Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Zephir et al,

Hello again to Confused2 and that is an interesting idea you have there. Planck's Constant has native units of Impulse. Maybe you really can make the "photons go away" but I think it is "spin" related as seen from our 'context".

Hmm… interesting points. That is "pretty good" but I think, after doing so well, you came to the wrong conclusion. It is the conclusion I think 99% of everyone should come to but of course I am an "elf" so it just must disagree. This is something you can consider but I realize you may never accept it...

Matter occupies space and so do the waves. Restating this Bosons and Fermions are different ways to occupy "space".. So called “empty space” is not really empty and is actually “bounded” from above and from below by “dimensional limits”. As in WMAP Mission… the space is folded on itself with periodicity depending on the “cavity” it has expanded into. We are unable to "see” any bounds to our space because of our present limited perspective from within our "Universe". It is a very comforting notion to those who are true believers in a particle plus empty space Universe. What we might be able to do is notice some periodic features within our Universe due to this dimensional folding. I have discussed this before...
A Cosmic Hall of Mirrors: Sept 2005 Physicsweb
Just for starters just think of four dimensional "curvature" and work in that space. It seems reasonable to me and to those who designed WMAP that our Universe does have unseen bounds. These "bounds" can never be seen from our internal perspective and they are the most distant parts of our Universe and they are also the closest part of our Universe being unseen but everywhere "near"... and obviously non-local. After a while if you travel in one direction in a straight line long enough, the path will eventually loop back on itself. This is seamless to any visible process inside our Universe which internally appear unbounded. Take light for instance it travels in straight lines and continually expands along the wavefront... right? Even though light may physically be retracing it's path in space (often with a twist along the axis of progress) this path is the straightest path … the "quintessential straight line” within that geometry. The only thing that might give this away would be by traveling this way and automatically returning to our starting point without ever intending to do so.... Oops there goes the Earth past us again...!!

Externally to our Universe this would map as a “loop” or more precisely a "Whispering Gallery Mode" of Propagation along a "flatspace" and any process executing along a geodesic will have a frequency. or period. Internal to the "Universe" this periodicity of such a particle would be potentially noticed. Externally a particle moving along a geodesic will appear to have spin and orbital angular momentum to some external observers without actually internally executing that spin or orbital motion internally. Internally the particle does not exhibit this property since internal frames of reference cannot see this effect from its own point of view. Internally this spreading of waves and this closed space whose "walls" are totally invisible to the movement of our waves or even of other particles is seen as "Spacetime Curvature" due to "mass" caused by the "fermions" yet everything moves along those geodesics be they fermions or bosons... all wrapping and closed curves as defined within their various "domains".

Unless we are on the "outside looking in" the space we are moving in seems "infinite" but "bounded". On the outside we see "particles" including our Universe as also bounded but not as "infinite".... in fact very confined. What seems to be the difference between the space "inside the shells" of atoms and the "hard space" we think we see inside of those nuclear particles? It has been my thought (and apparently originally by David Bohm) that there is practically no difference other than the external perception of "spin". "Bosons" have integer spin and many can exist in the one space... whereas "Fermions" have half-integer spin and the spaces are "exclusive". Interestingly we can combine Fermions to form Boson States. These seemingly separate "particles" form a kind of pair between the two different "spaces" .... a "soft" space and a "hard" space depending on their different inter-related relative spins but though they are on slightly different "scales" they represent the "one space" in the end.

Each sub-atomic particle in the nucleus has a number of "hard levels" mimicking the bosonic "soft levels" of the electron shells in the outer atomic structure but at a different scale and in a different dimensionally spun space. One proton made up of three "somethings" have internal shell structures and "electron-like" particles which are mirrored "holographically" in the "empty spaces" which is really a boson phenomena which also have "electrons". The spaces are like "oil and water" and are "Whispering Galleries" in a dimensional flatspace attached "resonantly" to each other and are also centered on each other inseparably. It goes without saying all fermions will have a companion boson centered on a common point in both dimensional spaces. Together the "nucleus" and its ghostly "shell space" are a matched pair... super-symmetric "twins" where the shells "Boson States" have "hybrdized" together obeying the Bose-Einstein Statistics as they also have done in the nucleus to form fermionic hybridized states which obey Fermi-Dirac Statistics. Is would be no wonder that "oscillations" of the "electrons" as they change from one stationary state to another are accompanied by equivalent "mirror movements" in the nucleus of the mirror partners. The different frames of reference lead to perceptual differences as well as a superficially separate Physics conformally mapped "inside out".

