Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Laserlight,

OK... there are pixies on Jupiter ... they are invisible pixies and any measurement you make will be null. That proves I am right! I also have a sure fire way to stop you from being trampled by wild Elephants... wear a paper hat while standing at at the South Pole.... See... paper hats work. Do this experiment 100 times with different conditions and different assumptions and you keep getting null readings. What do you conclude? In Einstein's case the entire world understood that not finding something means that it is not there... end of story. Until you PROVE something is there you have no case for anything. Null experiments "prove" non-existence in Science because you can assert anything in any discipline you like ... politics, religion, history, mathematics, philosophy... Science differs from all of them since it must be shown by an experiment that it is indeed true before it is accepted. It is called the Scientific Method and it is "infallible" in determining "relative truth". In mathematics for instance you can make any postulate you like and derive theorems and corollaries and all manner of interesting results. The relevance to Physics has to be proven before it becomes acceptable... not all Mathematics is Physics but all Physics is Mathematics. This is what is currently wrong with much of String Theory and with Loop Quantum Gravity... they assert things that have not yet been proven. It is good to look for these things but if you do not find them you just got to stop saying that it is true. A single experiment looking for one non-existing thing could engage the entire establishment and all its resources for the rest of human history based on the fact that to this point in time there are only null results. Putting it crudely "Put up or shut up". By this method we have advanced beyond how many angels can dance on the head of a pin since the existence of angels is still in dispute. Now this is despite the fact a lot of people believe in them. I don't... only we elves "really" exist.

Getting back to the "null" result. Until Afshar "puts up" he is making a claim based on no evidence and claiming it is a "breakthrough". This is not Science it is bluffing at poker. In Science we call the bluff and he must show his hand with all the winning cards otherwise he loses.

You do not get kudos for stuffing up experiments. You get kudos for making a successful experiment. It is all in the design. Does Afshar "need" to have those added frequencies there? Have a look at his paper...
Sharp complementary wave and particle behaviours in the same welcher weg experiment: Shahriar S. Afshar
You are probably right about those interferences but a good experiment is supposed to remove all the "controversial" aspects. As far as it goes it is "OK" but it proves nothing about what he is supposed to be showing. That is a causal relationship between the little flash of light on a screen and a NULL reading somewhere else (the particle and wave aspects at the same time). I would also say that it is very important that the measurements are actually made at exactly the same time and the causal relationship is established. In actual fact he will be disturbing the result slightly and he has not accounted for that. I stress this "wave" reading is actually "always null", a problem for measuring anything.

The "superposition of states" stated in his conclusion cannot be used as an excuse when dealing with photons of a particular wavelength. A single photon only contains the base frequency and the higher harmonics which are not "resolved" in the dark regions (see my post from yesterday). An ensemble of photons contains no lower frequencies than the fundamental so the actual signal does not theoretically "leak" into the "dead zones", the higher frequencies in the wave packet are found inside the envelope of the "bumps" all "mixed together" as I have already said in that previous post . You can prove what I say is true by increasing the number of "slits" and reducing their width until it becomes a optical grating and then you will see that these "bumps" are actually detuned individual oscillators that can only be resolves by making the grating lines very very thin (slit widths) and increasing their number to as high as possible. Wave diffraction of coherent light is not a quantum statistical function ... only the pattern is "statistical" and the way in which it builds up.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...grating.html#c2

Now to discuss the "small" influence of the wires... this is the result of imperfect cavity action as I have already described. When you square the amplitude of the phase sync function and since the all waves are not actually parallel when they strike the double slits... theory suggests this intensity function is not absolutely zero in those gaps being always in a Fresnel zone and never quite reaching a Fraunhofer condition. This means there is "overlap" and only "near" cancellation due to the slits being of finite width. This will mean some passing photons are minimally influenced by the wires. It is like rolling a ball along the ground on a flat basketball court where a small weed has grown up between the cracks. It does not stop the ball but it has a small influence on its trajectory as it strikes it. This results in a "protective measurement", a weak adiabatic "measurement", already known in wave theory where the trajectory of the photons are slightly modified (I have spoken of this briefly before)... this is equivalent to making one or several very "light touches" to the system causing bunching of the photons (or other particles). Quantum systems can remain in an uncollapsed quantum state if you do not "precipitously" collapse the wavefunction. A tiny "measurement" (read influence") can perturb the system without collapse just like the mutual influence of propagating photons organize the mutual interactions of the other photons in a similar state on a wavefront. This is well known in the literature. What happens is this influences the "final" pattern slightly causing the photons to favor one outcome over some others.

