orientation in a post many
weeks ago and you seemed to not accept the idea. Each photon in an expanding
wavefront is at a slightly different phase timing orientation due to timing and
proximity delays from the original atomic matrix that propagated it. It is the photon emission "latency" issue.
I will post some commentary that I have been keeping in reserve, a bit later.

I think that only when a photon undergoes a total wave collapse, where the E and
B fields lose their mutual regenerative propagation capabilities, is where a photon
is converted into another EM form and is absorbed (detected).

Perhaps we should "test" this statement with a couple of "gedanken" experiments.
Let me set the scenarios.

Photons arranged in a fixed timing relative "pattern" have been travelling,
unimpeded, for billions of years thru the vacuum of space. Now consider that
there is an optical telescope, here on earth, that is observing the light arriving
from that far away galaxy. The qubit (timing, phase, and position) information
travels thru the cavity of the lens of the telescope with minimal distortion, even though the
photon has interacted with the matter and changed direction while passing thru
the lens. The energies of the arriving photons have been "modified" but not
absorbed. They maintained their EM wavefunction integrities and qubit information.

The arriving photons have been collected, focused, and concentrated into an
image that represents the original, but on a vastly smaller scale. If there were
another telescope immediately next to the 1st it would observe the exact same
image with the exact same wavefronts and the cubit information that they
contain. Massive array telescopes use a similar technique to improve resolutions
and maximize the concentration/amplification of arriving photons.

2nd scenario: A radio wave (photon), with a wavelength 10 meters long, is
propagating its wavefront from a dipole antenna. The transmitted RF photon energy
from the same wavefront can be received by multiple receiving antennas. The
wavefunction did not completely collapse, some of the energy continued on
and was received at a later relative time and phase reference. The wavefront
did not totally collapse, except that portion of EM energy that was resonating
in the tuned cavity of the antenna.

In the case of linearly "staggered" antennas, each successive dipole antenna receives a
reduced portion of the total energy being propagated in the wavefront because
a portion of it was absorbed in preceding antennas. The wavefront has lost
amplitude from the first antenna to the last antenna. The signal was attenuated
by losses. Same photon wavefront, same frequency, but a different power
amplitude.

So a photon's energy can be "divided" without a total collapse of the wavefunction
taking place.

Standing waves are a cavity phase, and timing, effect. As we know, waves that
are constructive, add their energies together. Those that are out of phase
cancel the portion of the energy that is out of phase. The constructive and
destructive interference is observed at the detector, but the phase relationship
is established enroute via the DSE or a lens/mirror array. A lens, a mirror,
or multiple slits changes the relative timing of the EM phasing of photons but
do not collapse their wavefunctions or change their frequency, they just modify their timing relationships.

Not sure that I totally agree with this. The energy of a "photon" can be
attenuated, while still maintainting the same frequency. It just has a lower
energy db level. Any time that energy and matter interact there will be some
losses usually in the form of IR or signal scattering due to atomic phase
mismatches. A photon pulse, propagating thru a fiberoptic cable (or a
spectral filter) always suffers db energy losses. There is never 100%
transmission efficiency thru anything except vacuum.

I do agree that the phase rotation is changed when a photon's direction is
changed (redirected) by interacting with matter.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 26 2006, 12:09 AM

The experimental result here http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif does show the photon counts for a single slit .. the result is fairly trivial and suggests the number of photons counted is a simple function of the classical diffraction explanation except 'intensity' has been replaced by counts. We could (you might object) suggest that the 'intensity' of an EM wave at a point IS the number of photons that will be counted at that point. We see that photons are not just found in the full ahead direction.

With both slits open the situation is more complicated (!) ..

The photon count still follows the 'classical wavefront' intensity (allowing for interference) .. but the interference is not just between a single wavefront from slit A and the same wavefront from slit B... they each interfere with any wavefront from the other slit .. by doing this they continue to suggest that the photon count is the same thing as the 'intensity' of an EM wave. We might suggest (many people do) that the classical concept of 'intensity' of a classical EM wave simply tells you where you are most likely to detect a photon. Since we don't know where the photon will be detected we have to wait and see. Once the photon is detected it canot be detected anywhere else .. hence the use of the words 'collapse of the wavefunction(-psi)' .. the 'collapse' is the removal of the probability of the photon being detected anywhere else .. it is unclear what you mean by 'collapse'.