So the "Empty Universe" we see is a single "Boson State" seen from the "Whispering Gallery" inside (an Anti-de Sitter Space) and all the nuclear material made from smaller atoms are fermion "bits" that have clumped together since the Big Bang to form planets and stars and of course us etc. The rest of this story is pure "information".... lots of it everywhere. If we could move out from within this "shell" of our Universe we may see a much larger "structure" that optically looks identical in many respects other than the individual events that are "seen" as direct "virtualizations" of this external bigger Universe. At the same time out Universe would seem to be a spinning particle with a 1/2 integer spin we were not able to see from within based on reciprocal time and space scales occupying an "incompatible" fermionic space relative to our new "perspective".

So there are no "particles" and "spaces" only "bosons" and "fermions" ... mutual reciprocals holographically mutually dependent and whose "uncertain" boundaries and laws are linked inextricably to each other and whose mutual inter-dependence "escapes us" at this point in our awareness. Neither of these realms are made from anything different from each other... space or solid... but they are different based only on their "interdependent" spins. One group of phenomena appear as "ghostly waves" to us and the other phenomena appear as "solid" to us. The "ghosts" cannot be directly observed without "interactions" and the solid bits are "particles" as we define them and are associated with those same interactions.

Energy permeates both realms but information is stored "recursively" in the environment, each small bit "echoing" as a mirror the larger unseen scales of the Universe without limit or end. A mirror can store many copies as in a Hall of Mirrors provided the "events" within each realm remain "evanescent" but collapse when "observed". Events may occur in many levels of the Universe but the order and interaction depend on arrival of the events within each realm and the sequence of those propagated events defines "lower level "interactions".... What "we" observe as reality are "superpositions" at the next level of the observer. If that observer chooses to interact this modifies the interactions at that level and the superpositions back down at our level. The fermion chooses "one from many" while "the boson's many are one".

I will not require you to believe this but "one geometry" and "one rule" for all is better for me than the present divisions in Physics of "Condensed Matter" and "Optics" and "Cosmology" with "Quantum Physics" only explaining the "hard bits" as "billiard balls" rolling around in the "empty spaces". I just make the prediction that one day this concept will be the dominant philosophy in Science and David Bohm will finally "have his day" with our "Holographic Universe" exhibiting at all levels.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 7 2007, 02:29 PM

Hi Laserlight, Good Elf, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Zephir et al,

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

Maxwell's explanation of electromagnetic radiation is no more and no less than a self-consistent set of analogies and assumptions. Analysis of black body radiation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation ) showed that beyond reasonable doubt the assumptions and analogies used by Maxwell are not consistent with reality. Electromagnetic radiation (by definition) is not quantised and strong evidence suggests that reality is quantised.

Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi Confused2,

While you are right about quantization of electromagnetism you can certainly reduce the wave to impulses and this is the real way to deal with electromagnetism... as a series of "quanta". Also I have added something to my previous post in the first couple of lines.

Absolutely any function can be reduced to impulses (a Dirac Comb) so it is not a theory of "waves" but a theory of "impulses" and a systems response to them. This is the Dirac Function...
Wikipedia: Dirac Delta Function

This is the "origin" of Quantum Theory... Of course you all knew that anyway.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 7 2007, 02:43 PM

Hi GE and All,

GE said:

Hmmm, maybe we are not as close to agreement as I had supposed.
Your model sounds suspiciously like you still regard a photon is a particle.
I thought that we were in agreement that light moved as an expanding curved
wavefront in the x,y,z dimensions traveling thru time, and the energy the
wavefront contained could be divided and discretely detected at points along that
wavefront where coincidental photon EM field impulses harmonically "overlapped" in
superpositions to stimulate a receiving atomic dipole to a "detection" energy level
that causes it to release an electron or emit a photon as a byproducts of
the act of detection.