What this means is as long as the measurement is small it does not collapse the wavefunction. However even small measurements cause the trajectory of the photon to be modified toward an outcome (sometimes bunching the quanta) that might be different from an outcome if the measurement simply collapsed the wavefunction completely.

Afshar has not obviously heard of "protective measurement" and has not discussed this aspect in his paper or tried to remove it from the equation... so this wave influence goes uncommented. In the literature "protective measurement" and their influence is one of the strongest arguments for Bohmian Mechanics and the so called "guided pilot wave" Theory. It has experimental validity and I for one hold very strongly to experimental results. Bohmian Mechanics is a hidden variable theory that assumes "extra parameters"... some may say extra dimensions.
Protective Measurements in Quantum Mechanics
This does not help Afshar's hypothesis... believe me. You can even see it slightly in that 3rd image. I have been meaning to return to this topic but people seem to be unable to proceed to any further with new ideas. There is no point in talking to a brick wall is there? It is far too advanced a topic to introduce to this forum and its consequences are far too controversial.

Protective Measurements are also important in Cavity measurements "as well". In cavities you can make many protective measurements further "refining" a quantum state and narrowing a "line". For instance devices for reading data from OAM encoded photons involve many "sorting" stages in which as much information is extracted from the photon as is possible by use of an inverted "interference" tree in which the wave is sorted depending on its OAM into one of many channels whose ultimate purpose is to have a single detection which then confirms the correct encoding of the OAM on the single photon by virtue of the exact tree resonance. Prototype devices exist already for some years which work to extract complex data from single propagating photons. Theoretically it would be possible to encode the Bible on to a single photon using OAM and then at the receiver end the "message" could be "decoded" by these phase resonant cavities sorting the photon until the message represents a unique path where a single flash is the final outcome. Irrelevant information ... right... he he he!

Cheers

Hello Confused2, et al.

A bias is typically applied to an electronic device in order to make it more sensitive. This is the "dark current" that exits when some types of photo detectors are used. If you have to "tune" a piece of equipment to just detect a signal then you are biasing said equipment to detect a particular signal.



P.S. Ill be gone for a couple of weeks so I will have to catch you all later.

Hi Montec,

Have a nice break... catch you then.

This is an instrumentalist view of the process. "Dark Current" is a small current that tends to polarize a device and it is related to detector phenomena that usually increase with the age of the device. Tiny fluctuations in this "noise" must be biased out in order to measure signal from a device exhibiting this effect. It is possible that some of the effect due to noise is due to so called random quantum processes at that level of the device. Other means would be needed to measure this apparently Gaussian Noise. Some of it will be due to unresolved standing waves of low intensity. These waves would fluctuate in a random fashion producing signal at random times simply by chance. Now what I would say is though you can analyze this noise using statistics it is impossible to resolve using this instrument, the nature of this noise and it's underlying causes. These "causes" have an origin in Physics, it is not possible to resolve it though.

At a particular frequency Huygens Construction shows a large number of these tiny wavelength effects.

Interference of two circular waves, snapshots of absolute value of (real,scalar) wave field for different wave lengths and distances of point sources (Wikipedia). Wavelength decreasing from bottom to top. As time progresses, the wave fronts would move outwards from the two centers, but the dark regions (destructive interference) stay fixed. With light the fringes are almost unable to be resolved at optical frequencies, especially with "thick" slits. Naturally I dispute this effect when considering "cavities" and light. The entire pattern is quasi-stationary being a solution of Shrodinger's Wave Equation and oscillating between nodes and antinodes.

