Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Laserlight
Your mind is preventing you from thinking outside the box.
I repeat

Did you notice the word "geometry"
jal

Jal,

Explain the geometry of the gravity well of the sun and how it relates to the
SSE/DSE as you see it. I am unable to connect the dots...on this
scale. I have nothing to contribute on this.

Connect the dots for us.

LL

Hi Laserlight!
The fact that the trajectory of a photon can be deflected near the sun indicates that something, (spacetime), has a structure that has an influence on a photon.
That spacetime structure is not limited to existing just around the sun.
It is also at the entrance to the two slit. It's everywhere.
So did a tiny little electron produce an oceanliner that is not affected by the structure or did it produce a small boat (a particle-like wave of finite size) that is affected by the waves. (spacetime structure)

If you use "A photon wavefront pulse is made up of wavelets (corpuscular photon's)." You should be able to plot the trajectory of your photon and raise some interesting questions on what is affecting the trajectory of the photon.

jal

Jal,

There is no way that I can justify your argument using the gravitational fields
of the sun. The earth's gravitational fields have much more of a localized
proximity effect than that of the sun, and would be the same everywhere on
the planet, if it had any affect at all. Gravitational fields follow the ISL since
they have an energy "point of origin". On the surface of the earth, they are
all virtually the same, everywhere on the planet.

Any "flight" trajectory or EM field induced deviation of a photon from a "straight path"
or geometrical wave shape, at these weak
gravitational levels, over this short a distance, is probably not detectable, IMO.
Consider that photons are not particles, they are propagating and
radiating EM fields confined within a box structure about a meter in length in the
DSE. Local field EM interactions have much more of an effect than macro field
interactions at these scales.

Gravitational fields are a byproduct of the "energy" that mass displaces as it
warps normal, undisturbed spacetime, IMO.

That is the only position that I can take on this subject.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 3 2007, 12:13 AM

Hi Laserlight, Jal, Neil Farbstein and others who may still be reading,

Well there are "particles" since we choose to refer to them this way. I would say though that waves are the more fundamental quantity. I lean heavily to the idea there really is nothing else than just this one "material" to construct our Universe, so we can call it what we like.What makes Einstein so correct is the way he integrated his theory of dynamics with the theory of light in such a way that described them in the one set of "Unified" Equations. I view his Special Theory of Relativity as being very "special" and his General Theory is far too "general"... he he he! To me Einsteins best work was his Special Theory of Relativity. I am aware that most people interpret this theory in terms which are inconsistent. Make no error there are no inconsistancies nor are there any "holes". It is not a "Theory of Everything" though. To me de Broglie Matter Waves are the "low velocity end" of Special Relativity.

We have discussed this previously on this thread and I am not going to repeat myself. It is the most important consequence that Einstein "missed" on his "first pass". But a nice guy (de Broglie) was the right choice by fate to make this most important "completion" of theory.

I agree that corpuscle or wavelet is not that important an issue, but there was an opening comment on that web page that shows a severe error in understanding.

When people quote "rationality" as an excuse to absolve the Laws of Nature... then I can't abide. There are no "absolute velocities" and it is not just because Einstein said it. But if the reasons why this idea needs to be viewed very suspiciously then heed Einstein On these matters and in four dimensions Einstein's Physics reigns supreme and I accept only "evidence based science". Once more and I am trying to stress there is no place for very sloppy analysis and blaming Einstein for the shortcoming. The concept of the inertial frame and of discrete events that were probably "invented" by Einstein himself and he is still beyond reproach.

Think of a photon as a "fuzzy ball" (actually a spreading pancake) not really a sine wave. This is not something that displays too well using an Oscilloscope. The fuzzy ball consists of a composite of internal superpositions of different "waves" at the same time. This "fuzzy ball" is confined in a dimensional "box"... our Universe. From an internal perspective the light is traveling in a straight line but from an external observer point of view it may be confined to a small region and be solutions to Schrodinger's Equation as discussed previously. You just need to be a little flexible as to how you define "box" and what these stationary states represent.

Sure... You may be able to pick out some fundamental frequency that relates to E = hf. I have tried to keep it as simple as possible using an sync function. This is not a photon... it is an abstraction but you need to start somewhere. It is the additional frequencies and/or spins (depending on how you interpret these entities) that are "added" when the "infinite wave" is truncated in time that gives it "character". A spin seen from the "outside of the box may be a frequency seen from within the box, it all depends on frames of reference as to how an observer interprets these entities.
Does A Uniformly Accelerating Charge Radiate?