I might have some additonal responses this evening when time allows.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 7 2007, 06:29 PM

Hi Laserlight,

Well particles to me do not really exist as "discrete" entities but you tell me what photons do not have that particles do have and I will tell you why (with references). Of course we have been through this all before and we will probably go through all of this again. I like "evidence" based science, not warm and cuddly "notions". The division between photons which spread and particles which do not spread and the nature and origin of charge and the laws of conservation especially the Lorentz-CPT symmetry are all mutually linked through their different geometries.

Spreading of a wavefront does not mean that individual photon energies can be "split". I thought that my point of view was becoming clear too but ... alas! I hope that text book pictures of expanding spherical shells of light only occur in regions where there is unrestricted opportunity to do so and in regions where the geometry of the space is limited or the frame of reference is separate, we often picture these "events" (which are unseen), far too idealistically. Recall that photon events have a distinct "non-local" nature so a particle interpretation is not strictly possible. Feynman's "Many Paths Interpretation" is still the rule.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 7 2007, 10:07 PM

GE,

IMO, you seem to be hung up on the "straight line" trajectory of a photon, per
your previous post, however you state that a photon seeks all paths while
propagating but does not divide. That seems "logically" inconsistent in view of
the interference results of the DSE and of interferometers. Interference cannot
occur if the energy of a photon cannot divide and then recombine in some
superposition with a phase and timing difference.

IF a single photon can only interfere with itself and cannot be divided, how
do you explain that it is possible to split the energy that exists in that
single photon and pass it thru widely separated mirrors and then see the
interference that results as the energy is superposed at some target screen.

The result of the DSE creates an interference pattern because the photon
does divide as it passes thru physically isolated slits. Each divided portion
maintains the same emission frequency and its propensity to spread, but it is now
spacially separated from its original expanding wave path.

I also again refer to the results obtained by a large array telescope with individual
reflectors all reflecting the same photon at some focal point in order to
concentrate and amplify the distributed energy of the photon wavefront at a single
location. http://www.nrao.edu/whatisra/radiotel.shtml I also still contend that
separate antennas can simultaneously detect the same long wavelength photon
while located at different locations parallel to the advancing wavefront.

We seem to have come full circle in this argument, yet again. I think it is a
matter of interpretation of exactly what a photon "is". A pulse of energy
of any dimension can be detected at the same energy intensity at multiple
evenly space locations from the source.....yeah, I remember... E=hf, but IMO
energy is relative to the point where it is measured along the wavefront
according to the ISL.

Regards,
LL

Hi laserlight,

OK... I have lost you with this so let me try and put it another way. Lets think of that photon in its own frame of infinite length contraction/rotation of the external spaces and infinite time dilation relative to its own frame of reference (except for a small "period" when the photon is being emitted and when it is being absorbed).

Wherever the photon has been or will go "for all eternity" is within a "single point and a single instant of its time". As far as it is concerned the photon is without extent and without a dynamic. This means that without the passage of time no interaction or energy process can occur. That photon is a stationary state eternally. The path a photon takes is immaterial to the photon since it is but a single point so whatever occurs to it takes place there in that one and only instant. The "extent of time and its spread in space" is a phenomenon we see and not it. We are creatures of time and we inhabit space as a result. A photon in its frame of reference does neither. The reality for a photon is what it experiences and not what we see. Like a frozen image on the event horizon of a black hole this is a changeless instant stretched to infinity like some "rubber band" stretched in space and time. Also the photon may appear to be a caustic and be split according to our perception of things and for quanta that have not been "collapsed" these "bits" you seem to be worried about in the frame of the photon are all in the one spot and it is only "interfering" with itself.

This "shape" the particle such as a photon exhibits actually define the dimensional space it is existing within. For the one photon there is nothing beyond the confines of that "horizon"... nothing.... nothing.... absolutely nothing at all... Since if there was, this being the edge of a light cone... to pass it whatever it is... would need to travel faster than light.