Here is a construction after Huygen's by Thomas Young.

... Click to enlarge...
What is seen of this intricate pattern is only the "dead zones" the rest is lost due to the much higher resolution required to resolve standing wave boundaries. The influence of "overtones" (harmonics) also can't be ignored. The way to gain a greater understanding is to narrow the slits and to include reflecting walls. Increasing the number of slits also helps in understanding too.

Thomas Young's sketch of two-slit diffraction of light. Narrow slits at A and B act as sources, and waves interfering in various phases are shown at C, D, E, and F. Young presented the results of this experiment to the Royal Society in 1803.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

What we see is the third image with "advanced and retarded waves" producing standing waves and not the first or second image here...
+ =
Unfortunately you need to break the time symmetry of the Schrodinger Solution to see these waves in this form but I have demonstrated that such techniques do exist.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Mar 18 2007, 09:02 AM

Hi all,


Thanks LL, for your thorough response. I’ll try to respond in kind, and perhaps we can “move forward” with our ideas.

OK, so my interpretation of your answer to my question (“#1”) is, we agree with the basic premise of “photon” absorbtion/emission from bound electron “orbitals”. These are distances from the nucleus, and there are other factors that can influence the process.

“Textbook theory” is generally “one body” descriptions, and “ideal” equations. The atomic premise is no exception. The “assumption” is that you have an “incoming photon” to do the initial work, yet, the initial electron that has sent this “photon” is not included. This is what I’m trying to get to, with the questions.

So, YES, the distance from electron to nucleus, its’ ground state, is critical for determining the frequency that can be absorbed and re-emitted. The problem with this current theory is the “timing” (as in “historical”, not phase) of the event. This transaction that is being described, even by their own admission, is the “end” of 1 “photon” (“A”), and the beginning of another (“B”). The story, as far as I’m concerned, should start with the BEGINNING of “photon” A (not at the end). Doing this includes the distance between electrons that DEFINE the “life of photon A”, and their “holistic” field, that can be described by the ISL.

That is the question of “size” that I am asking. Do you “acknowledge” what I mean? I am making a “small” change to the current definition, and parameters. If you don’t understand this, or agree with it, then most of what I say will not matter to you. I do not agree with the linear approach, and the results and interpretations of it.


I'll address your other points next.



ciao,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

I am not sure what you mean by size? Size of what, as it relates to what?
This is ambiguous! A bit of a critique...you are assuming that I/we are
thinking along with you. Please detail your thoughts so that the ambiguity
doesn't leave us scratching our heads saying "what the hell is he talking
about?" We discuss so many varied topics and subjects that we need to
insure that the reader is following the trail of bread crumbs that we are
leading him or her with.

Regards,
LL

sorry!

"Size" should mean "distance" (radius) of the "fields", or something to that effect.

I am saying that that size should include BOTH electrons, that are involved in the "photon" transaction. NOT, both "photons" involved in a transition in eigenstates of ONE electron. That is the "change" I wish to make to current theory. That makes it a non-linear problem, in many ways. It is subtle, but far reaching.

You are saying that the EM fields of the electrons (outer) in the atoms of the slit-wall are "big enough" to do the "mixing".

I am saying that ALL electron "fields" are big enough, in that sense. The ISL will never go to zero, right? The ISL only takes the "intensity" of ONE body into the "effect" side of the equation, right? (even though the distance parameter is obviously from both parties) It is talking about the drop-off from ONE way, and disregarding the other party. The "2-way" (Cramer/Wheeler-Feynman) approach would have to treat these "distances" separately, that is, not as a single value "squared", but as the "center" of 2 values.

This "symmetry" between 2 interacting (resonant/entangled) electrons then gets to become something else as well: our familiar "node". With this symmetrical approach, the standard terms of frequency and wavelength "fit" naturally between these 2 energy-exchanging particles. Of course, our "receiving" electron is sending out "negative" frequencies, but this is allowed/accommodated for in EM theory.

