Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

LL,

Hydrogen is the simplest form atomic matter, so doesn't it make sense that
all other frequencies originate from that fundamental frequency?

Well, since the electron and the proton make the H atom (and not vice versa), doesn't that make the "particles" more fundamental?

The frequency I am using, concerning atoms, is derived from the AMU, and is generally accepted to be less "uncertain" than the conversion from eV, according to NIST.

You can see the next question is, "how are the electron and proton produced?", and on down the line, as far as chasing "harmonics" from collisions. I would say that the electron is the lowest energy, stable mass, and it is derived as the smallest stable harmonic of the radius of The Cavity (Universe). This equation has been derived already, by Wolff, in his WSM theory, and dubbed "the equation of the cosmos".


regards,

T.Roc

TRoc,

Not from a frequency oscillation perspective. Frequency requires a cyclic
energy "transport mechanism" to generate harmonic motion. Atomic
oscillations provide the repetitive cyclic motion required via charge distribution
and kinetic energy interactions.

I don't think that there is evidence that subatomic fundamental particles exhibit
cyclical movement, but I could be wrong about that.

LL

HI TRoc,

Many thanks for your kind response to my last post .. it makes a thread like this both possible and worthwhile.

This is a genuine attempt to clarify another bit of 'why does this happen'.

From the Russian army we select 100 soldiers who have precisely (within a scruton (!) ) a pace length of 1 metre. We mark two spots on the ground a hundred yards apart. We tell the soldiers that they must put their left boot on the start mark and then march to the end mark. We send them off one by one. Hopefully they will all arrive at the end mark with their left boot precisely on the mark.

In between the two marks we put a narrow opening. Get the soldiers back to the start point and send them off again. For some reason (unknown) the soldiers leave the slit in a random direction .. but if any (by chance) arrive at the finish mark we still find their left boot lands precisely on the mark. At this point we have no explanation of the slit .. but we can describe it in terms of what it does. Looking at 'real' optics .. any half decent slit .. cut, scribed or chewed .. causes our little soldiers to fan out without losing or gaining any distance. IF that suggests (to you) cavities, resonances and/or extra frequencies .. then so be it.

A minor point at this stage is that it doesn't matter when our soldiers set off ..as long as they always start with their left boot on the start mark .. we just look at them when they arrive.

New experiment. We set up a start mark, 10 metres away from that we put a 'slit' .. 20 metres further on we put 2 slits .. the slits are 10 metres apart. 20 metres further on we put a finish line. Note that to any point on the finish line there are only two possible paths. We set the soldiers marching through this setup .. the only rule is that they MUST start with their left boot on the start mark.

As our soldiers cross the finish line we mark off whether they finish with their left foot forward or their right foot forward. Still only two paths to each point on the finish line. Where the soldiers arrive from both paths with the same foot forwards we mark BRIGHT, and where they have different feet forwards (out of step) we mark DIM. Look at this from above and you will see the DSE equation.

Hopefully that explains why I see extra frequencies, cavities and resonances as being both unnecessary and unhelpful to any explanation of what is happening in the DSE.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi all,

LL

I will have to ask that you accept my proposal of this definition: Everything in the Universe vibrates. This is measured in different ways, depending on your frame of reference. Typically, the term "frequency" is used, as a rate of cycles per sec. "Orbit" can also be used, as a rate per unit of time; as can "spin", with each revolution have a rate per time.

We are mentally sure that we (on this planet) are spinning around the Earth's axis, and in orbit around the Sun, BOTH in the "form" of a circle. We physically know that we are "just standing here", neither "spinning" nor traveling in a circle. Here, we do not experience the circle, only the line, and it feels straight. This is due to the size difference, or relative scale of the "space" parameter.

If Vibration is an oscillation in "space" (measured in distance), from A to B, then the full "cycle" is the traversing from A to B, and back, from B to A. These 2 parameters both need to be addressed. Our "experience" in life tells us that cause and effect happen in that order, because we (all) are in this "fixed" frame, looking out. From the perspective of "B", he sees "A" coming, and also "causal". However, B also "knows" that A is "over there" (anywhere but B ), and this "knowledge", or information of "where A is" CHANGES from one 100% probability, to a new 100% probability. This "change" in probability, or certainty of knowledge, happens at a maximum velocity of c .