Like a Captain aboard a Space Ship traveling "near the speed of light", his life is not extended for even a second, it is merely "stretched out" relative to the events happening in frames at a vastly different velocity relative to him. The edge of his light cone defines the events that can reach him as well... no more and no less than it would even for us at this moment we are reading this note (same laws for all). This leads to visual phenomena that from the perspective of the one observer cannot be easily interpreted. The twin paradox is no paradox it is the very nature of measurement. And also as we close on the speed of light the Universe contracts to a single point of light in the forward direction due to "stellar aberration"....
Seeing Relativity... ANU
Check it out and see if you can understand it... If you can't get it maybe this stuff is beyond you and you need to watch a lot more Science Fiction Movies.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 8 2007, 09:22 AM

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Zephir et al,

I will make no detailed comments here since we have covered this in depth already... but have a look at this development...
In tiny supercooled clouds, physicists exchange light and matter
And of course this forum thread...
Exchange of light and matter, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news90077438.html
We have been discussing this stuff for many months now. Experiment finally catches up with the theory....

Think about it carefully and also try and see just what this implies. This is no surprise. Soon we may be creating other interesting particles through "Singular Optics". The relation with Lorentz-CPT is assured. Soon "string theory" on a macroscopic scale may be possible through "optical resonances"... as I have been stating.

Time to go build a Universe from Photons...

P343, "A First Course in String Theory" by B. Zwiebach

Cheers

GE,

Oh, I see how it is...when someone dares to confront you with an argument that contradicts
or conflicts with your theory and beliefs you become obnoxious,
condescending, and spiteful. You have done this to several on this board who
dare to disagree with your interpretation. You are obviously a pretty
intelligent fellow, but I think your "ego" can't accept alternative interpretations of
the same information that you have no ready answer for, so you close your
mind and fall back into the defense mechanism of "conventional" thinking/training.
I am disappointed and insulted by your recent approach to "conversational" topics
on this open forum, where apparently alternative viewpoints and discussion that do
not agree with yours, and identify "flaws" in your model, are met with such tactics.

Good day, no need to reply.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 8 2007, 04:59 PM

Hi C2 and All,

C2 said:

I think that this question that you posed follows with my earlier posts on the
question/nature/proposal of why a black hole radiates no light.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=165278

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=161986

In further developing C2's question/proposal, do the intense gravitational and
energy fields of a black hole modify, "turn off", or incapacitate the Plank length
relationship that is theorized to exist between subatomic charges/particles?

Other discussion, opinions welcomed
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 8 2007, 07:11 PM

TIME OUT.
Read and learn and assimilate.

http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926969-6.pdf
Quantum Gravity Meets Structuralism: Interweaving Relations in the Fundation of Physics
by Dean Rickles and Steven French

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...1/QGbook-SF.pdf
Time and Structure in Canonical Gravity.1
Dean Rickles
Division of History & Philosophy of Science,
University of Leeds.
phldpr@leeds.ac.uk
An abridged version of this paper is to appear in Structural Foundations of Quantum Gravity.
Edited by S. French, D. Rickles, and J. Saatsi. Oxford University Press (2005).
jal

Jal,

What is the point that you are trying to make by presenting these papers?

Is there some argument or proposal/theory that you wish to present and
discuss to further this topic?

Thanks,
LL

Hi Laserlight,

It is my pleasure to reply. We all become disparaged when it appears we are unable to get a point across and no progress is being made. All right then... no sense of humor. Yes... I have an ego... Not so much that it stops me from sharing anything I know with others. It is good to have ego but it is not so good if this blinds us from listening and sharing. I have not expressed "spite"... You should see some of your statements from my "end"... he he he! About "ego"... "Ego" is just a disparaging name for "self worth". Regards science... I also fall back on existing theory and experiment when it is available. I do not think anyone has presented any flaws to me other than they happen to not accept the point of view or the papers I present. I would happily accept criticism from you when it takes the form of experimental evidence to the contrary. To prove this point I will answer the question below that you proposed as "criticism".

Photodetectors detect single photons as "clicks", "flashes" or "pulses" limited in both extent and time... or in the case of radio waves the signal is continuous due solely to their immense numbers being collected. The collection of these "clicks" or "flashes" are also spatially distributed and can form an "image" of the source distributed over a two dimensional detector. Remember photographic plates are such a detector. The images created from this process at a particular frequency (if you choose), on close examination, is made from a large number of very tiny darkened spots (darkened micro-crystals) on the plate after developing and fixing. I am sure that you are familiar with the theory that photons are emitted as packets of energy and also absorbed as a packet of energy. The concentration of energy by large dishes would be an obvious consequence of that theory... many photons of the same wavelength are gathered not just more of the one single photon. Your eye is also an example of "collection" of photons proportional to the size of the collecting surface. It is easy enough to show that individual photons actually spread. A diverging lens can do this... but what the lens does not do is normally change the frequency of the light... only its spatial distribution. The density of energy does drop off in an inverse square relationship but the photons are absorbed "whole". This suggests that despite "seeking all paths" they are only detected in one place in the end with an equal effect for each one at the detector. This does not mean that we have collected and detected every one.

