Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi TRoc and All,

From TRoc:

It is interesting, don't you think(?), that the electron behavior of Hydrogen that produces photons at 1420.4058 MHz must be very mechanically similar to producing the same frequency from a copper antenna ! Perhaps the nature of the atomic oscilation differs from the dipole antenna, but surely it IS a "mechanical" oscillation. An electron oscillating in a 21 cm antenna - we can all relate to. What the electron is doing snapping back to its ground state from the next level - that's hard. However, to me, the clue is, that, what we call the photon must be the same in both cases.

High Regards.

Hi TRoc, Aerohead et al,

Unfortunately I can only read Adobe 6 .pdf so the gods have spared me the burden of reading the OPN edition "What is a photon". In theory I would be grateful for any edited highlights but in practice I'm not sure I even want to know. It has already become clear that physics and optics are different and possibly unrelated disciplines.

As a poor analagy (spell checker doesn't like 'analagy' .. in the event that I have made the word up .. it means what I mean by it, no more and no less)...

If we drop a bag of sugar onto a concrete floor from a height of ten feet .. obviously it's going to 'splat'.

In a pointy particle world we might get a photon instead of a splat as the bag hits the floor. This doesn't immediately look 'resonant' but to cover this we could suggest that the bag of sugar is a bit bouncy so the photon has a bit of 'bounce' in it... the frequency of the photon would be the frequency of the bounce. As far as I know the 'frequency' (E=hf) of the photon is determined by its energy .. just the height of the drop.

-C2.

Hello TRoc, GE, C2, Aero, et al,

I want to change direction a little bit here, and approach the idea of the photon
from a different perspective. This may help "break the ice" in our theoretical
"impasse".

We have all seen and understand the concept of the development of the EM wave,
where we have an "electric field " sine component and a magnetic field cosine
component that vary periodically. Just what is the electric field of an EM wave?
What sustains it?

The electric field should be comprised of a voltage and a current component,
according to electrical theory. The concept of voltage implies a "delta" a difference of charge that can be measured, yet a photon has no net charge, but
the EM model says it must have a varying charge to form the field.

The only way that an EM field could self sustain a varying charge is if space itself
has some reciprocal electrical charge level that allows for cross coupling to occur
which would maintain the shape integrity of an EM field. This might be the extra
dimension(s) that Good Elf is so fond of, that earlier theorists considered
the "ether" or "medium" that light propagates thru. Regardless of what we call it
there must be some "conduction" mechanism or transport enabling phenomenon
that science has yet to detect.

We know that when an EM field crosses a conductor a current is induced into the
conductor as the electrical and magnetic fields couple from space, to matter, and
generate a current. The EM field displaces electrons, and current flows in the
conductor if there is a positive voltage gradient across the conductor to ground.
For energy to couple there must be some impedance matching between "space"
and matter to allow the coupling to occur.

I will leave current issues that I have raised on the table before raising others,
for the time being.

Comments, discussion, opinions welcomed.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 20 2007, 02:49 AM

Some very interesting things happen when you increase an electromagnetic field to pettiest levels. The coupling between the electric and magnetic fields becomes so intense that ions are accelerated to multi MeV energies, energetic enough to cause nuclear fusion.

The Lawrence Livermore Laboratory told me today they are canceling a nondisclosure agreement they signed with my company, Vulvox, last year.
Their excuse; nobody at the lab was interested in reading my report outlining our proposal. I told them that if there were a fire at your house how would you feel if they told you we cant put out the fire because nobody at the fire house wants to.

They are not doing their duty to inform the Secretary of energy about new developments that might mitigate the greenhouse crisis or increase national security. The laser fusion targets I invented can be used to detect atomic weapons smuggled into ports and airports and to provide us with energy without raising CO2 levels.

Blame them if a terrorist smuggles a nuclear bomb into your city or if a big storm closes your city!

This post has been edited by Neil Farbstein on Jan 20 2007, 03:30 AM

Neil,

Sorry to hear about your disappointment with 3L. If you really want to get some
"notice" just inform some technical journal, via a press release, that you have developed a high technology
product/design and that you are seeking foreign investors or are willing license the development rights to foreign governments.

I guarantee that you will get all of the "exposure' and notoriety that you ever
dreamed of. Another technique is to apply for a license to sell high technology information to foreign governments. Either way will get a rapid response from
the US agencies (DOE) and from foreign "investors". Of course you will have to meet all
of the technology exchange rules and paperwork required.