For one simple example a plane polarized wave which is the simplest that we can imagine is actually (at least) the superposition of one left hand circularly polarized oscillation and a right hand circularly polarized oscillation in the one waveform. How can this be... in actual fact it comes from the internal spin of the particle. The photon "circulates" in more than one plane due to "spin". The most fundamental one is the isospin. This "symmetry" relate to U1 and SU2, SU3 and also to SU6 and the way in which symmetry and the principle of superposition play a role in the process. Thses may be considered as the superposition of at least three separate planar spins in the six dimensions you need for its description. Are these dimensions "real"? I believe so but you already understand this is no "simple" extension. I have developed an approach that involves "stationary states" from a classical point of view... this is wholly consistent with Einstein's view...
Wikipedia: Special unitary group
Wikipedia: Isospin
The world of the quantum is much stranger than you may first imagine... Below we see a circularly polarized wave of light propagating. Consider this made of individual photons that re subject to Fourier Temporal Composition as I have often shown with my illustration...

Within each photon as well as "among" all photons propagating together in one state we have this potential composition of two linear plane polarized photon influences summing with appropriate phase to create circularly polarized light...

Click to enlarge images...

Experimentally this is indeed what does happen ... this is incomprehensible to many but it is a purely "classical" electromagnetic effect due to the Principle of Superposition. In other doctrines of Physics this is the measurement problem ... here this is polarized light... take your position but explain ALL the effects with your chosen discipline. The only one that works for me is pure Optics and not Quantum Mechanics. These are simultaneous multiple states of the one wave and it is the measurement that settles what is actually the "interpretation". The "interpretation" will be as a spin or as a polarization and it will depend entirely which frame of reference it is viewed from as to the nature of this phenomenon. This is "exactly" what Feynman meant when he referred to these "polarization" questions when he was deriving Quantum Electrodynamics and his Many-path Interpretation. This "frame" determines if the "spin" quanta is an integer (boson) or a half integer (fermion)... Leading to the concept of either "soft wave" phenomena or "hard particle" phenomena respectively. In both cases we start with the same basic stuff and end with "virtual solitons" within the space. One leads to inertial phenomena of Special Relativity and the other leads to non-inertial phenomena and to "optical forces" of "spun light" etc. Where there are rotations of this nature we have already discussed that these frames are "apparently" non-inertial (accelerated) to some observers and we measure relativistic effects of Lorentz Rotations and also Time Dilations. This is crucial to understanding just what forces really are. So called photons are the "exchange forces" of our Universe and they occur when light transitions from the wave to a particle interaction. This means it travels in a straight line as light in "free space" and when it transitions to a different environment in "optically curved space" it is apparently non-inertial interacting as deeply penetrating "virtual photons". Yet these are stationary states. If we "see" integer spin (or no spin) we interpret the superposition of states. When suddenly we see it "pass" into 1/2 integer spin we note "forces" from our frame of observation. I have discussed all the maths and references to this earlier regarding rotating frames of reference.

Rotating frame of reference time dilation (Sagnac Effect) and dependence on ω = 2πf...

...and the length of the circumference of a spinning "particle"...

(Click to enlarge)
... length contraction and time dilation of the rotating frame leading to relativistic particle states.... and to "forces" and even mass. As v -> C the circumference approaches zero. In Einstein's Universe this is a "pseudo-force" and "pseudo-mass" depending on if it is "internal" or "external" observations and the state of the "observed" spin. The "forces" are the results of pure geometry. This leads to alternative interpretations and to Anti-de Sitter Universes as previously noted in this thread and elsewhere.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 3 2007, 02:02 AM

Good Day Everyone!
Well .... I'm left with a few options.
1. Accept zephir's AWT
2. Accept Good Elf's explanation
3. Keep looking and learning.

Check out my summary thread for anything that I might learn.
jal

Hi GE,

That was a good explanation/opinion. I would like to counter about the topic
of absolute velocities....it is a bit off topic, but something to think about in the
greater "scheme" of things.

