Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi yquantum,Good Elf,

yquantum - many thanks for your post.

To move the discussion forward I've been trying to do a simplified (my version) Feynman path integral AND a simplified EM wave solution to show the similarities/differences .. hopefully they should both give the same same answer. Unfortunately my PC has crashed and lost the post just as it was nearly ready - maybe it will come out better second time round...

Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi Good Elf, (+ yquantum et al)

GE- I think you have it the wrong way round - students are interested in giving the best possible analysis because otherwise they get no marks.. 'ballpark' is for amateurs.

Ideally we ought to be able to work out the temperature of the bulb filament (in the Teachspin DSE) from the results they have been kind enough to publish.

If we are to pretend to be 'not amateurs' (from memory) we need to do things like
* Calculate a theoretical result
* Compare the calculated result with the experimental result.
* Assess errors
* Give a conclusion

Does that seem reasonable?

As students we didn't need to choose between other people's equations - we're expected to make up our own.

If we look to Frauenhofer and Fresnel for inspiration .. we see they're not using the inverse square law and Good Elf wants us to. It might be interesting to consider why they're not bothering with the inverse square law .. if we look at the diffraction pattern in the Teachspin DSE we see that we are looking at path length differences of a wavelength of light from a point that is about a metre from the slit... the difference is less than 1 part in a million.

I'll confess from the start that what I'm up to is a (simplified) 'sum over paths' calculation. I started the calculation process here ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=183204 ) with a resounding lack of response .. the only way to make progress would seem to be to continue the process.

Perhaps I should continue this calculation but would anyone even read it? By keeping the path lengths as actual lengths right up to the bitter end we can eliminate the inverse square law as a source of errors . In fairness the difference between paths from either slit may be many wavelengths so we ought to do the job properly - we could then plug the same equation into the MMX or K-T without embarrassment.

Cavities.. oh dear. Feynman says we have to take into account any path that doesn't cancel out. We need to look at reflections from the sides of any 'cavity' and add these in. My own 'view' is that we can reduce this effect to any desired level by designing out these reflections (lots of black paint) and making the 'cavity' as big as we like so the inverse square law takes care of anything that is left over. Regardless of my views we ought to do a calculation for a sample cavity to get an idea of how big the effect is going to be. Maybe later.

So far I've only talked about 'sum over paths' - is this equivalent to solving the EM equation? Perhaps the question should be - in what way is it NOT equivalent to solving the EM equation?

Looking at the GE enthusiasm for modeling photons using combinations of classical waves .. as soon as we put these (infinitely divisible) combinations through two slits we end up with two of them arriving at various points at different times (unless you want to modify 'c' to suit). My interpretation of what Feynman is saying is that whatever photons you fire at the DSE you will get the same interference effect (I'm not sure how this merges into quantum field theory but I guess it must). My objection to classical models of photons and the DSE is that (as I see it obviously) there is no 'physics' way to get the beast back into the sort of pattern that was the sole reason for claiming it was a good idea in the first place. Of course, if it makes no difference what shape your pulse is then you could claim it must have got itself back together.

Invoking Twissers and Vissers doesn't change the fact that for the last two hundred years everybody else has been able to use the DSE to measure wavelength and they probably will be able to do the same in two hundred years time.

Must do some work .Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
-C2.

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

First I would like to thank yquantum for his reference.

Please note M Gondran is no "slouch", I would say he is an exceptional individual:

The bad news is I was not able to actually find a downloadable copy of this paper on-line but the good news is this was an almost endless jumping off point for other papers and their interconnectedness to deBroglie-Bohm trajectory predictions and to the way these relate to the DSE and to other theories such as The Dirac Equation which is a Relativistic Extension to the less accurate Schrodinger Equation. The upshot of all this is a bit of an adventure that involves the two Gondran Researchers (brothers or father and son or other relation I do not immediately know), who have cooperatively produced a convincing array of theoretical works which immensely clarifies the hidden classical behavior of particles acted on by electric fields due to slits or magnetic influences of the Stern-Gerlach experiment using Pauli spinors. What appears to be the case is as suspected they have determined that the individual trajectories of quantum particles follow exactly a post-hoc deterministic path according to the deBroglie-Bohm Theory and it is purely classical in nature. The reason for previously mistaking this otherwise chaotic process for non-classical behavior is made clear and stems from the Heisenberg Uncertainty relationship and the mostly ignoring of the influence of spin on quantum system as a fundamental property. In one of their papers it is shown that:

This identifies the 2D harmonic oscillator coherent state with a soliton with common resonant properties. There are other works "Proposed experiment with Rydberg atoms to test the wave function interpretation Authors: M.Gondran, M. Bozic, D. Arsenovic, A. Gondran (Submitted on 15 Jan 2007)" that use the Feynman Path Integral Method mentioned in the primary paper quoted by yquantum (unfortunately not sourced here) to show this is simply a semi-classical phenomenon in the space in front and behind the slits showing that there are two possible ways to interpret these experiments, one of which has been taken for granted and the other possibility (involving deBroglie-Bohm Trajectories) showing the non-disappearance of the "wavefunction" in regions where there are no particles. This leads rapidly to a violation of the Born Interpretation. It is acknowledged that while a priori prediction of a deBroglie-Bohm Trajectory is not possible, it has been shown that a post-hoc evaluation shows far more information about the trajectory than is possible using a pure Quantum Electrodynamic or other approach that use only statistical information. What is shown is the trajectories of individual particles may be analyzed using these methods. No other methods so far can produce this extra information. Specific tests of this theory is indicated. While the theory seems to be directed to "hard particles" there are some interesting conclusions that can be drawn from the experiments for photons and why they spread and the meaning of this as a phenomenon.

Without analysis I would like to present this bulk of information, mostly from the Preprint Archive, to support this line of discussion...

I only wish that I was able to lay my hands on the paper that yquantum originally was alluding to...
"Numerical simulation of the double slit interference with ultracold atoms, Michel Gondran and Alexandre Gondran"

Also I completely reject the inference that I am "pushing" the inverse sdquare law in any shape of form, what I am pushing is a resonant cavity model of space leading to cavities that can explain the Double Slit Experiment, Observing later. The latter part of this question I believe is linked with the concept of reciprocal space and reciprocal time (as frequency) connecting our local spaces with other resonant spaces non-locally. I realize that Confused2 is trying to convert what I am saying into a "sound byte" but I reject any simplification just to make it more understandable. What it then becomes is an easily attackable "theory" dumbed down to some banal outcomes that cannot be of any great use. I do not say that I c an provide all the answers to this problem , all I can show is that Confused2's simplistic model (no matter how it is dressed up) based on path lengths is incompatible with a modern understanding of the principles behind this simplification.

With all respect I acknowledge that while the simplification that Confused2 keeps reiterating is "fine" as far as it goes... It is not a way toward any general understanding of the deeper optical principles behind this phenomena. Indeed it is linked closely to some of the most complicated experimental results of our time that goes way beyond a two dimensional view of the Double Slit Experiment. If there is anything actually wrong with what I have presented then I am sure that Confused2 would have immediately jumped on it from the start. What Confused2 is continuing to state is there is nothing more than the simple high school experiment as shown by that single photon at a time electronic experiment. It is elegant and it is "complete" but only for the experiment as stated. It is no longer at the cutting edge of the current development as indicated in these papers and the many others I have presented over the months.

What all these papers are showing is that we are dealing with resonant electromagnetic cavities within and without these defined spatial volumes and these cavities result in the formation of structure in that space not commonly acknowledged in most treatments of this subject. It is very clear that a lot more information can be derived with the knowledge of the placement of the active sources and the sinks and the geometry of all space reachable by these waves. The particle aspect of the systems should be de-emphasized and until a collapse of the state is necessary the system has underdefined dynamical properties that can be determined with great accuracy after the event. These resonant cavities ... including even the possibility of our "Soliton Universe" represent boundaries to the Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory at it's light cone. The analysis as presented is clearly a retarded field solution. If this was extended to include solitons resonant in time as indicated by the paper I presented here recently, I am sure this would be highly productive.
Good Elf here recently - A photon-like wavepacket with quantised properties based on classical Maxwell's equations: John E. Carroll (Submitted on 20 Sep 2006)

What is also emerging is the "size" of a particle defines the additional properties such as mass, dipole moment, charge and other "emergent" issues you will find as you pick through this accessible grouping of Papers by these authors. Most of the most puzzling aspects of physics are treated with outcomes that suggest a common resolution to the phenomena sometime very soon.

Once again I would like to thank yquantum for this very productive lead at this time.