Good Luck,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 20 2007, 04:59 AM

Hi all,

C2, and anyone else who had problems viewing the newer 'PDF' files (acrobat), here is a link to the free download (version 8).

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

I really do recommend reading these 5 papers, for a multi-perspective analogy of the many 'difficulties' in explaining just what a "photon" is.


Aerohead, about the 1420.4058 MHz Hydrogen line. This is a "spin" function, and not exactly what I was saying about actual 'transitions' between energy levels.

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

Not likely that we can do a 'Science experiment' in that time frame.

The reason we 'receive' this frequency:

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but this means the frequency (1420.4058 MHz "photon") that we receive is the SUM of a large #of "photons" all emitted at the same frequency, but at DIFFERENT times. So many different times, that the signal appears 'normal', and continuous. A great boon for astronomy, but not much help in defining a "photon".

Also, I forgot the "Humphrey" series transition @ 12368nm (2.42393e+13 Hz); still not quite a 'radio wave'.


regards,

T.Roc

Hi Laserlight, TRoc Aerohead et al,

Partly .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current (an illusion?) and partly pure 'faith' .. the EM equation works very nicely where it works. It has been suggested that the EM equation would be a perfect 'right answer' if Planck's Constant was zero. In our universe Planck's Constant isn't zero so the EM equation is 'wrong' but it still works very well for large numbers of photons. My impression is that our photonic friends would like to show that Planck's Constant IS zero .. which I don't think they will be able to do by 'conventional' means. Without Windows XP I can't read their efforts in the reference TRoc gave.. so maybe I'm wrong about them.

Re "Why doesn't the electron fall into the nucleus?" ..(you did ask about that?)
http://www.chem1.com/acad/webtut/atomic/WhyTheElectron.html

This is really for chemists but might be OK for opticians as well..(note the use of words like "can be thought of..")

Hmm.. Planck's Constant came into that too.. call me a fool if you like .. but I suspect a pattern might be emerging.

We say E=hf where 'E' is the energy of the photon, 'h' is Planck's Constant and 'f' is the frequency, I suggest this might be another of those equations that is less helpful than it seems at first sight.

Best wishes,
-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Jan 20 2007, 12:33 PM

Hey laserlight! I dont send proprietary secrets to people in other countries. There is no patent on it yet so it will be a long time before we sell it to "foreigners". There are other ways of getting the attention of the authorities. I'm planning a billion dollar suit against the DOE. I have a $100 million suit against NASA in the Federal Court of Appeals now,. NASA is giving Space Act user facility money to high school kids in Huntsville, but they wont fund my projects.

Good Day All!
TRoc.... I did take your advise and downloaded the program.
You were right, those papers are well worth reading. They say much better what we have been trying to say.
I was planning to quote some interesting tid-bits and I found that I had too many to make any sense.
I can give my conclusions with a few quotes.
---------------
http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/03-What...0Photon-OPN.pdf
Light reconsidered
Arthur Zajonc
Physics Department, Amherst College

We need a model that can “zoom in”
----------------------
What is a photon?
Rodney Loudon
University of Essex, Colchester, UK

-----------------------------
What is a photon?
David Finkelstein
School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332

We need a model that can “zoom in”

Did anybody hear an echo of what I have been saying?( and what TRoc has been saying)
-----------------------------------
The concept of the photon—revisited
Ashok Muthukrishnan,1 Marlan O. Scully,1,2 and M. Suhail Zubairy1,3

We need a model that can “zoom in”
----------------
A photon viewed from Wigner phase space
Holger Mack and Wolfgang P. Schleich

I can only conclude that it is our models that are inadequate. We need a model that can “zoom in”.
Include in your reading http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~chandra/DivisiblePhoton-Final.pdf and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv Bohmian Mechanics
jal

This post has been edited by jal on Jan 20 2007, 08:35 PM

Hi jal,

Many thanks for your last post .

I found that link http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#hv to be a complete knockout ..

I may never know anything again .