Good Elf seeks to avoid wavefunction(-psi) collapse by suggesting the intensity map is already set up in advance and each photon has a property (from the start) that disposes it to choose one path from the many available to it.
To find what options are available all paths must be 'explored' in some way .. Good Elf has attempted to explain how this can be done in advance but seems to have a problem finding suitable walls to establish a standing wave solution for the real photons to follow. The other 'exploring' option is to accept that it MUST have happened to explain the results .. well that would be just another starting point if we wanted one.

Best wishes (happy Xmas)

-C2.

Its' possible that the photon was a little closer to one of the slits than the other and the photon went through the closer of the two slits.

Hi Neil Farbstein et al,

You may be right but I really do not know what to call a photon. Do you mean that the photon is a little round billiard ball that must go through one hole of the other? Firing BB's eh? That view can be supported using standard quantum theory that has the "billiard ball" passing through one hole and still able to interfere with itself on the probability of passing through the other hole. This "irks me"! All the gymnastics that quantum physics must perform to make it work and still remains disconnected with our normal physics.

It is one thing to say that large populations of people behave in a statistical fashion. We can say the typical earth dweller lives near a capital city 90% of the time and is 50% male and 50% female and its average life expectancy is 59.3425687 years. (I am guessing those figures). What I mean to say is individuals have specific characteristics that depend on genetics and nature/nurture factors. They really do not individually have "bulk properties". This is where classical optics can fill in far more than quantum mechanics provided you move on from 19th century physics as being the only classical physics out there.

My view is actual physics does determine the direction of photons, it is just that measuring these "influences" a priori is totally out of the question. That this "influence" obeys statistics is simply a consequence of the large numbers involved and the lack of individual analysis. I do not disagree that it is not possible to do this analysis... no... this is not my point... it is that physics itself and not mathematical statistics that is determining the outcomes... even with individual photons. Full analysis of this proposition has been done by others and it is not in conflict with the results of Quantum Theory. Quantum Theory itself is based on a particle version of optical theory and nothing more. This was sensible to use since it leads to simple solutions for many simple problems.

Yet it is flawed despite the accuracy, it is unable to account for many features of the Universe without incorporating more and more of the "orphaned optical theory". It is usually snuck into the papers like a "Trojan Horse" so that most will not notice this is just an optical theory in disguise. So what is wrong with Quantum Theory... Nothing!

There is nothing wrong since it is a semantic trap... accept all the premises and you can't argue with the result. As to the accuracy of the result... it is as good as it gets, it would be as good as any optical result given the same provisions. The quantum Theory is a "Ptolemaic" System... it does not deal with mechanism... it deals with outcomes. And it is "damn good" at what it does. What I would say is that photons and all other particles are not tiny little disconnected billiard balls that individually behave "locally" but are in reality global waves interfering with each other through space and time... sometimes vast reaches of space to "individually" provide outcomes. I have provided many reasons why I think these things and they are not based on quantum mysticism but on the known results of experiments documented in the literature. Unfortunately it is "not enough" to win the day such is the entrenched views of the establishment. You can repeat all the reasons and proofs until the cows come home and they will say it is never enough to abandon the quantum particle approach.

The quantum approach grew up in a period where computational ability was small and experiments were few on the ground. It answered a set of problems that science desperately wanted to answer at that time. It provided the numerical results by having a number of what seemed to be 'unreasonable" postulates to arrive at those result. These postulates were not justified by physics but introduced to "correct" the classically "incorrect" figures. One of them was the "stationary states"... in the model they chose such states were not classically possible but they introduced them anyway. The ruse worked. Out came the answers but it posed some deep philosophical questions that remain unanswered to this day .

One view of this process is Bohmian Mechanics which is a three dimensional theory to show that "hidden variables" are the way forward. In the past bogus proofs have been submitted as evidence to show that "hidden variables" were untenable. They all omitted the non-local aspect of these theories. Slowly the quantum picture is introducing "non-local" aspects to retro-fit a lame theory to account for the new experimental results. Now your "billiard balls" have grown "tentacles"... he he he!