You appear to propose that the individual photons are absorbed in part according to the amount of the wavefront "captured". This is not an experimental fact. You only need to reduce the intensity of the light to one photon at a time to see that. If it was "spread" then it would not produce tiny flashes of light at discrete spots on a zinc sulphide screen or Selenium Photo array(which is observed)... What you propose is the "intensity" would be lowered to an almost imperceptible level over the entire collecting surface. Aside from the fact that this absorption process needs a whole photon to work... This is not what is observed... we observe individual flashes coming from a very small area on the zinc screen, of equal intensity regardless of the "brightness" of the source. You can count these flashes with a video scanning system from behind the ZnS screen, Potassium Iodide Crystal or Selenium array. A computer can be left to count them "dispassionately" recording not only the brightness but the spatial and temporal distribution. What is found is the flashes are of the same overall physical size and only the density of the flashes vary with source brightness and not the overall intensity. You probably need to see it to believe it. I have seen it.

Sensor systems used to record images or to record intensity and wavelength respond to this phenomenon. In the simplest case a photographic emulsion is sensitive at particular frequencies to light. This is because of a reverse photo-electric effect leading to a "photochemical reaction" where a single photon is accepted into a crystal of silver halide in a tiny crystal releasing the electron and changing the color center of the crystal from "clear" to "dark". More photons of the same wavelength increase the effect by continuing this process "atom by atom" ever darkening the crystal. They are simple systems. Large array optical telescopes collect co-moving photons and concentrate them at a focus where a sensor "transduces" these individual photons into a cumulative effect on a photographic plate placed there or a optical sensor similar to those found in digital cameras. In the case of Radio Astronomy a longitudinal temporal signal at a particular wavelength (or frequency) is detected by a single sensor at that focus (usually a tuned cavity). These are separate ways to do it ... one records spatial distributions of photons (the optical telescopes) and the other records the temporal distribution of photons (the radio telescope). These are not the same picture. To build up a picture for a radio telescope the image is scanned in the heavens in a similar fashion to the way an image on a TV screen was originally scanned, the antenna rocks back and forth across the heavens to create a two dimensional intensity "chart" of all the sources in a small region of the heavens. This type picture necessarily loses the temporal information (eg: ET calling home). These photons all exhibit spatial coherence for reasons that bosons of the same frequency tend to be in the same common state. The photons all start out from such a large source like a sun or star as totally incoherent but the further they travel together the more they exhibit some spatial coherence with surrounding photons of the same wavelength.

Planck's Black Body radiation clearly demonstrates that the photons are discrete and do not form continuous distributions of energy... I have mentioned this here before. Neither are they absorbed as "continuous distributions" as you suggest (that is my interpretation of your statement). It is a one by one photon at a time affair. It was one of the great triumphs of physics to completely understand that quanta were emitted at discrete "finite" frequencies and were absorbed the same way leaving nothing "over" to be mopped up by other processes... whatever they may be. This theory avoided the "ultraviolet catastrophe" that earlier continuous theories such as your own could not avoid. Later Einstein Published his paper on the Photoelectric Effect resolving an experimental fact that was needed to complete the picture about the nature of the energy of a photon.

As you can see here Planck had solved a problem that fate decreed he had not fully understood. This is why Einstein got a 'gong" and is better known than Planck. Planck never really accepted Quantum Theory. Please do not think that I disagree that quantization occurs... it is only the reason why it occurs and the way this information should be treated is where I differ very strongly from pure particle theories. A great deal of experimental evidence shows that the theory of the quantum is correct and aside from how this arises I am in total agreement with Einstein and also Planck.