Best wishes,

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Jan 21 2007, 01:07 AM

Hi Aerohead, Confused2, Laserlight, Jal, Montec, TRoc, Duality, yquantum, Neil Farbstein et al,

I think I am seeing something in all the descriptions of light that is totally overlooked by most sources. The picture is "incomplete" as presented especially by those in the Quantum Mechanical Camp... Order from Chaos. TRoc's recent link to an article on
"Coherence" is quite useful...
Coherence
I was also taken with the link that Jal supplied and I promised to read in a little more detail by Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri. There has been a flurry in interpretation of how many photons can or should be absorbed simultaneously. Because we do not really agree just what a photon really is ... I mean really... statements can be made that drift right through our "defense perimeters" without setting off any alarms. I would like to "touch base" on a point that I have tried to stress at various times but it seems never really made my point (Yeah... I know... I am not too good at this).

After reading the "preamble" about Spatial and Temporal Coherence on this page ... very good I would say... it is drawn to say some things about incoherent sources. I would like to put it as a question "what is wrong with this picture" (actually two pictures).

I have also detected a reluctance to consider the "informational" side of photons as being linked with the "observer mysticism" of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Considering how "information" can be decoded from correlated sources via entanglement from individual qubits and that practical qubit communication systems exist... I really do not understand your collective reluctance.

Please read this single page from NIST (I am sure you all realize just how "erudite" their assessments of this issue are).
What is Quantum Information... NIST
No theory of light or photons is complete without this theory being accommodated. Note that while three "bits" can store only one number in digital systems... Qubits "store" all seven states. You can then "choose" which state to "parallel process". For just a few "bits" this would not be a valuable addition but for even a modest few hundred qubits stored in say quantum dots, very quickly "theoretically" this can outperform all the computers on the planet working on a problem simultaneously. This is not a joke since such systems are feasible and are in partial operation already. A very important sentence in that single NIST page is the very last sentence...
"Controlled entanglement is a unique quantum resource that offers, for example, a way of transmitting data or performing controlled interactions on distant quantum bits, as long as a classical communications channel is also available." Think about the "classical communications channel".

Recalling the two images above and the comments... the missing "bit" of information is how and why do individual photons seem to have an already existing standing wave in space in which these "photon particles" interact. You do not really need two photons (or even four as some sources suggest) in order to enable this "interference" to be self supporting. I think the "gymnastics" required in these novel papers is in excess of the "payoff" in return for the explanation. We must identify the underlying issues that are at stake here and recognize that while you can take an incoherent source such as an incandescent light source and spatially filter it then temporally filter it you just do not "conceptually" produce "coherent" light. You need more ... the photons need to "line up" spontaneously on the wavefronts. They can do this in only two ways that I can see...
1. They adjust their temporal phases in the evanescent zone where the speed of light can be greater than C.
2. They adjust their temporal phases in the Fraunhofer or Fresnel zones where the speed of light is a constant (or very close to a constant).
3. The photons "see" a dynamic pattern already there in space where the temporal and spatial phases already exist into which photons of a particular frequency are constrained to follow.

In the last case it is not that I actually "believe" that the Universe creates this special set of cavities for every possible photon and just waits for the photons to come along... no... the photon itself "excites" space globally to spontaneously break symmetry from its "degenerate" state and provide the cavities from otherwise "empty space". Where does this "template come from? It comes from a "surface" which is related to the light cone. Photons cannot travel faster than light (at least over large distances between "sparse" atoms) but what the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment shows is that in the frame of the photon and outside the evanescent region the photon has its own Rest Frame in which energy is referenced totally independently to any other frame of reference including the Laboratory Frame of reference. We always measure relative to this latter frame of reference but in reality a rest frame is the only way in which a measurement can be made. I state this as the "principle of the quantum" since the quanta must be measured in a non-inertial frame to enable a measurement to be extracted. Once this has been done the state has already been collapsed. For all other systems in which light itself is NOT being measured, we measure a measurable property in the frame of the inertial observer and then we use Einsteins Special Relativity Relationships to convert this to the measurable in the other inertial frame of reference. In the case of light this process will fail since the measurement in the rest frame of the photon does not exist... this means there is NO conversion for a measurement in any other frame regardless of what that frame is... that is aside from other co-moving photons.