One thing is certain these non-local aspects are optical in origin and to graft them on to particle theories IMHO is a fraud. The answer to all this is to be found in Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. This is a wave theory and it works very well. Quantum Electrodynamics is a cut down version of this concept using only the retarded potentials so while it gives all the answers for light in three dimensional space it will be missing the extra information that is always there as "interferences" that reach all through space and time a-temporally. Throw in Cramer's Transactional Interpretation and provided these were referring to waves we might have a full picture.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 26 2006, 02:52 AM

Hi Laserlight,

I have discussed Berry Phase years ago on this forum. Berry Phase is "Geometric Phase"... not the wave phase or even spatial phase... it is a topological phase similar to that which is responsible for charge and is "path dependent" even when the energy process is not. It is not a "latency issue". You need to read up on Berry Phase.

I think that only when a photon undergoes a total wave collapse, where the E and B fields lose their mutual regenerative propagation capabilities, is where a photon is converted into another EM form and is absorbed (detected).
Perhaps we should "test" this statement with a couple of "gedanken" experiments.
Let me set the scenarios.

I know you think that but it is clearly wrong and this is the result of timeless experiments. Photons do not interact and still retain their original qubit. Optical phenomena while the photon is still in quantum space do not involve the exchange of energy. There is no use trying to "out-think nature". This is the way "she" works. It is the basis of many other interesting quantum effects and they are all totally quantum and "hidden" from view. The "waves" are like shadows and they do not interact energetically they negotiate the "optical landscape" without loss of energy.

The idea that you may have a Quantum Zeno Effect in free space or on a boundary that resets the energy requires a state capable of this regeneration at that site. When the "reset" occurs this resets the phase as well and this is tantamount to collapsing the quantum state. You do this frequently enough the state is "frozen" but continually reset. I really do not think this occurs this is usually happening in a trapped cavity where the state can be regeneratively fed with a source of energy as in the Circuit QED Theory. There the photon is "reborn" every cycle and the quantum state is reset to "starting parameters".
Quantum Zeno Effect: Wayne M. Itano et al

Not sure that I totally agree with this. The energy of a "photon" can be attenuated, while still maintaining the same frequency. It just has a lower energy db level. Any time that energy and matter interact there will be some losses usually in the form of IR or signal scattering due to atomic phase mismatches. A photon pulse, propagating thru a fiberoptic cable (or a spectral filter) always suffers db energy losses. There is never 100% transmission efficiency thru anything except vacuum.

If we are concerned with preservation of the qubit on a photon it can suffer no losses in a waveguide, it is one of the problems of sending individual photons containing qubits long distances to retain their "entangled" state. That transmission efficiency is only a "bulk property" for lots of photons, it does not apply to each individual photon. It is a real problem digging the signal from the noise of entangled photons. A qubit is definitely not a bit... they are nothing like each other.

Some photons interact and others do not depending on some "dynamic property". The ones that interact are lost to the pristine interference pattern and those that do not have photon to particle interactions will still be in a pure quantum state ... untouched.. a stationary state... even though the photon has been "deviated" and undergone "optical" processes that are not "particle interaction" processes. If a photon was partially absorbed and lost some energy then the relationship E = hf would no longer hold.

Cheers

Good Elf,

Perhaps you can elaborate on this. Isn't Planck's constant only relevant for
the energy of black body radiators as it relates to frequency and time from
a harmonic oscillator radiating into free space? E=hv

Doesn't the propagation latency delay of photon energy in a different medium,
like a lens or an optical fiber, possess a different energy level while in that
medium. The photons are slowed down (delayed) while negotiating the atoms
of the medium, so their energy should be different. The index of refraction of
the material slows the phase velocity of photons traveling thru the medium,
relative to the same photons propagating in vacuum, so the photons are
slowed down while in the media. They resume their original frequency, energy
level and phase relationship upon leaving the medium that slowed them.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_constant

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


LL

Good Day everyone!
I hope everyone is rested from their celebrations.

Let’s look at a few FACTS to advance this discussion.
Nobody knows of any mechanism that makes a “wave”. ( A hidden variable?)
The bubble does not go to the side of the “box”. ( A hidden variable?)
There is no firework in the heavens. ( A hidden variable?)
The sun does not have extra photons that need to be explained. ( A hidden variable?)
Let’s move on to definitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_fr...nd_chemistry%29

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

Do I need to repeat it?
Other dimensions are needed to mathemathically describe more than one particle. NO PARTICLES … NO OTHER DIMENSIONS.
Waves cannot be described by the use of other dimensions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_quantization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-commutative_geometry

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_...um_mechanics%29

Worth repeating …. Read it agains … too idealized to adequately describe most systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_...antum_mechanics