I am not sure what you mean by "long wavelength photon" since wavelength is only measured in a direction perpendicular to the direction of propagation not transverse to it. This wavelength (or frequency) measurement does not change no matter how far a photon propagates. The exception is when an observer is in motion relative to the frame of reference in which the photon was emitted. This relative motion translates to a "shift" in frequency of the source (Relativistic Doppler Shift). This was also a triumph for Einstein and is an important part of the basis of Special Relativity. I also strongly support Special Relativity as one of the greatest achievements of the human mind.

The other great experimental and intellectual theoretical result IMHO was de Broglie's Hypothesis of the Matter Wave. I have always contended this is the complementary result to Special Relativity and I think is of supreme truth and as important as the contributions made by Einstein.

I am still interested in your response to the experimental results I reported above.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=175138

In that post there is a link to commentary. I hope you think about it and respond. This illustrates many things we have been speaking about over the months.

If you really think that there are problems with my theories then you will need to be more specific. If you specify and present a good argument based on experiment then I will always listen.

If I really did not respect you or your opinions, as you suggest, I would not have persisted so long. But if you really believe that you are wasting your time with me I can accept that and I will move on.

Cheers

PS: What do you mean by "ISL"?

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 9 2007, 12:58 AM

Good Elf.

Much Better! I appreciate the thoughtfulness and "tone" of your reply.

It appears that we still do not have concensus on the "size" or dimensions of a
photon as it propagates in x,y,z dimensions along an expanding dipole emission
parabolic wavefront "envelope". Also, apparently I have not been convincing in my
argument that when the EM fields of a discrete photon wavelet collapse that they
do so at the "null point" centerline of propagation of that discrete photon's EM
field envelope which represents the directional vector flight path of the
wavelet. IMO, that is the focal point for "quantization" of the energy of the photon
when it "stimulates" the dipole of a receiving atom during detection.

I do think that perhaps we are agreeing on what constitutes a wave pulse,
which is a myriad of individual coherent photon wavelets in an expanding wavefront
that propagate together in near synchronous phase timing but with different
spacial and temporal locations within the wave envelope bandwidth.
Or, do you have a different conceptualization/description than I do?

What is the "breadth" of a photon wavefront of specific frequency? We know
the measurement peak to peak is the frequency, but how wide is a photon from
an AM radio tower? The width, height, breadth, and power is a function of the
Inverse Square Law and describes an expanding "parabolic" shape according to the
distance from the source.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 9 2007, 02:10 AM

Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal et al,

Well the tone is not "actually" altered, I have never been, in my mind, disrespectful... perhaps my attempt at "humor" in the future will be more considered. It appears not to translate "on the Web". I have only the greatest appreciation for your input.

What is the "breadth" of a photon wavefront of specific frequency? We know the measurement peak to peak is the frequency, but how wide is a photon from an AM radio tower? The width, height, breadth, and power is a function of the Inverse Square Law and describes an expanding "parabolic" shape according to the distance from the source.

Hmm.. it still seems to be a real problem. I will try and answer again but remember when I am referring to photons as "waves" this is something apart from the photons as "particles"... the waves are like shadows on the landscape and the particle is contained only within an "evanescent space" around the emission point (source) and the absorption point (sink). Weather the photon actually "travels" as a wave across space is debatable... this is because it always interacts as a particle (at the end of its "mission"). I concede true particles appear to travel across space but I think the Jury is out about "photon travel". Photons are the Universes "exchange force" and that is its role.

My concept has always been that of a "boson wave" where all "coherent" photons (on the same wavefront) "fill the available space" at the speed of light expanding on the edge of the lightcone as far as they can go into that space. This is an "unseen space" but it "has an inner product into our space" upon collapse of the state. This is as seen from the photons limited point of view. The photon temporal "location" is on a Feynman path which may fold on itself or separate into caustics depending on "obstructions" and cavity proportions and the arrangements of reflecting, refracting and absorbing boundary conditions. This means all "ideal" photons not suffering the above, from the one emitter of coherent photons, produce patterns that look like this...

Of course this illustration is for continuous sinusoidal sources but the space that each individual photon fills "ideally" remains the same as always.... All coherent photons in the same "mode" occupy the same space this is as much space as the photon can expand into at the speed of light. The modes are those expanding "pancakes" for each individual photon. There is the possibility of multiple modes where higher frequencies in the emitted packets cause the annular number of those pancakes to increase forcing nodal lines between each pancake. There are always two opposing phases minimum on opposite sides of the source and this is a basic symmetry consideration for sources of electromagnetism.