My contention:
Einstein, and all physicists thereafter, consider the speed of light in vacuum as
an absolute velocity....herein is the dilemma that this presents. If the universe
is expanding and its rate of expansion is increasing, then the speed of light should
also be increasing relative to the expansion rate of the universe. My argument
on this point is as follows. If "space" is expanding, and time is expanding
(we'll call it spacetime continuum expansion) at an increasing rate then the
dimensional 4D "fabric" of the universe, by necessity, must also be expanding
proportionally with it. If this is the case, then the speed of light and interstellar
distances must also increase proportionally in order to maintain a constant velocity
relationship to the space time continuum in which it propagates. This would infer
that light should "stretch" along with the universal expansion, and this change
should be able to be measured over time against a fixed distance. I am not
aware of anyone else "asking" this question along these lines, but I think
that you understand my point.

LL

Jal,

Actually, some of Zephir's Aether theories make excellent sense. He just needs to
reword them and quit using the term "foam" as his medium of choice. Foam
is a misnomer for energy transport system, or as GE would term it "extra
dimensions". I consider it the coupling of higher forms of energy
to the lowest form of energy, which manifests itself as energy propagation.

There is no final answer yet, everyone is still seeking it and proposing alternative
"solutions". We may never find the correct answer.

LL

GE, a question for you....and a little side observation/opinion/extrapolation about
the nature of a "light" pulse.... I had stated in a prior post that I had an idea about
how a light pulse might propagate.

If a photon energy wavefront "pulse" has a leading and trailing energy component,
doesn't that logically infer that there is a phase and "timing" difference that exists
between the extreme leading "neck" and the extreme trailing tail of the pulse?

It would seem that the main concentrated energy "body" of the pulse, which is
basically an extreme exponential "Bell curve", is exhibiting phase and timing
delays when referenced to a centerline thru the middle of the curve.

This is the basis of my prior argument about phase and timing delays across the
time duration of a travelling wavefront. The leading and trailing "edges" of the
main body of the pulse are inversely complementary, and so are the wavelets
whose individual EM fields are "phasing" and cross coupling in 3D within
the "confines" of the propagating energy pulse.

IMO, the total energy of the photon "wavefunction" is self regenerating because
the individual phasing and timing coupling interactions, occuring between the
leading and trailing wavelet EM fields, are creating a propagating EM
feedback "loop" that sustains itself. To simplify this concept...the leading
edge "oscillating/rotating" wavelet fields are "pulling" the wave along while the
trailing edge wavelets are "pushing" the wave along. I suspect that this occurs by
virtue of "self induction" of the alternating electric and magnetic fields of the
individual wavelets on other wavelets existing in the complementary phase
"state" within their immediate proximity.

I'll try to explain this "mutual induction" idea conceptually. As one wavelet is increasing
its electric field during the positive 1/2 of the individual wavelet's EM wavefunction,
it is cross coupling energy at 90 degrees, to the increasing magnetic component
that represents the "negative" 1/2 of the EM wavefunction of another nearby wavelet. The individual wavelets must be <180 degrees out of time coincident phase. Think of it as 2 inverse waves travelling parallel to each other that are
continuosly cross coupling their electrical and magnetic energy fields in
a regenerative fashion. Now conceptualize millions of wavelets in parallel, all
mutually cross coupling their E and B fields, syncronously and regeneratively.
As the discrete EM wavelet fields couple and integrate, they "move" and change
phases by closed loop self propagation.

Please feel free to comment or expand on this idea.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 3 2007, 04:17 AM

Hi Laserlight, Jal, Neil Farbstein and others who may still be reading,

Exactly the point... Zephir's Theories are not "evidence" based theories they are "gedanken experiments". GE Theories are not GE's Theories they are evidence based Theories. I will never propose a theory without independently supplied experimental evidence. Science cannot work in an environment of "ideas" alone as does Philosophy ... it requires "evidence" from the functioning of the Universe itself to cross-check against the "rouge" concept that many people latch on to in this Forum and in other places in Science. It is what holds us back having and holding theories that are not "evidence based".

A real scientist must be able to accept that once evidence of an independent nature is supplied that is sufficiently specific to cover all questions asked with sufficient uniqueness to fit only one possible interpretation out of all possible interpretations... only then can we say all other theories, to this point in time, are not able to answer the indications shown by the experiments. This means those who hold different theories must put them aside and accept (provisionally) the new theory until a better question is asked through an experiment that can distinguish this new revised theory from some of it's more subtle nuances. As this process proceeds we will continually "approach" a better description of the Universe incrementally. Those who will not relinquish a position when new evidence disagrees with their theory... and that individual is unable to accommodate the anomaly ... he/she must accept that their former position they defended is "wrong".