------------------------------
Are we limited to “waves”/quantum mechanics to understand the quantum universe? ( A hidden variable?)
Can an understanding or a formulation of quantum activity be represented by any other way then by “waves”?
By using a particle? ( Bohmian deterministic particle trajectories), (classical mechanics)
If you are interested you can check out the following article. Don’t be fooled by the title. It is applicable to this discussion.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0611/0611037.pdf
Cosmological constant, semiclassical gravity, and foundations of quantum mechanics
Hrvoje Nikoli´
6 nov 2006

Using a particle-like? ( Bohmian deterministic particle trajectories), (classical mechanics)

-------------------------------
Good Elf insist that we do not talk about particles, only quantum mechanics and waves.
Yet, dimensions are determined by assigning the position of X,Y,Z to a particle. If we want to talk about three particles we must assign each of them a dimension. Therefore, it means that for three particles there are 3 dimensions with three times the degree of movement, for a total of 18 degrees of freedom.
Problems:
1. So Good elf gets 9 dimensions plus time. However, time is included when one is describing the particle's momentum and the particle's position along an axis defined by that direction. So why is time added one more time? ( A hidden variable?)
2. The positions and velocities as well as any number of other properties are now diluted/reduced/difused from 6 degrees of freedom to 18 degrees of freedom. This means that a particle/properties can go in any of the 18 directions/values. This also means that if we wanted to find out the combined initial energy we would have to sum up all of the 18 vectors that have not been identified. ( A hidden variable?) (Feynman_diagram)
3. In physics, phase space is the space in which all possible states of a system are represented. Therefore, you cannot get specific and must generalize. You have too many unknown/hidden variables.
Your model is on par with the AWT description. It cannot be submitted to evaluation/experimentation. Good Elf’s model has too many "hidden variables" and cannot be quantified and measured.

Now, my turn … I repeat ….I just want to know if I’m having a discussion or if I’m talking with a closed set of premises?
CONCLUSION
The quantum mechanics/wave approach has been studied and did not solve the DSE.
The particle-like approach has left us with the same unresolved issues.
It’s time to move on to quantum geometry.

Check out the “natural” processes of my model.
The dynamics of a 2 dimensional phase space is sufficient to create the illusion of 3 dimension and to explain the quantum world and DSE.
Out of respect of the standard opinions of yquantum and Duality and since I do not want to antagonize them, … the remainder of this presentation is at
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...45&#entry153822
LL, TRoc … You should find the remainder interesting since your approaches can be accomodated.
jal

Hi Jal,

I would like you to address specific issues to me wherever possible. It is confusing when issues arise that I cannot identify with anythings that I have said in the past and you seem to attribute to me as being my approach.

Your statements are not facts that I have made and you may have made incorrect use of some of my terms. I will not be able to answer this strange group of unrelated statements. I can only say that perhaps something has gone very badly wrong with your interpretation of some of my statements. Your statements are very illogical.

We are obviously talking at crossed purposes. I really do not want to speak about "phase space" as any type of dimensional space. Physics operates only in dimensional space as I see it "phase space" is a mathematical artifice that can assist in some problems but I am not concerned with this "tool" as an explanation for higher dimensions. In particular three dimensional space plus time that you already know about is the only space that can support physics... end of story. If it can't work in three dimensions plus time then we can't treat it sanely. I have seen a lot of unusual discussion on the forum about time not being real and some very odd interpretations of Relativity but you will not find any of that here. Parametric variables and different sets of coordinates are fine as well as representations of "degrees of freedom" but it is really not my immediate interest. I can see that you do not have my concept of embedding other spaces inside our "normal" space.

OK ... you latched on to the idea of hidden variables. That is not the intention of my reference to them as this being the explanation for dimensional space. It is part of an argument that is about Bohmian Mechanics which is a description in only three dimensions and it is supposed to convince some that there are "hidden variables". Hidden variables do not automatically imply higher "real" dimensions. I have given many arguments over months as to why I think there are higher dimensions. A three dimensional theory of space would need "hidden variables" to explain higher dimensions in a three dimensional theory (unfortunately it would not be convincing as an argument for extra dimensions it would be just another parametric theory). I also have given many reasons and illustrations as to why they are not linear with our space... and just tacked on but "reciprocal".