The ONLY "good" reason that this is NOT the "most accepted" theory, is that it is an affront to our "causal" (linear) mindset. This model means that the "receiver" would "know" at the non-local distance (same time) as the "sender" initiates the "signal". This only "hurts" if you let it. Ego-centric, Earth-centric, Energy-centric limited views.

Everything is connected. ISL, among many other good reasons, says this is so.

The "communication" started EONS ago, not when we decide to "begin" an experiment (measurement). Evenly curved space must form circles.




T.Roc

Hi all,


Response to LL’s post to me, continued. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=189497


“#2” wasn’t a question, so I’ll skip it.

“#3”: This was a “PS”, and not completely necessary for this specific topic. All I was trying to point out, is that the “textbook” EM spectrum is linear. If we map this out, we get a continuous line. If “photons” can NEVER interact (change frequency), and electrons ONLY emit specific, discreet frequencies, then we can NOT have a “continuous spectrum. If frequency doubling, SHG, and integer harmonics are “peaks” in the measuring system, then we need a “loop”. It is that simple; only a non-linear EM spectrum will work. Current theory does not have this, “VRT” does.

“#4”: I’m not too sure why you thought this was “a “string along” ambiguous type of question”, but maybe my response to #1 helps? The point is, that you have said that the interference happens in the area of the slit, and prior to the slit wall. In the “near field” of the closest electrons. This is from the source, to the slit wall (group “A”), then mixing at the slit wall area electrons’ fields, then moving directly to the pattern of the screen. This is your idea, correct? This brings about another question, we can call “4a”:
“4a”: What about at the screen wall? Don’t these electrons want to do the same thing as the other electrons? Doesn’t that mean we need to consider the “mixing”/interference as happening with ALL of the electrons present?

The rest of “4” is regarding your view on the “vacuum”. It is not surprising that you “missed” that. You seem very unwilling to admit, because you worked in this area, that there is NO perfect vacuum. There is no “considerable” area that is free of the fixed resonance of a “particle”. This is empirical fact (“you seem unwilling to
capitulate to the reality of direct observation. ”).

With that in mind, then you see that the “mechanisms” that you are stating are NO different than what I am saying. That is why I said “how you can use the SAME phenomenon to argue AGAINST interference happening in one area, and then use it to SUPPORT your interference, in the "general area" of the slit.” We are both saying that this goes from electron to electron, with changes being made at each step. You, like current theory, are ONLY looking at the “obvious”, or “ideal” electrons, while I am willing to acknowledge all of them.

So, another chance:
“4b”: Is there a “perfect vacuum”?


“5”: You did not answer the question. Here it is again: “WHAT is it about SELF-INTERFERENCE of energy, that you allow for, that would preclude the "separate" interference of "different" energies?


Apparently, you do NOT accept “that self-interference happens between DIFFERENT frequencies, in the same wave packet”. This is not “textbook definition”, this is data from experiments. You then go into “phase angle relationships”, and OAM, that’s fine, we can call the energy between electrons “cheese” if necessary. Then we can talk about the interactions of “cheese”. I’ve already made the links to spin angular momentum, OAM, polarization, and wavelets. If you are saying that THESE things can interact, then so be it. That is why “photons” will remain in quotes for me.

Again, some links for reference:
Counterpropagating mutually incoherent vortex-induced rotating structures in optical photonic lattices
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=82019546

Counterpropagating self-trapped beams in optical photonic lattices
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=82019546

How a Dove prism transforms the orbital angular momentum of a light beam
http://www.icfo.es/images/publications/J06-056.pdf

Quantized Rotation of Atoms From Photons with Orbital Angular Momentum
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0607/0607171.pdf

Digital spiral imaging
http://www.opticsexpress.org/DirectPDFAcce...FTOKEN=82019546

Experimental interference of independent photons
http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=ap...nt-ph%2F0603048


Remember, we agree that the “photon” is a self-regenerating “wave”, that has slightly out of phase components. Let’s not get caught up in semantics.