It may be that at various points in time there are no inclusive theories that answer all the experimental facts. It is a test of character to accept that situation without forcing our individual views on others. I believe that this has been the situation for some years with Quantum Theory. I think QT has problems that experiment is showing very clearly violate many of its most cherished tenants. In the past it is the custom to fill a void with anything that will arrive at a consistent result and then suggest that this ad-hoc bridging mathematical process is actually the fundamental mechanism. A Ptolemaic Mechanism. Example... Statistics is a mathematical process but is not a physical mechanism and cannot masquerade as the mechanism itself. Currently it is maintained that nothing in nature can be found to explain this "pseudo-mechanism" so it becomes the "real mechanism" from which there is no counter argument possible. Instead of closing down the dialog it should be opening a new dialog to determine the nature of the missing information through a process of propositions and experiments to delineate the hidden nature of the mechanism we are unable to discover by other processes. Under some very special circumstances the Quantum Limit is no longer a "limit", merely the next stepping stone along the way.

One "patched together" theory is the Standard Model. It is a very ugly "beast" constructed by a committee. I think if you were to ask some of those people (a thousand odd) who worked on this "Board", they may reluctantly admit that each of them had to give up some of their "brilliance" to stitch together a "dim" parody of anything they had thought initially might be the result. Today the Standard Model is almost certainly not a "Theory of Everything" and may not be a "Theory of Anything".

What we now have is a system that every good idea must be initially rejected on the basis that regardless of the evidence across the board, "contending" Theories must be subjected to a Bureaucratic Process. This is very similar to a Public Service that must first authorize any new "evidence based proposals". In practice the system is like the "real Public Service" without a "head" to control it's direction. At least Governments and Department have "heads" and they are at liberty to say that an idea has merit and thus subject the new idea to a meritocracy. At the moment the Standard Model is composed of a self regulating and directed body that is funded by governments without a continuing merit based scrutiny and reigning theory just gets a tinkering around the edges. The global educational systems also support the Model and have no other proposals to show to students that other outcomes may possible. This leads to dogmatic thinking and a punitive approach to change.

Have any of you ever been involved in creation of a single document that is making a statement of great importance yet still trying to accommodate all the vested interests, not only of Science, but of the Instrument based Commercial and National Concerns and Government Security Matters, as well as contributing to the multiple Defense implications and potential new weaponry spin-offs? This "imperative" dangles like a carrot above the heads of scientists... and who can resist? Such a document must lead to compromise and dissatisfaction. I sure hope that the Global Warming Problem never falls into such a mess that we are unable to move forward dynamically to help ourselves survive a looming crisis. We now have Frankenstein's Monster that "lives" but does it really think? I suspect that the "Monster" must die!

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 3 2007, 04:39 AM

GE,

I agree with your assessment of the current political state of affairs regarding
how "compromise" has compromised scientific progress. For a long time the
Catholic church in Rome was the scientific authority, and anyone who did not think
or teach the way that was mandated by "doctrine" was labeled a heretic and
sometimes executed for daring to challenge the authority of the Church.
It seems that, in some regards, the "authorities" are still wielding "political
doctrine" rather than fowarding scientific effort. If you think about the truly
great scientific achievements and theories, they all went against doctrine by
individuals that refused to be "politically corraled" and bullied.

I do have a philosophical disagreement with one of your beliefs.....All scientific proofs started as conceptualizations and theories which were
later proven (or disproved) by experimental method. To try to stifle creativity,
curiousity, and "unique" attempts to rationally explain the unexplained seems
antiquated and "indoctrinated" somehow. Not all of us are forced by professional
or peer pressures to conform to political indoctrination. I like to think that
we are not all philosophical "communists" expected to fit one mold.... LOL!


LL

LL & all ye scurvy knaves/knavess's,

This coupling of high to low energy? .... My vision is a photon 'plumbed' into a propagative electronic wavefront, being merely the wavestate of the electron from which it was 'emitted'; the lower energy/dimensional photon is indeed coupled to its parental higher energy/ dimensional wavefront. Both the photon & electron wavicles propagate in sequential transdimensionality from their 0-D singularity/particulate state; whilst the miracle of event/anti-event looped perpetuation in my model is simply the application of sub event horizon chronorecursion forming the electromagnetic duality phenomina.

I know it sounds a bit mott carl .... but it's something I can really, clearly see.

This post has been edited by fivedoughnut on Feb 3 2007, 08:21 AM

This is just a subjective opinion of yours without further justification. Frankly, I don't (want to) understand, why the people tends to the abstract understanding of the real world. The science is not supposed to alternate the religion and it should describe the real world by using of real concepts most preferably.