Nine spatial and one temporal dimension are sufficient to fully embed one higher dimensional object in "three dimensional" spacetime. That is six extra spatial dimensions. Additional dimensions to these are needed to embed more than that just one particle in a universe. But these are not linear dimensions as seen in some simplistic examples of this shown on television such as in the Elegant Universe Program that can be viewed online. Time is not added at all it is always required and you cannot use any "universal" time but local times for different frames, this is not new since the Theory of Relativity. It exists in any self contained "spacetime" but relates to the frame in which it is recorded (... in a similar fashion where separate coordinates are required for different frames of reference with relativity).

The rest of your discussion cannot relate to my treatment. Is is something you have added to the discussion and there appears to be a number of difficult interpretation problems you are running with. I cannot argue along your lines since they have nothing to do with me and what I am speaking about. You are right... they are "problems" but you have never seen me discuss these issues because they are not part of any treatment of mine. I have never mentioned phase space once and I am not discussing parameters as if they were dimensions. I did mention "interference" and nodes and anti-nodes but not phase space.

What I have said is physics only works in three dimensions at a time, only in that dimensional environment can physics work and remain "conservative". 10 Dimensional "spacetime" can only work if they represent three orthogonal spaces each internally consistent and with barriers that do not normally allow any energy to cross.

Cheers

Your statements are not facts that I have made and you may have made incorrect use of some of my terms. I will not be able to answer this strange group of unrelated statements. I can only say that perhaps something has gone very badly wrong with your interpretation of some of my statements. Your statements are very illogical.

We are obviously talking at crossed purposes. I really do not want to speak about "phase space" as any type of dimensional space. Physics operates only in dimensional space as I see it "phase space" is a mathematical artifice that can assist in some problems but I am not concerned with this "tool" as an explanation for higher dimensions. In particular three dimensional space plus time that you already know about is the only space that can support physics... end of story. If it can't work in three dimensions plus time then we can't treat it sanely. I have seen a lot of unusual discussion on the forum about time not being real and some very odd interpretations of Relativity but you will not find any of that here. Parametric variables and different sets of coordinates are fine as well as representations of "degrees of freedom" but it is really not my immediate interest. I can see that you do not have my concept of embedding other spaces inside our "normal" space.

OK ... you latched on to the idea of hidden variables. That is not the intention of my reference to them as this being the explanation for dimensional space. It is part of an argument that is about Bohmian Mechanics which is a description in only three dimensions and it is supposed to convince some that there are "hidden variables". Hidden variables do not automatically imply higher "real" dimensions. I have given many arguments over months as to why I think there are higher dimensions. A three dimensional theory of space would need "hidden variables" to explain higher dimensions in a three dimensional theory (unfortunately it would not be convincing as an argument for extra dimensions it would be just another parametric theory). I also have given many reasons and illustrations as to why they are not linear with our space... and just tacked on but "reciprocal".

Nine spatial and one temporal dimension are sufficient to fully embed one higher dimensional object in "three dimensional" spacetime. That is six extra spatial dimensions. Additional dimensions to these are needed to embed more than that just one particle in a universe. But these are not linear dimensions as seen in some simplistic examples of this shown on television such as in the Elegant Universe Program that can be viewed online. Time is not added at all it is always required and you cannot use any "universal" time but local times for different frames, this is not new since the Theory of Relativity. It exists in any self contained "spacetime" but relates to the frame in which it is recorded (... in a similar fashion where separate coordinates are required for different frames of reference with relativity).

The rest of your discussion cannot relate to my treatment. Is is something you have added to the discussion and there appears to be a number of difficult interpretation problems you are running with. I cannot argue along your lines since they have nothing to do with me and what I am speaking about. You are right... they are "problems" but you have never seen me discuss these issues because they are not part of any treatment of mine. I have never mentioned phase space once and I am not discussing parameters as if they were dimensions. I did mention "interference" and nodes and anti-nodes but not phase space.

What I have said is physics only works in three dimensions at a time, only in that dimensional environment can physics work and remain "conservative". 10 Dimensional "spacetime" can only work if they represent three orthogonal spaces each internally consistent and with barriers that do not normally allow any energy to cross.

Cheers

Are there unusual instances where energy can pass from one orthoganal space to another? Everyone here is always talking about extreme states such as black holes and the big bang. They seem to want to get past the limiting conditions of physical theories. That is natural since there are so many unexplained phenomena such as the creation and very existance of the universe that make people want to posit unusual sources of energy to account for the creation of matter and energy from nothing.