Cheers

PS:

Photons never divide up... cannot divide up... spatial separation does not change any transit times or delays. You cannot know how to divide up a wave... it is "forbidden" and would "force" a "which way" interpretation. There cannot be "particle interpretation" only a "wave interpretation" before the collapse of the state. All you are able to do is restrict the infinite number of paths to less than every possible path. Even a "protective measurement" cannot be used to localize the "particle" without collapsing the wave state. Wrong interpretation and I fear there is a missing chunk in your understanding of what I am trying to say, I may need to try harder to help you with this idea. You cannot have a single photon "particle" travel two paths it is a quantum.. divisibility is forbidden by Dirac along conservation of energy grounds. Photons are emitted as a single quantum of energy and are received as a single quantum of energy. Photons are literally defined by the spreading light cone walls so where else is it able to go?? For a particular photon and for a particular physical space and its geometry, show me where the light cone walls are for the photon wave and I will show you where the photon is... at least it's only presence we can possibly know without collapsing the wavefunction.

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Apr 21 2007, 04:50 AM

Photons never divide up... cannot divide up... spatial separation does not change any transit times or delays. You cannot know how to divide up a wave... it is "forbidden" and would "force" a "which way" interpretation. There cannot be "particle interpretation" only a "wave interpretation" before the collapse of the state. All you are able to do is restrict the infinite number of paths to less than every possible path. Even a "protective measurement" cannot be used to localize the "particle" without collapsing the wave state. Wrong interpretation and I fear there is a missing chunk in your understanding of what I am trying to say, I may need to try harder to help you with this idea. You cannot have a single photon "particle" travel two paths it is a quantum.. divisibility is forbidden by Dirac along conservation of energy grounds. Photons are emitted as a single quantum of energy and are received

That reference on spin is very extensive but I am unsure that this is the best way to deal with electrons. I will need to think about it a bit. For instance The electric charge distribution inside of the electron does seem to be difficult to explain using a common charge distribution. High Energy Physics Experiments seem to indicate that electrons practically have no discernible sized "core"... this is odd for something that has a magnetic dipole moment.
http://www.electronspin.org/2.htm
I am probably missing something here and you better tell me what it is...

so the elecrton looks like a fuzzy ball of increasing density, or foamy ball with increaing density or what?

Hi Neil,

This is one of the most important points. The electric field just keeps increasing the further you get towards the core. There is no actual "charge substance" there. It is totally electrically structureless. If this was some kind of "charge" then as you moved a test charge toward the center of the electrically charged ball at the center of this field should then fall off to zero as r -> 0 then q -> 0. No such luck... the field just keeps climbing all the way up the scale to the highest energy regimes. This should be an analogy with gravity and the Earth and tunneling into the core (provided the center was not molten). If you made an evacuated hole down there you would be "freely falling" in zero gee at the Earths core. What is seen in the electrons case is no "core" of "charged matter" and no drop off in "gravity" as you move towards the center. You also see no current loops to be sources the origin for those magnetic dipoles either, but there is spin. Of course that mass is still a good question. To me the answer is this place at r -> 0 in space where the electric field is apparently radiating from and where the magnetic dipole moment is coming from is simply a single point on our hyperplane above which the real object is residing beyond the bounds of our space as defined by the local light cone.

If you look at the equations that define the quantum numbers l, m, n is simply the harmonics on a sphere... what sphere?... is the interesting question.
Wolfram Research: Spherical Harmonics... see images below

So all this structure that obviously must be somewhere... is hidden "dimensionally". It's nature is that of a resonant soliton.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Apr 21 2007, 07:57 AM

Hi Good Elf,

I regret that we seem to be going round again..
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone let us imagine the 'flash of light' comes from the DSE light source.
Looking at the experimental results here (for the umpteenth time)

We see (almost) no photons are detected at a point P if the path difference to P is an (integer + 0.5) wavelengths.
If the frequency of our light is f (something like 10^14 Hz ) then each cycle represents a time difference of 1/f (by definition). For (say) P_20.5 the flash of light (as defined in the light cone article) will be in the past of one path and the future of the other path for 20.5/f seconds. All we need to do is explain why the flash of light (via the shortest path) is never detected even though (classically) no information about the second path can reach P_20.5 for 20.5/f seconds.
Do we at least agree about the nature of light cones?
Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi Confused2,

Let me reiterate... the "waves" propagating from the double slits are not "traveling waves" they are "standing waves", this is still a resonant chamber no matter how much you use the black paint mentioned before. It is true that energy is flowing toward the screen but waves are not "rippling" in that direction. I fully realize that many "authors" use illustrations that show traveling waves and this is wrong. A few moments to think about that should indicate why that is so. A single photon could not interfere with itself if it was only involved in a traveling wave yet our experiment shows that a single photon does interfere with itself and only itself. I see your point but it is not what is experimentally proven. Analysis in the previous papers mentioned above shows this is the result of optical solitons (with spin) resonating and spreading into the cavity, satisfying a semi-classical version The Dirac Wave Equation using spinors which is similar to Schrodingers Wave Equation but more accurate.

