Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

The wavepacket model of a photon has been around for many years.

To explain the Kennedy Thorndike result the wavepacket would seem to have developed a pair of fibers.

I know of no change of frequency in the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment :- like the DSE it effectively measures both the frequency and phase of the 'wave' to great accuracy and as far as I know nothing unusual has ever been reported. Do you have any evidence to support your 'energy loss' suggestion?

The type of wavepacket that reads and writes holograms must be even more complicated .. it must have many 'fibers' (a near infinite number) and it must also be extremely 'long'. As the number of 'fibers' and the 'length' approach infinity then surely - the wavepacket ceases to look like a wavepacket.

We may have failed with the DSE but by considering experiments that take results of the DSE to more extreme limits perhaps we might see why Feynman's 'Sum over paths' is so powerful and why it might (?) give the right answer every time.

Best wishes,
-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Feb 18 2007, 12:25 PM

GoodElf don't know about it with certainty. He's just blindly mixing different experiments. many concepts and intepretations together in the (futile) hope, somebody else will understand his vague babbling instead of him. For example, if the Prof. Feynman would be able to explain/interpret the two slit experiment by all these naive pictures and analogies, he wouldn't never said:

"..I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics..."

Frankly, I don't think, Mr. GoodElf is more clever, then Feynman - the question is, what he's trying to do here, after then... You should realize, these old lonely guys are just using the PhysOrg forum as a social club, i.e. like the tool of personal self fulfillment and the filling of time and as such they're not really interested about logic, thus effectively prohibiting the other people to really understand the problems here.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Feb 18 2007, 04:53 PM

EM , first of all, my knowledge of math are at best slight ;).

So symbolic math sort of leaves me on that plane where one confusedly looks around muttering under ones breath, "well yeeah, uh uh don't think so ". I like symbolic math though, it's like a different language and i wished... etc etc.

Om the other hand, when you create a theory you put up certain permutations/propositions right. Like creating a matrix of rules, and if you can prove the relevancy of those rules inside your matrix and how they will act, then that theory proves out. Right? Mathematically i mean. Weren't it one french guy who created a mathematical concept/proof of how parallel lines a l l w a y s will meet in the end (end of 1800?). And it was perfectly correct to, as far as I've read.

So for me math is a two edged sword in a way

If i get it right you're expecting those Fourier transformations to explain matter ?
Matter would be a special form of 'bounded and bound waves?' or am i totally out in the blue?

But where the heck will those waves come from? Are you superimposing dimensions that's creating those waves. In that case how many will you end up with? And those dimensions in it's turn, how are we going to get an inkling of what they are?

I love your idea though, if i understand it, it's a nice way of collecting 'wayward' experiments that points in different directions. But consider it this way then. To every force there seems to be a reaction. So if we have this wave transformations. what would be it's opposite. Like the absence of light as you place an object in it's path. Is it even possible to deduct something like that from the math you're using.

Because if you look at it as waves and i play with the idea of bubbles, then maybe mine bubbles would be the opposite of your waves ;). What if there only are one force under pressure, where the pressure points are, our universe gets created, and maybe more universes to (which would make it two forces? pressure and ..).The bubbles by the way would relate to your photons.

(And by the way, only a slightly reta.. would refer to thinking as something relating to age ;). You'll do it to you death boy, and be pleased with that. Because if you didn't, where would that leave you? So there may be different thoughts, and some of them may be lacking in maturity, still they all will have values. At least that's my opinion ;)

*** I'm to old for this ;)

This post has been edited by yor_on on Feb 18 2007, 05:08 PM

Nope, not at all. Just these Fourier transformations cannot explain the matter, the DSE the less. But this is not the problem of yours, but the author of this concept.