“#6”: You still did not state a reason. I don’t get it; I’m looking for some Physics on that from you. This “observation” quote from you (I have
presented you this argument several times previously but you seem unwilling to
capitulate to the reality of direct observation. ) is junk. The “direct observation” that you speak of is a PERCEPTION phenomenon. The “white light” of the stars does not come from a “white” transition level. These “photons” MOST DEFINITELY have encountered MASS on there incredibly long journey. They are “not the same” as the “photons” that were emitted from the stars. Yes, the info is conveyed. Yes, we see them “unaltered”. No, this is not “proof” that there has not been interference on the way. On the contrary, it tells us something about the “equilibrium state” of the background radiation, and the interaction of a “beam” of light with it, and all of the electrons that are encountered on the way. We have already talked about the “soliton”, the best example of this relationship. What is happening is EIT, electromagnetically induced transparency, where “photons” are re-emitted UNALTERED via resonance, and a SHG like phenomenon.



Regards,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc, C2, GE, and ALL,

Have you considered the dipole "charge" relationship that exists between the
nucleus and its outer "mobile" electron? I am having trouble interpreting
what you are trying to propose by the statement "both electrons". If you are
stating that it is necessary for at least 2 complementary atoms to interact via their
electron shell level differences in order for a photon to be absorbed, then I am in
tentative agreement as that idea follows the concept that I had proposed in
the post I referenced to GE, regarding current flow dynamics at the atomic
matrix level.

Are talking about the root mean squared (RMS) "average" value? Yes or No?
As it regards to "power" loss, the ISL is a pure distance squaring phenomenon from
some source point. I do agree that all atoms that can align their dipoles in series
can resonate like a tuned antenna, at some integral number of wavelengths.

The key is the wavelength and the number of aligned resonant dipoles over some
distance or area. I'm just not sure how the dipoles need to be aligned and coupled
to the EM wave topology . Do they align to the nodes or the antinodes of the
EM wave, or does the expanding photon EM field sequentially address each
neighboring atom in series, which stimulates each atom to be a "quasi-dipole" until
some integral multiple of the wavelength(s) reaches the "end" of the linear atomic
"antenna" array? This effect of course, would be similar at the atoms at the
detector site. They would align their electrons (dipoles) to the arriving energy
and arrange themselves to be integral multiples of the arriving wavelengths.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. Anyone else is invited to
comment also.

Transmission is the starting point, detection is the end point for that specific event.
A circle has an infinite solution....Pi. I think you mean evenly curved space forms
"spheres". As Jal and yourself have pointed out, a sphere represents the optimal
and minimal energy condition/state.

Comments? Anyone is welcome to participate.

LL






the

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Mar 19 2007, 12:32 AM

Hi Good Elf,

Sorry I haven't responded on the Ashfar front. For some reason I find it difficult to get 'into' it and for that reason (if no other) I have no constructive thoughts.
If we look at the results of the Teachspin DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s..._combiplot2.gif ) we see they have drawn in a dotted line based on the prediction of the interference model. The match isn't exact and if we were writing this up we'd have to account for those mismatches. My own view is that the observed errors arise from failing to measure the distance between the slits correctly and (possibly) some dark current at the points of (near) total cancellation. When you speak of 'cavities' I have no idea whether you are suggesting they are responsible for all of the effect, some of the effect or perhaps you are drawing attention to an effect that might give rise to an error which the Teachspin equipment would be able to resolve. Please clarify.

Hi TRoc,

The “textbook” EM spectrum is linear because most processes in nature are linear. The ability to produce solitons by 'unnatural' means does not 'naturally' lead to the conclusion that all processes are non-linear. Photons are emitted with a continuous range of frequencies in (for example) thermal and sychrotron radiation. By unnatural processes (eg tuned cavities) we can generate any frequency we like. I don't understand what you mean by a 'loop'.

Hi Laserlight,
By your model it should be possible to mask off one slit on the side away from the source and half the 'interference' pattern would remain .. am I correct?

Best wishes,
-C2.