The error is to "assume" that it is the wrong question and it is a "forbidden question". I maintain this is the ONLY question that really matters. It is not possible to reference the measurable properties of the photon from the Laboratory Frame without making a huge mistake. The photon is probably one of the few objects in the Universe that does not experience the passage of time. As an "object" no matter how long it travels in our time and no matter how far it travels... no process in the Universe can interfere with it. This is because all processes in our entire Universe that measure properties require time and this is the one thing light does not experience. So what we have are these "events" which evolve in time only during their creation stage and during their final particle interactions. In between there are no measurable energy processes capable of being experienced (we think there are waves there and I am willing to accept that idea being a concept that is observable and meaningful to humans). We "see" waves when we suitably arrange an experiment in which particle interactions "measure" properties of the photons in some other frame of reference (not the main frame ... its own inertial frame). So where has the photon gone? Can it be "physically" between the creation event and the interaction events. In a very real sense of the concept of "measurement"... the photon cannot be measured there at all. The photon can be "forced" there by "forcing" an interaction at that locality in space. To do that a Lab Frame determination can be made but the information the photon carries will be lost. The "determination" at intermediate positions cannot be made "anytime" and it cannot be made "anywhere" there is a relationship between the creation event and the interaction event that stipulates where it is possible to interact with a specific photon. Now call me "irresponsible" but you can make your measurement and simply not find a photon there in that intermediate position. When you fail to measure this photon what does it mean? Most people would say ... add more photons until you do find one there.. What I think is the answer to the question is I will have placed an absorber or scattering target into the free path and this will have altered the geometry of the space for that event that is to be absorbed. Will it be absorbed... yes but it is not the same event that would have occurred originally if that obstacle in that space had never existed. Why? Because if the photon was not absorbed in that intermediate point in space, for that one event the absorber was not there and this alters the geometry of the event critically since the presence of the absorber is the result of a particular geometry different from the geometry without that "obstacle". In fact this is a standing wave between a source and a sink where previously when there is no absorber no standing wave condition occurs.

Why is this?... because single photon events do not have any different outcomes than for many photon events. Proof of this is the Double Slit Experiment where the pattern on the screen is fixed for a fixed geometry. Interpose an obstacle between the slit and the screen and the outcomes are ALL modified. Event by event, the geometry of the system of the absorption process is fixed from the moment the event was initiated. Experiment also shows that an outcome (as far as information being transferred) can be "erased" by an event performed on a twin entangled photon even after the absorber event has occurred. Is time being reversed? Not really since for a photon the absorption events and the creation events occur in the same "internal" instant. The separation in time the Laboratory observes in its measurements is a total "fiction" as far as the photon is concerned. In this way especially for an entangled event the "future" is "fixed" and the flow of information in the system is not able to be altered by any changes we think we are making in the intervening period between the emission and the absorption of that photon since the source and the sink for this event must be there to capture the information.

So what makes these entangled photons "coherent"? We know they were created in the same event and from this argument they are both destroyed IN THE SAME EVENT. It appears to our frame of reference that these events are separate in time but in reality they are just "one" event and not "two". We can contrive to have these two "endpoints" to be separated by large distances in space but as far as the experiment (and the frame of the photons) is concerned the source emission of the entangled photons are always on a null time line in the photon frames between their final separate sinks despite the large spatial separating distances and the non-null time lines between the apparently separate ending sink events as measured in the laboratory.

Optically this must be an appropriate interference condition for the entomorphic twin photons already existing in the space. A null time line also implies (in the frame of the photons) an infinite length contraction factor which juxtaposes the events spatially from the photon frames. Two things on a "null time line" separated by a large distance works out as being a "non-local influence"[b]. [b]In actual fact they are not "causally" related, they are a single event happening in more than one place. Both photon "events" contain one and the same information qubit and it is not "shared" in any sense between the photons it is the one information qubit in both places. So if you read one of them this means the other has already been read. Spatially separating the two entangled photons does not create two events it simply delocalizes the "one" event into occurring in two "destinations" (as seen in the laboratory frame). The energy of the two photons is something else other than the information being carried. Two photons obviously carries twice the energy of one photon but we knew that when it was created. We took one photon and "split" it into two to create it as two lower frequency photons energy and now we see that the information is preserved and conserved. "Two photons" but only one "delocalized" state. Only one qubit is associated with that one state.

What about coherent light in general(not necessarily entangled)? This is the case of many photons, one state but many qubits. That is if the photons are all on the same wavefront. Successive wavefronts are internally coherent but only with photons on its own wavefront. Reading one qubit does not affect the other qubits because each photon carry individual qubits. Individual qubits mean the photons have individual destinies regarding the information they carry. As photons propagate into the far field the spread and potentially their pancake can cover both slits of the Double Slit Experiment. They can pass individually through one of the slits at a time but can one photon pass through both slits at the same time? Yes if they both have the same qubit of energy on the wavefront of light.