So, there are 2 simultaneous events happening: A is traveling to B, and the certainty of knowledge that A=A (as far as position) is collapsing to zero. This is the "anti-information" wave, when it arrives at A, A is not there anymore: it is at B, therefore, the "new" information that A=B (position) is 100%.

This is how I weave the ideas of Relativity, Transactional, QM, Resonance together. I haven't said much at all about the "2-way" communication; GE has been plugging it well. Mach, Wheeler, Feynman, Wolff, and others have worked these ideas out in detail. Some additions and modifications are needed though.

More to your question of the "vibration of particles". Just like the "photon", the electron, neutron, and proton are also localized wave centers, and not really "particles". They do have mass, however, and Einstein has worked out the details on the energy, which I'll remind you that is defined by mc^2 = E = hf, where f=frequency, that each of these "particles" posses. The free electons and protons can be used in the S/DSE, with the same results that we have been talking about.

sources:

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-factor

Elementary Particle g-factor
Electron ge -2.002 319 304 3718
Neutron gn -3.826 085 46
Proton gp 5.585 694 701
Muon gμ -2.002 331 8396 [QUOTE]


All of the "particles" have a frequency, and all of their combinations (like chords).


regards,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 31 2006, 05:48 PM

TRoc,

I appreciate the time that you invested in locating all of those quotes.

I agree that spin/rotation is a fundamental component of any energy system,
which I have stated before. I am not so sure that spin necessarily represents a
fundamental frequency since spin is a particle specific localized event. In other
words, spin is a locally "confined" attribute of particles, which do not exhibit
harmonic interaction. Spin is a "fixed" quantity that does not change its timing
relationship, though it can change direction if externally influenced, so it does not cause harmonically interactive matter dislocations, IMO.

An example: A 1/2 spin particle does not generate a stairstep doubling of
increasing frequencies necessary for harmonic progressions. It retains its basic
spin characteristics as determined by its "relative" energy level.

IMO, only cyclical "mass displacement" of electrons, as related to their position to
protons (charge dislocations) can generate frequency response.

Different atoms, with different potential energy wells, generate different
frequencies according to the distance of the energy gap/drop that the electron
makes relative to the protons in the nucleus. The closer the electron is bound
to the proton/nucleus the higher the energy level that exists between them, and
the higher the frequency of the photon emitted if it is dislocated from its orbit
by some externally applied energy source.

Harmonics has to do with the cyclic displacement of energy as waves.
The key is waves and how they interact.

Off topic but possibly related to our current side discussion:

Can you have energy (photons) radiated without the
relative movement between electrons and protons. The reason that I ask this is
if the big bang occurred as theorized, as a flash of intense radiation, what mechanism radiated the heat and light energy (photons) if matter had not yet
condensed from the event. Spontaneous energy radiation? From what?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hyde.html

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 31 2006, 07:16 PM

Hi TRoc,Laserlight et al,

I'm sure it's fairly clear I'm not entirely 'with' you.

There is a 'something' in what you are saying that I can see but not define at present.

I suspect spin/rotation/oscillation defines things in ways that are not quite like qualities that are purely relative and/or inertial. I don't know whether you can wave hands/arms in a way that makes any sense of this.

Best wishes,

-C2.

C2,

I appreciate your analogy, but my question as to "why or how" remains unanswered.

Your wording even states this:

and

That is what I'm looking for, so I'm not sure what you were trying to convey.

If the model you have doesn't explain WHY, then it is not an explanation, it is just a description. We all agree on the description now, there are no more questions as to the results.

If you don't want to know why, then you can just leave it at that. If you don't agree with my "why", that's ok too. But I don't think that you, or QM can say that they have the "final", or complete answer.


regards,

T.Roc

LL,


Well, I asked if you were talking about the emission/absorption spectrum, and you didn't answer. That would have saved a little time, and words in my last post.