The bubble concept as such cannot explain the matter as well, but the concept of foam composed from such bubbles can. These bubbles aren't the opposite of waves, but the dense blobs of undulating foam can. Because the soap foam turns to become more dense after introducing of some energy (i.e. under the shaking in constrained volume), so it behaves exactly like the light in vacuum: it can generate the dense blobs of inertia, i.e. the matter "from nothing", just by organizing of chaotic motion of environment into surfaces constrained by geometry.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Feb 18 2007, 05:06 PM

By the foam i understand you to refer to the 'fuzzy weave of possibilities' underlying our reality. Well maybe you're right ;). But for me I'm more into EM:s kind of universe.
For me the big question would be if we exists at all ;)

You can always use foam and if you like *many worlds theory' to explain our universe as one among a multitude, but i prefer it to be more ordered. Just a matter of opinion off course. But i stand in awe of symbolic math, mostly it's been used after experiments if you follow me (i know, when you have a finished theory you'll roll out your math to proof the wider concepts:). But correct me if I'm wrong here, hasn't string theory been the first to explain whats going on inside the event horizon of black holes?

And string theory as I've understood it speaks of one dimensional strings held under enormous pressure and vibrating (waves:)

And where does that speak about that primordial foam ;)

This post has been edited by yor_on on Feb 18 2007, 05:28 PM

Zephir,

I was going to stay out of this, but your "comments" force me to speak out.

1st, All theories, even yours, are compilations of other theories and scientific proofs. Einstein used the works of many of his contemporaries and predecessors
and compiled their work using his interpretations and modifications to construct
his theories. He used the work of the pioneers of physics who had done the
acutal experimentation and written their interpretations. Einstein tied it all together
using deductive and intuitive logic. You, GE, and everyone else posting here
is doing the same. Feynman, did experimentation but also used classical theories
and new QM and QED theories to reinterpret the results that he achieved, with
great success.

2nd, what makes you think that your theories are any more correct than those
of GE or others? Many of us on this board have been, and are, professionals
with many years of first hand experiences in the sciences and industry that
bring our advanced training and insight to this discussion. We don't always
agree, and despite our sometimes "heated" debates and conflicting interpretations
of what the evidence suggests, there is respect for the opinions of others.
You should learn from this, perhaps someone here will offer an insight, a clue,
that completes your "theory" or manages to change your interpretation and ideas.
Are you too proud and stubborn to learn from others? One of the benefits that
comes with age is real life experience and accumulated knowledge. Don't be
so quick to insult the interpretations and experience of others who are also seeking
the truth. I suspect that it lies somewhere between our collective interpretations
and just needs some single bit of insight to be finally exposed.

Regards,
LL

Yor,

If I may make a suggestion...start reading from about page 95 or early January
to catch up with discussions that have relevance to where we are now. We
have discussed a tremendous amount of physics theories and phenomena since
the thread began and have tied quite a bit of it together to where we are now.
We are dancing around a final analysis because our interpretations have not
been defined to the satisfaction of all, but we are narrowing the evidence toward
that goal.

Regards,
LL

I'm not talking about many worlds interpretations of QM and parallel universes, just about normal mechanical foam. Of course, the concept of many worlds is self-contained in the foam concept too, but the AWT doesn't relies on it.

I'm not so fast, because I'm repeating this here for more then one year. GoodElf doesn't seeks the truth, he just promotes his own view, like many others here. Well, and I'm just saying, his view is naive and stupid, because the Fourier transform is just a formal decomposition of wave mixture into its spectral component. It doesn't explain anything, despite of my theory or any other theory. The PhysOrg forum is supposed to be discussion forum, not just the list of monologues of some frustrated freaks. If you don't won't listen some negative feedbacks here, then you're probably on wrong place - this is not private web site.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Feb 18 2007, 06:35 PM

Zephir,

You have repeatedly
just jumped into the middle of an ongoing discussion out of the blue to make
insulting comments. I have invited you to actively participate on more than one
occasion, but you randomly jump in and apparently haven't stayed current with
the ongoing discussion at hand. You have made your disagreements with GE
a personal vendetta due to conflicts in your different approaches. If you want
to be taken seriously, then become fully engaged in the conversation and quit
taking pot shots from the hip.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 18 2007, 06:36 PM

What I'm saying is, the Good Elf didn't explained anything about topic so far. Can you prove some different opinion? This is not the matter of some personal vendetta, just the common confrontation with the human stupidity. And please, you're not supposed to invite anybody here, as you're not the owner of this forum. Wake up - you're one of the users, like the others. Here's a public anonymous forum, not the closed social club, private web site or mailbox. If you're not comfortable with this, you're probably on wrong place here.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Feb 18 2007, 06:57 PM

Zephir,

Will you stay engaged in the ongoing conversation on this topic like I and others
have since September? If you have something constructive to add then you are
welcomed to participate, as is anyone else. If you merely want to drop in
and insult then perhaps you are wasting your, and our, time.