The individual photons emitted differ in "Berry Phase" which ultimately determines where their "cores" or "still points" end up on that expanding surface. Practically speaking I conjecture that they arrange their "cores" or "central nodes" to be uniformly arranged in that surface in such a way that it reflects the Pointing Energy Density Flux Vector... so when the photons are absorbed somewhere beyond in the far field, along any individual wavefront, the intensity of photons recorded there (by a detection system of some sort) is proportional to this cross product of this "gross" instantaneous electric and magnetic field. Remember they are propagating through those "instantaneous standing wave cavities", the cavity longitudinal modes, and their "cores" are executing non-abelian separate geometric phase "rotations" due to spin.

The space of all waves expands (as in the blue animation) to fill the cavity as does each and every photon in that one mode that also occupy "exactly" the same space (when the photons are coherent). In the case of the cavity of the Universe it may take a very long time to completely fill it but ultimately a single photon will "fill" the cavity of the Universe if not absorbed. At first though the newly created photon occupies an infinitesimally smaller volume and this volume increases with time as if expanding on the surface of a sphere at the speed of light. This "electromagnetic pancake" is not a full sphere but is a small "patch" on that surface that undergoes "expansion" and its extent depends on the modes involved in the transmission. The expansion always increases with distance propagated but in the complex geometry of our Universe with reflecting, absorbing and refracting interfaces the exact way in which it proceeds depends on the longitudinal modes that are established already in the volumetric space. This is provided it is a zero mode oscillation. Higher order modes confine the "photon particle" to smaller spatial volumes.

The reason I say this is regardless if one photon is emitted every hundred years or trillions of photons a second (relative strength of the source) the way that photon interferes with itself is the same because in the Double Slit Experiment these photons always build up exactly the same interference pattern. "Common sense" tells us this should not be the case since it takes time in dynamic systems to establish all the remaining primary modes in a complex cavity and reduce them to the minimum number, what I am saying is a single photon exhibits the final mode at the moment it was created and propagates unaltered forever. Source dynamics give the appearance of "change" but the photons during propagation do not exhibit any change at all. Yet experiment shows that photons one at a time at irregularly long periods "see" the pattern in all the cavities even if only one photon is involved. All that can change this situation is an absorber or scattering event.

It is true that we actually "see" nothing otherwise this photon will be absorbed or scattered and will not reach the intended target so it is only the photons that have not been interfered with that reach the "goal" and make interference patterns in the DSE. This is a very subtle point and I am sure that its significance is lost to most. The reason why the cavity does not interact in a temporal sense, "cleaning up" all the spurious modes, is because each individual photon produces "all" the information to make up the final pattern, the only limitation is it can only do this one photon at a time. So the final pattern is built up one tiny flash at a time and each and every photon is only interacting (interfering) with itself if the flux through the resonant space is only one photon a second say... or even one photon a century.

It is no wonder that some interpretations of Quantum Physics such as Yquantum's Relational Quantum Mechanics where only the relationships between things (the particles including photons) are important seem plausible. This leads to a theory that really has no matter waves in it as I see it. A particle theory without the waves. Of course there are real wavelike phenomena that are measurable that make us understand that the waves are real.

Check out "electromagnetic modes"...
Wikipedia: Transverse mode
Wikipedia: Longitudinal mode
This reference may assist as well...
Wikipedia: Normal Mode
This is what some optical modes look like "spatially"...


There are spin modes as well and these can be derived from the fact that a transverse mode (according to a well known Superposition Theorem in Electromagnetics) is composed of (at least) two circularly polarized waves with opposite phase propagating in the same direction... This is within that one "particle". Photons propagating in one of the modes ... stay in that mode confined by the lightcone wall. Even if the photons were forced to cross each other they would still be in different dimensional spaces relative to each other.

I hope this helps and everything at your end is still "cool".. I was wondering if you are able to respond to my questions regarding "light to mass to light" conversions.
It appears I got the link wrong last time so this is a correction...
Exchange of light and matter
... and the meaning of "ISL"?

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Feb 9 2007, 10:41 AM