The illumination pattern is a feature of the nodes and antinodes in a cavity (damped or undamped). The difference between the crests are not wavelengths of the light they are wavenumbers related to the Fourier Dispersion which are unrelated directly to the wavelength of the illumination... they are related reciprocally (reciprocal centimeter or 1/cm in cgs units... a kind of reciprocal space compared to the "conjugate domain") and depend on the angular dispersion so they are not very "evenly distributed".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavenumber

t just so happens that in your favorite image you have restricted the angle of dispersion to a very small one (a couple of degrees) so they appear to be almost even. Have a look at this interference patterns.

Check out the high angles.
This is what a "real world" double slit experiment actually looks like...

Taken from Hyperphysics:Double Slit Diffraction
Check out the relative spacing between the red blobs... The "path lengths" are important to the DSE because they represent resonant intervals and the appearance of the nodes and antinodes despite the amount of damping applied with black paint.

Take another look at Cymatics and realize in a really complex resonant cavity the wavenumbers are quite interesting as a pattern and differ with location and direction. The "patch quilt" are standing waves with nodes and antinodes. This is also two dimensional and in the real world it will be three dimensional (maybe more?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymatics
Admittedly this is an illustration of "sound" not "light" but optical cavities have a similar mostly unseen response.


Cheers

Hi GE, C2, et al,

I really disagree with this statement. Standing waves are merely travelling
waves that are synchronous in timing and only appear as being stationary even
though they are advancing.

In radar waveguides, standing waves set up periodic standing wave patterns
but I can assure you that the waves are moving from their own point of
reference. We are merely observing a harmonic timing phenomenon, similar
to what is observed when a synchronous strobe light "stops" the blade rotation
of a fan. If you don't think the fan blade is moving just try putting your
finger where the blade appears not to be.....

The wave is moving/propagating from its own timing perspective, what we are
observing are merely "stationary" harmonics of the advancing waves caused by
geometry and timing.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Apr 21 2007, 04:30 PM

Hi All,

If we really think about the ramifications of my previous post, regarding
how "standing" waves are merely a relative timing phenomenon created by
a geometrical phasing relationship when observed from a "stationary" point of
view, it seems that perhaps we have been overlooking a very basic issue
that lies at the heart of the DSE and all standing wave phenomena.

Standing waves are harmonic artifacts of wave overlap. They are the resultant of
the geometric spatial locations where wave energy adds or subtracts. It is the
superposition of energy and time relative constructive or destructive
wave interference at specific points in geometric space.

In that respect, the idea that C2 has been supporting is exactly correct, as far as
it goes. The pattern that is observed on the detection screen is the harmonic
point of mixing of the overlapping waveforms that cross at that "plane location" in
space.

I think we all agree with that concept as the math supports and can predict this
result.

Yes, there are "standing" waves that generate the nodes and anti-nodes of the
resultant observed waveform, but these are merely mathematical mixing
progressions that result from different time synchronous waves that propagate from separate source points.

The sine wave signal mixing starts in the area between the slits, at the slit wall, where
the expanding waves initially overlap and mix. The individual wave fronts
propagate from their initial source locations and radiate outward from those
points and obey the rule of the inverse square law. The further that they
radiate from their individual sources, the longer it takes for their signal timing to
become coincident and overlap and form standing waves. The individual
propagating wave frequency remains the same, but as the spatial distance from
the slit wall to the screen increases the synchronous wave timing interval is also
increasing, so what we get is an increase of timing that doubles with distance and
an expanding standing wave pattern that increases as a function of distance from
the sources.

http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/ccss/ed...bin/projApp.htm

Comments, discussion welcomed.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Apr 21 2007, 06:48 PM

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

I really disagree with this statement. Standing waves are merely travelling waves that are synchronous in timing and only appear as being stationary even though they are advancing.

In radar waveguides, standing waves set up periodic standing wave patterns but I can assure you that the waves are moving from their own point of reference. We are merely observing a harmonic timing phenomenon, similar to what is observed when a synchronous strobe light "stops" the blade rotation of a fan. If you don't think the fan blade is moving just try putting your finger where the blade appears not to be.....

The wave is moving/propagating from its own timing perspective, what we are observing are merely "stationary" harmonics of the advancing waves caused by geometry and timing.