TRoc,

I think you meant that atomic elements emit a specific frequency...this is a
function of the total energy level of the specific element, which is
all of the combined energies contained within that element. Don't forget that
each element also has numerous isotopes that yield their own spectral
signature (frequency).

If we consider that the dipole detectors are being stimulated by the energy that
they are receiving, which are causing them to resonate like a receiving antenna
at some wavelength integer multiple, then any additional unmixed energy should also mix at the detector screen. Think of it like a dark movie theater with
a movie playing on the screen. Where has the signal mixing to form a picture
taken place, at the camera in the film, or at the screen? Now shine a flashlight at
the screen, it will wash out where the flashlight beam saturates the image when
it is received. It loses coherency where the additional energy mixes at the screen,
and we observe signal saturation in that location. I'm not sure that this last bit
helps.....just an gedanken "observation".

On the contrary, I agree that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum.
However, this is what led us to the issue of mean free path. So if you have
a few extremely random gas molecules moving around they can become
absorbers of light and re-emit it again but again my argument trumps....it is
matter!....Any EM interference that occurs happens within the influence
of the catalytic effect of the gas molecule.....Do you agree, or are we gonna have
to get dueling pistols to settle this?

I did answer the question. It is all about time and phase synchronicity of the wavelets of a wavefront. I previously proposed that "self interference" within a
wave pulse, is a matter of nearly synchronous timing and phasing between
wavelets within the same pulse that regeneratively reinforce each other. I also
referenced the post to GE about the 3D "corkscrew" OAM (orbital angular
momentum) that is not accurately graphically depicted in a propagating
"sinewave". Different energies have different sources, different timestamps,
and different "relativity". In order for these differences to mix or interfere, they
must do so in the presence of something physical that gets "displaced" by their
separate but simultaneously arriving energies. This physical displacement
gives both arriving frequencies the same timestamp relevance again as their
energies combine at that physical atomic location, and their combined energies are
superposed/mixed which generates an composite interference signal due to the
combined effects of the individual "displacements".

Consider white light....there are numerous spectral frequencies all propagating
together. These spectral frequencies still maintain their discrete characteristics,
do not "interfere" or lose their individuality, and can be separated by their
individual frequency. Now consider what happens when white light stimulates
matter. Specific colors are re-emitted if the receiving dipoles in matter are tuned
to a specific wavelength and the other spectral colors are absorbed.

#6....I just read this after writing my answers above. "Junk"....LOL! How do
you provide physics for something you can't directly measure or observe?
If you can't prove it directly or indirectly by association, it is theory, not physics.

I asked you show me proof or a mechanism of "spontaneous EM interference" between different frequency levels that does not involve the catalytic effect
of matter. I have cited other examples to support my argument illustrating that
different frequencies can be isolated from the "cacophony" by various styles of
filters designed to isolate or pass a specific frequency from spurious sources and
they still maintain their individual frequency characteristics with no apparent
interference observed. The only way that frequencies can mix or
blend "spontaneously" in open space is if they are they are the same
frequency and perfectly coherent. In this case they superpose their energy and cannot be separated or isolated by filters because they saturate the detector
with their combined energy.


LL

Hi C2,

How did you arrive at that conclusion? We know that we will observe diffraction
from a single slit, and yes there is interference observed at the detection
screen in the form of Airy rings or "side lobes".... but it is a different
and singular interference pattern.

Please explain how you derived your incorrect statement?

Regards,
LL

Hi all,


I feel like I see light at the end of the tunnel.

After reading LL's posts, I think it may just boil down to exactly what an "interaction", or interference is. What it does, what it means, etc.

Let me first respond to the questions, etc.

When I said this "I am saying that that size should include BOTH electrons, that are involved in the "photon" transaction. NOT, both "photons" involved in a transition in eigenstates of ONE electron. That is the "change" I wish to make to current theory. " I am talking about WHERE the "photon" came from in the first place, and then "traveled" to the receiving electron, raising its' state, and a NEW "photon" being re-emitted. BOTH electrons means in 2 separate atoms.