When you ask

you are already addressing a much larger question, that I have been trying to convey. Physics does not call these things "photons", they go by excitons, solitons, phonons, etc. This is what I said is "cheating", because THERE IS energy being distributed through the lattice of electrons. The Quantum Postulate call for ALL energy to be "photons", in the manner that you are speaking of. I have given the sources of many of these, showing that the energy is still conserved among them.

So, if you are saying (and it is true) that a "photon" is what happens when an electron relaxes from an excited state, at a specific energy and frequency, then by RESONANCE, we can ONLY measure THOSE "photons". This is what I mean when I say, "we can ONLY use electron based technology" to measure energy, so we are LOCKED into the whole spectrum that is produced ed by the known elements, and their "eigenstates" (fundamental frequencies).

We can only measure "note for note" resonance between electrons, and it is called the "photon". The electron has the Compton wavelength (derived one way), and the deBroglie wave (another way). Take c , and divide it by this wavelength, and you get the frequency of the electron c /w = f . This frequency will match its' mass equivalent, figured by m * c^2 . It all ties together, and is rock solid; if you take this away, we have nothing left. It is not "my opinion", it is Physics.

Quantum Physics is primarily based on studying the colors (translated into frequency) that are emitted or absorbed when the atom is heated, or otherwise "energized" (or passing through a gas). This is where all of the "orbitals", and their energy levels are computed. I have no argument with this method, or the results. What my model is about is WHY these fundamental vibrations exist in the first place, and HOW the interactions "conserve".

When you say that Hydrogen should be the beginning, this is what you are talking about, and it's already explained. The periodic build-up, one electron or proton, etc. at a time. There has not been an explanation of WHY these fundamental masses/energy levels exist in the first place. That is what I am postulating, and it ALSO matches the "photon" spectrum, as well as the "resonant Nodes" that are "pleasing" to our ears.


regards,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Dec 31 2006, 10:03 PM

The unicerse could have started as a very dense substance many times denser than lead "primorium" that broke up into smaller fragments and accompnaied by the release of vast amounts of energy.

TRoc,

I'm sorry, I missed that. I guess I thought the point of my discussion was clear.
My bad....

Getting back to the DSE. I agree with the premise that something, as of
yet unsolved, happens when the variable phase geometry of the impinging EM
energy negotiates the fixed phase relationship(s) established by the geometry of
the slits.

When a dynamic energy system meets a fixed energy system an energy
interaction takes place. The degree, and type, of interaction depends upon the
energy residing in each discrete energy system and the geometrical relationships
that exists at the point of interaction.

What energy interactions are occuring between the EM fields of the photons and
the EM fields of the slits at the micro level? IMO, it is timing and phase delays
that I have described in previous posts.

Physics is a physical action-reaction reality. Mathematics is a theoretical
representation that proves the physical model.

We are seeking to understand the physics, the action-reaction dynamics that
takes place to yield the result.

Regards,
LL

Hello All,

This applet is interesting as it shows plane waves in a refractive medium, which
is what each slit actually is....a refractive medium.

http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo12.htm



http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo0.htm


Further discussion welcomed.

LL

Hi Laserlight

Yes the slit is a refractive medium, however, the refractive index is not uniform across the slit. It is stronger at the sides than at the center of the slit.

Hi Montec,

You are correct. I had proposed this and a theoretical "mechanism" in some prior
posts.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156668


http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156946


http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=156789


Comments welcome,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 1 2007, 07:28 AM

Hi Laserlight,Montec,TRoc et al,

My lack of enthusiasm for the 'slit as cavity' theory arises from the Russian soldier analagy .. the soldiers must emerge with a zero (or consistent ) phase change regardless of reasonable changes in the geometry of the slit.

An alternative comes from the uncertainty principle .. having defined the position to be 'at the slit' you gain an uncertanty in momentum (direction).

Or good old Huygens .. it might be interesting to try to show that the uncertainty principle and Huygens spreading are both the same thing.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Montec, TRoc, Jal, Duaity, Yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

Lets consider this from another point of view... from the point of view of Special Relativity. These are not "soldiers" they are "photons" traveling at the speed of light. In their own frame of reference you tell me just how much time it takes them to travel to their final destination? Naturally a rhetorical question since I will "assist" and suggest that it takes them zero time in their own frame of reference. You can't object since these "objects" are traveling at the speed of light not one meter per second of the speed of the Russian Army. Now you may object and cry foul and speak of "reason"... what I say is lets try and understand this a bit better.