I have read your theories, you propose some intriquing concepts and theories,
but are quick to dismiss the interpretations of others that evaluate the same
information in a different way. Yes, I agree it is an open forum but you are
not helping the discussion with your personal attacks and closed opinions.

LL

This is not your business at all. If you're believing, the GoodElf's Fourier theory is able to explain something in double slit experiment, you can try to prove this, that's all.
If not, then you're serving as an evidence of my claim and you can just express thanks for my attempt to streamline the discussion from the off-topic babbling about everything and nothing at the same time. My question can sound instead, why you're feeling so comfortable in participating on such discussion, after then?

This post has been edited by Zephir on Feb 18 2007, 07:13 PM

Zephir,

This is pointless. If you want to engage and present your arguments, for or
against a point made by others, you are invited to do so. Present us with
your side of the argument and why it disagrees with GE's. I don't necessarily
agree with everything that GE proposes, but then again I have adapted some
of his arguments to improve my interpretation and to present my arguments.
Can you do the same? Perhaps some of your arguments will change our
perspective.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Feb 18 2007, 07:28 PM

The problem is, you have no perspective in Fourier theory. Like I've said, the Fourier transform is just formal decomposition of the wave mixture into its spectral components, it cannot bring nothing new into quantum physic. Every function can be expressed by the summa or product of another functions - and so what?

This post has been edited by Zephir on Feb 18 2007, 07:38 PM

Hi all,


LL, I've compiled a list of your statements that run counter to your arguing against my statement that "photons" can interact/interfere outside of "matter". I don't expect a thorough answer for every one, but I've included many, so that you can perhaps see that I am right on this.

To restate my parameters: "photons" have the ability to interact with 3 results, 1.) a constructive, 2.) destructive, and 3.) null ; all within the volume of the interaction zone. For the DSE, this is the "cone" from the slit to the screen (pretty much the whole experiment). This follows my simple mathematical rules of Resonance, which occur for the presence of 3 or more frequencies (which, I think everyone now agrees are involved, even with "monochromatic" light). The desctructive and constructive results have a gradient, that is limited by the octave. In this manner, energy is conserved by the process of the interactions of beat-frequencies.

LL (Jan 25 2007, 12:04 AM)

Jan 25 2007, 07:39 AM

Jan 25 2007, 04:49 PM

Jan 26 2007, 12:11 AM

This is very problematic. Time is fixed, everything that happens has this fixed relationship to everything else. Any wave will have a beat frequency, or a new frequency that is the "overlap" of the fixed timing relationship of any other wave it is interacting with (sharing space).

Jan 27 2007, 05:06 AM

Jan 28 2007, 03:35 AM

Feb 3 2007, 04:13 AM

Feb 4 2007, 10:00 PM

Feb 5 2007, 04:34 AM

Feb 7 2007, 01:36 AM

Feb 12 2007, 06:13 AM

Feb 12 2007, 07:42 PM

It is worth pointing out here, that the "photon" IS the EM field, correct? I also have no problem with the "virtual" answers that QM has added along the way, to "patch up" the theory. I just prefer to "clean things up" a bit, and SIMPLIFY. This debate centers on FIELD~FIELD interactions, which in many situations, is NULL. This has led to misinterpretations in QM, which describes only the light~matter interactions of "photons" and the state of the electron. The current wave mechanics do not take Resonance into consideration, and this has resulted in "mysterious" answers, and very complex (and still inadequate) solutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton_%28optics%29

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

This was why I included the videos of this phenomenon, so many pages ago.

So, are you still saying that "photons" do not interact the way that I have put forth? If so, please explain your statements above.


regards,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Feb 18 2007, 08:08 PM