The definition as it stands now, is ALL from a single atoms' point if view. A "photon" (from unspecified source) is absorbed by a specific electron orbital, and then a NEW "photon" is re-emitted. The "story" is about TWO "photons", and ONE electron in an atom. The "story" I want to tell would be about the ONE "photon", between TWO atom bound electrons.

Again, this is subtle, and may not sound like a big deal. But I think it can change some perceptions, and the "cause and effect" circle. This could be the "chicken or the egg" type of question; but I think it is a MORE accurate description of what is taking place.


LL asked "Are talking about the root mean squared (RMS) "average" value? Yes or No?" Yes.

"As it regards to "power" loss, the ISL is a pure distance squaring phenomenon from some source point." Agreed.

Now, add in the change in perspective from above. We have "molecule A" and "molecule B", and a "photon" exchanged between them. From "A", ISL works as is standard. From "B's" perspective, however, the ISL is "inverted"; this "negative energy" GROWS as it moves towards "A". Of course, the way OUR equations, models, and time-frame of reference all work, this would be happening in "reverse" time, but, again, this is due to attempting to look at something from just one "preferred" frame. Looking at the "big picture", this exchange happens at the same time, and it is the "definition" of energy that changes. The "probabilities" are trading places: the potential energy of B starts at "zero", and grows until it reaches A, at its' maximum. The kinetic energy of A starts out at "zero", and grows to its' maximum, when it (the "photon") reaches B.

The importance here, is that we can establish a "maximum" wavelength (standing) between these two molecules. This is our "quasi-cavity", that will have a node at the center. It's all "harmonics" from there, to absorption.


LL asked " I'm just not sure how the dipoles need to be aligned and coupled
to the EM wave topology .
Let's come back to that. I'm going to "sign off" for now, and first answer your second post. (and yes, I did mean "sphere" for our 3D model).


C2 asked "The “textbook” EM spectrum is linear because most processes in nature are linear. The ability to produce solitons by 'unnatural' means does not 'naturally' lead to the conclusion that all processes are non-linear. Photons are emitted with a continuous range of frequencies in (for example) thermal and sychrotron radiation. By unnatural processes (eg tuned cavities) we can generate any frequency we like. I don't understand what you mean by a 'loop'.

What I'm saying is this: the Laws of Thermodynamics state that energy is conserved in an isolated system. This is idealistic, to me. Without the possibility of a "perfect vacuum", and in a "curved space", we have NO isolated systems. This does NOT mean that we can not run models, and experiments, with that idea in place, and get good Scientific results. History shows that we have. Now, all those "good ideas" have run dry, and we need something new, and fresh. The changes to looking at a "photon" transaction, that I just mentioned above is an example. What constitutes a "system" is the only thing that is easily changed. In our DSE, I have shown many (maybe all now?) of the "hidden variables" that are in the "isolated system" of the experiment.

I disagree that we can naturally create "photons" of any continuous frequency. The electron orbitals from all of the elements (and isotopes) create a set of discrete frequencies, when excited. (standard QM data) That is what we are talking about, not "shaking" the antenna for produce EM radiation of low frequencies.

I'm not really sure what you mean by solitons created "unnaturally". They were discovered in a canal/river of water. The Falaco solitons form is bodies of water. Rogue wave form out the open oceans. These are all within the "probabilities" that QM would predict (in fact they occur MORE often than theory allows). I am saying that there is a "quasi-soliton" property as well, that is formed from partially coherent light. (the geometry of a chord)

When I said "loop", I mean the "octave", frequency doubling, SHG, coherence, etc. This is STANDARD for frequencies of all types. The ENERGY is linear, meaning (within the visible light band) that "violet" has more energy than "red". What the standard EM spectrum chart can not show, in its' linear form, is the 1st harmonic of "red" is one equidistant step from violet. I have said before, that resonance is the most important phenomenon of Science. The system/model that we use to "measure" for this SHOULD be "tailored" for the job. Something like this:

http://www.pdn.cam.ac.uk/groups/cnbh/teach...pitch_helix.htm


ciao,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc,

The Teachspin DSE ( http://www.teachspin.com/instruments/two_s...periments.shtml ) uses an incandescent bulb as a source. An arbitrary frequency is selected from the available 'black body' spectrum by a dichroic filter. The dichroic filter is produced (probably) by vapour deposition onto a piece of glass and can be made to select any desired frequency. We may agree that the ability to select a particular frequency is 'unnatural' but surely Black body radiation is 'natural'?