Lets say that one photon becomes "two photons" (actually the two separate parts of the wavefront, one part at each slit) but carries only one qubit of information. A single photon virtually passes through both slits simultaneously on the wavefront and provided the photon is not "measured" they will both reach the other side of the slit and reform still having that one qubit of information. How can this be since two photons would require twice the energy? Only in our "illegitimate" frame of reference and not in the frame of the photon. To the one traveling photon this is not a "sub-event" it is only a violation of the topology which has been temporally and dimensionally contracted to a zero (it is now a single point event happening in zero time). That paradox is occurring simply because we are viewing it from an invalid reference frame that cannot be observed. If we were to attempt to observe it we would discover the one and only qubit of information and the other photon cannot then exist. Do not read that qubit of information and this division of a photon into two parts is "easy" since the wave (any wave) can pass through both slits. A single particle cannot go through both slits and this is the paradox. Drop the paradox of the "particle" and everything works out fine.

That is the meaning of coherence... This is not in any source I have read. Coherence is "seeing" that standing wave pattern at the moment at which the photon is created and then the photon is simply forced to execute the causal relationship in time leading from source to sink as two ends of a standing wave system. This includes the situation above where a photon "wave" can go through both slits but the information can only be measured once. As Laserlight would like to see the point sources on the far side of the slit being secondary sources, each with their own qubits, being "regenerated" all the way through the space from source to sink. In reality it is like an unseen virtual photon "splitting" the wave and passing through both slits and instantly reforming. Why does it reform?... It must!... remember we "read" this one photon at the screen and provided we have not read it between source and destination, that qubit will ensure that only one qubit is recorded and for unentangled photons this means one photon.

So coherence is maintained by the spatial geometry and the source and destination phases. This is like an virtual flute existing in the intervening space when you blow air across it all the holes are part of the resonance. Between source and sink is "unseen territory" and the qubit is constrained to be read in a single particle interaction. Don't read this qubit and it can split into two photons and then pass through both slits because they are nothing but "curvy little waves" with only one qubit of information between them.

The next question is "Is the photon existing between the source and destination if a detecting sink is not available in the intervening position?" Well this question never arises since nothing can intervene in this process... it is atemporal by the argument above. All so called intervening sinks are actually foreknown and arranged to be an endpoint on a nodal standing wave system, already created in the space waiting for the "photons" to propagate through it. So what has happened here? The photon is created and it is absorbed in a "single " event and the information is conserved. There are no "intervening" events only "hypothetical" waves. These waves can be "sort of" shown to exist by sampling the photons in a large flux of them so in that sense they are "real"... these are the same character as "matter waves" of deBroglie. This argument works just as well for any other system including non-bosons by a consistent logical extension.

I believe I have solved this gedanken problem by linking the informational layer of the photon to the energy of the photon and shown that measurements of energy will always provide a consistent result since the outcomes are all foreknown. Individual photons are either one of these two "impulsive events"

Dipole "Turning on" or...

Dipole turning off...
The "time" between these two "ends" is irrelevant. A photon has no way to know another time between events and can only be considered in relationship to its own single "event". A single photon can be coherent since it "excites" the full standing wave pattern in space (all of space)... and the outcome is already known before the photon is "underway". In an individual case the photon even knows exactly where it will be "sinked", we can never know this since to be able to do that we would need a measurement. Nothing proceeding in our time will be able to change the outcome. This is all by virtue of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment, the outcome is "fixed". What is relevant is the intervening geometry and for coherent waves we have seen to construct a coherent continuous wave systems from "atomic" process that will be identical to this...

This "construction" does not truly "join the separate events up in any real way this is just a Fourier Synthesis of individual "wavelets" which are "atomically" only individual sync pulses arranging for minimum energy distribution. What is important is the frame of the photon in which time plays no role and the way our Lab Frame Measurements are unable to reconcile with the energy processes and with information processes of the qubit associated with the photon.

Please look back on what I have already stated about the nature of the photon in these two previous posts and to view animations created by MIT to show the evolution of these photon spreading fields.
Good Elf on the nature of Photons
This is also an the explanation from the Aharanoiv-Bohm Effect and it has also been an uncomfortable experimental fact where some unmeasured topological defect in the Universe can penetrate through time and space everywhere to reach beyond any Quantum Particle Process. No joke... it is a fact. It can all be tied back to the Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory as I have discussed previously.