The reason, why the many scientists don't want to hear the term Aether or foam is, they want to camouflage their historical mistake concerning the luminiferous Aether understanding, because the foam denomination evokes with the Aether environment immediately. The scientists simply don't want to appear like the idiots in the face of the rest of society. Instead of this, they're preferring to cover its understanding of Nature in common vague terms, like the druids of prehistoric era. They're avoiding the negative public feedback because of fear of lost of grants and money. Therefore the Aether question of mainstream science should be considered as a fully political question, not the factual one. The Universe behavior on the microscopic scale is not fundamentally different from macroscopic behavior.

The foam is quite exact term for description of AWT model of vacuum and it very realistic and imaginable easily. Definitely more physical, then the "space-time fabric" or "transport system". The foam denomination enables to understand for example the quantum phenomena, because the Aether foam condenses under introducing of the energy by the same way, like the soap foam shaken in the evacuated vessel. It explains the transversal character of light waves, spreading through vacuum and the subsequent absence of absolute reference frame for such spreading, and so on. Just because the energy transport is mediated by the surfaces, i.e. the diffusional gradients.

Nevertheless, here some factual differences, too, because the similarity of Aether foam to the soap foam is only conceptual.. The foam of AWT is very dynamic, it's similar to the spongy density fluctuations inside condensing of supercritical foam. And the Aether foam is multidimensional, i.e. the bubbles of Aether foam are filled by another, much more dense foam.

The "Fourier Temporal Composition" proposed by you has no experimental evidence at all, nor the ability to predict/explain anything. The Fourier transform is just the math formalism, which enables to express some periodic functions like the sum of other periodic functions, no less, no more. You're just mixing the generally accepted concepts with the private ideas of yours, which are often quite naive, without distinguishing them. Be sure, if the Fourier transform concept could explain something, it would be used by mainstream science already in large scale.

Whereas the main concepts of Aether theory were confirmed by experiments perfectly by many years before. The Aether foam concept predict the wave character of light, which was confirmed experimentally by diffraction and light interference experiments. The Aether foam concept predicts the transversal character of light, which was confirmed by Hertz/Faraday experiments and it leads to the Maxwell's Aether theory of light. The Aether foam concept predict the violation of Lorentz symmetry for long wavelength, which was confirmed experimentally both by recent experiments with microwaves in the lab, both by astronomical observations like the Doppler shift of microwave background radiation.

The looking and learning as such is OK definitely, but is meaningless, if you want to spend whole life by it. What do you consider as the results of such "looking and learning", after then? Each looking and learning should be followed by some understanding less or more lately, or it's useless both for the rest of peple, both for you.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Feb 3 2007, 02:11 PM

Good Day!
Here is how to make pictures of your ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_projection
Data necessary for projection
Data about the objects to render is usually stored as a collection of points, linked together in triangles. Each point is a set of three numbers, representing its X,Y,Z coordinates from an origin relative to the object they belong to. Each triangle is a set of three such points. In addition, the object has three coordinates X,Y,Z and some kind of rotation, for example, three angles alpha, beta and gamma, describing its position and orientation relative to a "world" reference frame.
Last comes the observer (or camera). The observer has a set of three X,Y,Z coordinates and three alpha, beta and gamma angles, describing the observer's position and the direction in which it is pointing.

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translational_symmetry
Laws of physics are translationally invariant if they do not distinguish different points in space.. According to Noether's theorem, translational symmetry of a physical system is equivalent to the momentum conservation law.
Translational symmetry of an object means that a particular translation does not change the object. For a given object, the translations for which this applies form a group, the symmetry group of the object, or, if the object has more kinds of symmetry, a subgroup of the symmetry group.
----------
TOO HARD?
------------
You might want to borrow from the people who have already mastered the skills and who have created programs that makes pretty pictures.
Here are pretty pictures that TRY to support the new ideas being developed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloch_sphere
http://opnmr.physics.yale.edu/Research/spinsim1.html
http://comp.uark.edu/~jgeabana/blochapps/index.html
http://fy.chalmers.se/~vitaly/NanoST/Note5.pdf
Don't be intimidated by the words that they use to describe what they are doing.
You can just look at the pictures.
jal

This post has been edited by jal on Feb 3 2007, 04:21 PM

Jal and All,

Here is a free program for illustrating ideas in 3d modeling:
There is also free online Wiki training available.

http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_of_search=soft&words=k3d

LL