I am well aware of unstable situations where the actual cavity is changing it's properties. For instance when a bar of metal heats up it changes it length so any cavities made from a bar of metal will alter in the way the standing waves are formed if allowed to warm. Another case is unstable sources and transition phases between switch-on and stable continuous crystal locked running using optical and radio frequency sources. These are problems in systems and do not represent any change in what I am saying. Some cavities are more susceptible to small changes in their dimensions than others and this is different at every different frequency (remember this cavity technically has a extremely large superposition of states one for every possible frequency of the quantum oscillator). What I am saying is that stable operation of a "cavity" for fixed source wavelength, fixed cavity dimensions and stable conditions is "always" guaranteed. One individual photon of fixed spatial phase emitted one at a time from a single source placed at a fixed position, even emitted at irregular intervals of time are "correlated", produces the same outcome as the same source driven into continuous wave operation. I know this because this is the experimental fact as derived not from hearsay but through experiment. C2 has also been emphasizing this point ad nausium and I am not about to forget that one photon at a time has the same outcome as a trillion photons a second continuously. It is a fortunate thing that the design of the double slit experiment at optical frequencies leads to only "slow" changes in the patterns on the screen... drop that frequency down from the optical frequencies into the radio band and you will soon lose control of those "neat" bands on the screen.

This is related to the problem in holography when you want to take a hologram of a very dark room using a single photon at a time from a quantum dot placed somewhere in that dark room. It will work as long as everything in that room remains "very still", most especially the source itself.

Move the quantum dot source by a couple of nanometers and you will produce a completely different hologram and if this had occurred half way into the exposure it will "overwrite" what is already there leading to a mostly unusable plate. Take the case of the Interferometer... Extend the length of one arm of an interferometer a tad and a completely different set of fringes will be seen and the actual number of those fringes is significant not just the position... exposure of photographic plates using these fringes is different depending on extremely small differences in the length of the tube. This relates to the phase of the standing wave.

There are consequences that flow on from this idea. Have a read of the Gondran Papers and the significance of the source in the final outcome of the experiment. In standard quantum theory the source plays little or no role and the actual individual paths are indeterminate, but in deBroglie-Bohm Trajectories for individual photons or in this case electrons, it is of crucial significance (as it is in making holograms). A single photon (or ballistic electron) in a system responds to the shape of the entire cavity through resonance with it's deBroglie wave, an external property independent of the actual photon, and produces standing waves which leads to the interference fringes. I am very careful to emphasize this is a quantum wave phenomenon not a particle phenomenon so the electrons used in coherent experiments must be "prepared" to exhibit this effect since not all electrons will produce interference fringes as you may already know. I have already cited many instances of this and I was really hoping people will have understood this point. Phase does matter.

Cheers

PS: In passing from the "external realm" to the internal cavity, the wave undergoes a Fourier Transform. This means that optically speaking we have moved from the spatial and temporal domain to reciprocal space (wavenumber) and frequency domain (reciprocal time). These are now the new "natural units". It is the reason why a lot of math procedures cannot be used across this boundary because reciprocals can lead to functions "blowing up" because of division by zero. Yet nature can handle this transform without any problems or singularities because the Fourier Transform in any number of dimensions is 100% conservative and invertible. This "simple optical machine" illustrates the principle...

It now responds to the internal geometry of the "new" cavity and this influences the dispersion. A single pinhole in a cavity wall will still cause an "image" of all external sources to form on the opposite cavity wall (Da Vinci's Camera Obscura) but according to correlation and proximity of sources you may have interference as well. So the information of the outside Universe is carried into the inside cavity Universe (for one source or for many sources). The fact that many holes may be in the cavity means that each one carries some information of the external source(s) into the cavity... Just like organ pipes or a flute with many holes responds to the changing "boundary conditions" of the internal cavity. Interestingly the information about the cavity itself is obtained from within the cavity, this is independent of the photons (or deBroglie Electron Waves) that are dispersed in it and this is an added layer of information. This is a Russian Doll Set.

It's a Holographic Universe.

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Apr 22 2007, 02:09 AM

Hi GE, C2 and All,

GE I don't disagree with your latest argument. One of the keys to the DSE
is the idea that the originating source signal(s) must have time coherency. If the
source signals are not coherent in some form, there will be no resulting
interference and no coincident standing wave timing pattern observed. Coherent
waves generate second order harmonics within the confines of a cavity when the
wave energy contained in each primary wave maintains a "fixed"
phase and tiiming relationship within a fixed spatial geometry.

This is phase timing coincidence over a fixed spatial domain.