Solitons can only form and propagate where there is the 'right' amount of non-linearity. The right amount of non-linearity clearly exists in canals, may exist in certain regions of the ocean and can be introduced into optical fibres.. these are all rather special circumstances.

I am saying you need to support that claim by showing the existence of the right conditions for soliton formation/propagation. If the speed of light in free space is independent of frequency then (personally) I would take that as 'proof' that the right conditions for soliton formation do not exist in free space.

Hi Laserlight,
Re:- masking off one slit on the detector side.
As we know .. the classical explanation of interference is that it is an effect due to the summation of all sources. The Laserlight and Good Elf explanations involve the claim that the interference is generated at the slits .. if this is correct then we should be able to mask off one slit and still observe the effect from the unmasked slit .. have I missed the point of your claim that interference is generated at the slits?

Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi Confused2,

There is a "non-sequitur" there in a possible misunderstanding of the nature of interference. You cannot observe double slit interference patterns when you only have one slit diffraction pattern. The interference pattern/diffraction pattern is existing in space and is a transform from ordinary space to reciprocal space and from temporal domain to the frequency domain generated by secondary sources of the same wavefront interfering spatially. Each slit/pinhole source is half of the entire interference pattern (true)... but interference patterns are not scalar entities but complex plane entities.

There will be some residual "excitation" in the dark bands between peaks. If you were to narrow the peaks as I indicated in my previous post and to increase their number you would find that in among that "noise" as you increased the slits to a very large number will be some exceedingly bright peaks ... much brighter by about a magnitude as we begin to resolve the finer cavities and its modes. As you can see there is actually no randomness there but enfolded order. It is not discerned with the double slit but is "hidden" within that pattern when we "sort the frequencies" with a grating.
Multiple Slit Diffraction... scroll down
... as we increase the number of slits the increased resolution of the lines lead to these states becoming finely peaked as the "tuning" increases...
Grating Intensity Comparison
Imagine the effect when you hit a million slits...
Here we see the the effect as spectra...
Diffraction Grating
This should break the original almost monochromatic LASER Light into its component frequencies (provided the slits are fine enough).

This is a spectra of sound where we have a fundamental frequency and a number of "overtones". The same sort of phenomenon will happen with lasers. The photons created in the emission process have upper (e + hf') and lower (e - hf') sidebands but only the upper sidebands are emitted with the photons and the lower frequency sidebands are re-absorbed at source as part of the inductive field. This means photons are a bit different to standard transmitters having that "work function". So the transmitted photons carry away the energy e = hf and the lower frequencies return to source inductively as you see in this animation (with a little imagination)...

.... Um... see it "sucking in there" after transmitting a photon (a little arm and hand waving there). This source information is evanescent and is lost from the transmitted photons... or is it? he he he!

The cavity is still the bit that you may choose to not accept but it is a resonance.

The boundaries of these finer structures shown in Young's Illustration are still there but their intensity is attenuated just like the peaks but would be resolved if the slits were more numerous and finer. These define the cavities in atomic orbitals as well and appear in the solutions to Schrodinger's Equation. Remember a cavity can have a boundary that is continuous or broken... It can have Neumann, Dirichlet or Mixed conditions or even Cauchy or Periodic Boundary Conditions. Personally I have no real idea how to exactly solve this problem since I have never seen a Light cone Wall. Clearly an atom is a cavity yet the cavity is normally "unseen". Take the way that the inner shells "shield" the outer shells from the effects of the electrostatic field of the nucleus.

I hope that helps.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Mar 19 2007, 03:10 PM

Off topic but of interest for "Aussies".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070319/sc_nm/...KOxRn9MqizMWM0F


LL