You introduced the uncertainty principle well they are in step or they are not... you choose. We already know that there are self organization of photons on wavefronts from synchronized "coherent" sources... even from monochromatic "unsynchronized" sources they will spontaneously develop "coherency". You have uncertainty wrong... that only occurs when you make a measurement so if you do not make that measurement there is "no uncertainty"... A rotten trick you may say but I do not make the rules since you want to introduce this all of the time. Provided you do not disturb the quantum process "perfection exists" and as long as interactions are avoided information may be transferred... this is apparently an "experimental fact".

The next interesting effect that since our photons are traveling in zero of their time they also suffer the most extreme form of "length contraction", I prefer to think of this as a "rotation" but call it whatever you want the distance from source to sink in the frame of the photon is a distance of zero. I conclude that source and sink are united (along with everything on the way) in that one event of the emission and the absorption. Not only that but "all points in the Universe (at least in the forward direction) are similarly united" think of that.... infinite length contraction brings not only source and sink into direct contact but every point in the "available" Universe as well... totally non-local. Think of this geometry, it closes the Universe in the rest frame of the photon... toroidally... this is how the Universe looks to a "free photon". How "big" is this toroid? How "free" is this photon? Our photon is moving on this "hypersurface". This happens for all photons for all time everywhere. This also coincidently solves any topology problems about there being two slits since all points in both slits and the screen are all brought together into a single micro surface. where the individual photon ends up depends on some "geometrical factor" as previously discussed. This affects the way the geometry of our Universe works since photons are the exchange particle, the "connection" for all the electromagnetic forces. I also think this is "only" real force but that is another story about the Holographic Universe.

Now we have those slits in the way do you think that if a single event taking a single instant in the life of a photon has time to care how to avoid that obstruction. The photon is "seeking all paths" (irrespective of time) so it does that but for the photons that are not intercepted by the barrier(s).. that is all the photons that pass bye without an exchange of energy with that barrier(s).... Quite a few make it and they end up... due to the dual slit... distributed over quite a large surface area of the screen. Now if they were seeing all paths how did they end up not going straight through like your Russian Army? My take on this is the photons "instant" encompasses everything in the Universe not just the sequential events as you may think since the photon does not end up in just any port in the "storm"... sequence does not really matter as the DCQE Experiment has shown... the mere proximity of a "photon" event to the source does not determine the outcome, nor the number of paces across the paths. TRoc did make some very valid statements and he has collected some highly useful inferences. The DCQE Experiment is a fact and not fiction.

As in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment (DCQE), the experiment does not apply just for "entangled photons"... entangled photons simply "teaches" us what photon events are all about, so lets generalize this concept. They are a frozen instant... a single event... and time from that context means literally "nothing" and interpreting it in the narrow context of "our time" simply leads to temporal contradictions. This is very clear... do you agree? This is the very reason why it holds so much interest to science. It is really our chauvinism and thinking that our point of view of the Universe actually should be the predominant one. Looking at it in "photon time" which is a single "instant"... all distance... all "forward" space... all history... are all part of this equation. In that sense the photon is entangled with more than what we are viewing as a "single flash of light".

There is something which prevents the photon from simply being absorbed at the first point at which it "arrives"... remember it "arrives" at all possible paths, the tiny flash is happening at just one point. Why choose one which may be far away from the "direct path" at all? The fact is that it does not matter about all the other paths, there is something which selects for the most "suitable" path irrespective of time or space since "time" and "space" is only something we are aware of and not photons.

Cheers

PS: Let me also add... Special Relativity is not a quantum theory ... it is a Theory that is independent of Quantum Theory and does not demand a quantum interpretation by itself. We must be more open minded than we have been and this will lead to a completely different geometry to that which we are comfortably accustomed.

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 1 2007, 02:17 PM