What has this to say about Lorentz-CPT? It says an event such as the creation of a particle using photons must have a geometry in which this standing wave pattern already exists to "fill", just like the standing waves in other emission absorption events only inside of a tightly closed geometry. If this pattern occurs inside/within a geometry that is "dimensionally closed", and there formed an internal closed world line, there is no immediate way, in the evolution of time, for a particle created in such a way to "collapse", it is a soliton that is "quantum stable". The standing wave has frozen that photon event forever within an event horizon which cannot dissipate. Time internally in that space becomes a periodic function and is now a frequency in that geometry (a "real" Complex Hilbert Reciprocal Space) ... repeating endlessly as a single trapped event. It leads to all the very useful results of Fourier Analysis and two separate reciprocal domains of frequency and time that we have discussed "ad nausium" as wave and particle natures. From all this we have "Optics" and this results in "Holography" and so on and on...

Quantum Mechanics is a particle version of this but cannot use the non-locality that waves inherently possess and so is limited in the end to an "inner produce space".

All input welcome and other ideas should address any shortcoming in this theory.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 21 2007, 04:41 AM

Hii All,

As a postscript to my previous post, please have a look at storage of an entire image on a single photon.
Ultra-Dense Optical Storage -- on One Photon
Picture included. It is pretty clear that the information is stored "Holographically".The Cesium Vapor Cell is on a Fourier Plane. It is interesting to note that the single photon stays intact through the entire storage process and still retains (possibly) the qubit of information. If photons are not "particles" in an abstract sense of the word they certainly are carrying a heap of potential for data storage in their own right. Look back into the past and see that this was predicted in advance by This Group. This University was "famous" recently for backward light pulses produced by Boyd. Now do you see why it is so important to preserve that qubit of information?

Remember I have been telling you all that a single photon can potentially encode all of mankind's knowledge using Orbital Angular Momentum... It is just that we have not harnessed it yet. I think this example of information storage looks a fairly significant amount of data to put into a single photon and still keep its qubit... More than just a on or off switch that most have been talking about. In fact this density of information appears highly "classical" don't you think? Where did it say in quantum theory that you can store your "holiday snaps " in a single photon??? He he he !
http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users.../tutorial6.html
I think this goes better than their wildest hopes... and it is still early days. Think on all of this... it is worth the effort. This is the double slit experiment on steroids.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Jan 21 2007, 08:04 AM

GE,

That was a long post, I will read it again tomorrow to try to tie it all together.
Some of it made sense, some of it was vague or unclear about what you were
trying to say. It is difficult to read between the lines to try to interpret the exact
meaning that you intended.

One thing that I think you need to consider, or incorporate into your "theory",
is the reason that different photons (EM waves) don't interact with each other.

The reason is because each discrete EM pulse of a photon is a unique
"time relative" event. In other words, the exact instant that an EM wave (pulse)
was generated is only relative, in time, to that explicit event. Since no other
atomic photon event is exactly time coincident to that unique event, that slice
of time, and because each event has its own unique "time stamp" (qubit), they
cannot interfere because each event exists with a different and unique inertial time reference. Time is relative only to the unique event that spawned it.

If this interpretation is correct, an EM wave (photon) can only interfere with itself if
it folds back onto itself as a result of a standing wave reflection, or if it is spacially
"divided" by an equilateral geometry that allows the "equal" conformal wave fronts
to reassemble. In that respect a photon is "coherent" with itself and nothing else because of its unique relative timing information that it alone contains. The timing
qubit can be delayed or constructively/destructively interfere with itself.

Other opinions, discussion welcomed.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Jan 21 2007, 08:22 AM

GE,
Regarding the "UR" experiment. It seems to prove the idea that a photon wavefront can be divided! It appears that a photon is a wavefront EM pulse that is conformal and will seek all path(s) of least resistance.

IMO, the cesium gas acted as secondary emission amplification sources for
each discrete part of the photon pulse which were then focused thru a lens
to coherently recombine them into a single output.

I think we are now getting somewhere in our discussion.

Thoughts?
LL

GE,

Re: Time.... everyone assumes that it is only a serial sequential set of events.
Apparently, it is also a parallel phenomenon that can be divided along the entire
expanding EM pulse wavefront.

Since it seems that a wavefront can become conformal to geometries in its way,
as it propagates and expands, that infers that every point along that expanding
wavefront has a "parallel" time coincident relationship.

Thoughts, comments?
LL