The second order harmonics (and additional orders), that are generated by signal
energy overlap, follow the inverse square law according to distance from the
source. The energy available in the standing waves decreases inversely with the
square of the distance from the source.

In order for there to be "interference", and for standing waves to occur, there
must be a fixed coherency of the wave(s) across 4 dimensions... x, y, z, and time.
This wave "signal coherency" forms energy distribution interference patterns
that are harmonic orders of the original source frequency and this interference
forms the standing waves across some fixed spatial domain or distance. If the
spatial distance isn't "fixed" (is moving) we observe a doppler wave shift effect
because the timing of the moving signal changes relative to a fixed source
reference point. In this case, the second order harmonic waves become
second order traveling waves, but you already know how this doppler phenomenon works.
The point being that standing waves are the energy
signature of the original source frequency at fixed points in space. Ideally,
the original source frequency waveform is propagating unimpeded thru space, but
the second order(+) standing wave energy signature that it generates is fixed by
its relationship to the geometry of the space between 2 fixed points, which are
the source and the "sink".

In the doppler case, the original coherent source frequency remains the same,
relative to its own frame of reference, but the second order(+) resultant travelling
wave energy changes with the change in distance and relative time and we
get a red or blue color shift.

The points where time coincident standing waves superpose their energy signatures
in 4D space is where interference patterns can be observed. Two (or more)
phased and time coincident coherent standing waves that occupy the same space
at the same time superpose the energy that they contain at the fixed point of
observation/measurement, which can range between a node or an anti-node.
In the DSE we observe the energy superposition in 2 dimensions, y and z, at the
point of detection at a fixed relative point in time.

Comments?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Apr 22 2007, 06:33 AM

The slits (actually pinholes - not one of my best attempts) start about about 200mm from the detector and are advanced in a wibbly wobbly way along a screw thread .. a total of about 0.75 mm forwards.

Dim the lights, cuddle up with a friend - Watch the movie!

Best wishes,
-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Apr 22 2007, 12:10 PM

Hi C2,
Can you explain the "drift" observed? The waves stay synchronized between them
selves but the entire scene moves. Is it the loss of sync between the standing
wave pattern and the time sync of the camera? It seems similar to how a
waveform travels when there is a mismatch of a sync pulse on an o-scope?
I'm betting that if you change the frame rate of the camera the drift rate will
change with it. Perhaps you can achieve timing sync by changing the frame rate.

Comments?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Apr 22 2007, 02:23 PM

Oh dear (again). The drift was (mostly) deliberate. Imagine a miniature lathe bed with the laser and slits sitting on it. Just winding forward looks like nothing happenning so I didn't try to capture it. The threaded rod on the lathe bed isn't perfectly straight so it introduces those 'wiggles' which unfortunately seem to have ended up looking like jumps after compression. The posted video has been compressed down from the original 4Mb down to 96k so's everyone can see it (and to save my bandwidth).
What I thought it showed rather nicely was that the pattern remains the same despite the changes of angle and a change of distance of over a 1,000 wavelengths. I don't think it would have been very convincing if I'd just showed two pictures that looked exactly the same. If you grab fames from the start and finish and compare the same region I think there is a fairly convincing 'no change'. I can grab from the original if you like.
I'll take some more images while I'm set up for it - anything you'd like me to try?
Best wishes,
-C2.

Hi GE,

I have given some thought to your previous post and some of your long standing
scientific positions about the nature and characteristics of photons and I find
myself in philosophical disagreement on several points.

Your comment ala Feynman....."A photon seeks all paths througout the universe".

My thoughts/argument:

I think that an individual photon seeks all paths within the confines of its individual
"light cone" cavity extremes. I do not believe that the wave form extends ad
infinitum thruout the universe/space, this is illogical and highly questionable.

IMO, a photon exists and propagates within the physical limits of its own discrete
waveform, what you would call its light cone wall and what I consider to be the
extreme limits of expansion of the wave form over the peak to peak time
extremes of the wave form within its interactive "cavity" of existence. I believe
that a photon exists within the bounds of its own "cavity channel" which is
determined by its frequency. The higher the
frequency of the photon, the smaller the outer boundaries of the "channel" (light
cone) that the discrete photon quanta propagates within. Conceptually, this
supports the idea of the "particle" aspect of a discrete photon. It represents
the "particle" attribute of the discrete quanta of energy that is being transported....
the work function component that is being transported by the wave
energy. In other words, the photon wave form cavity channel has physical limits.

I think that individual photons do overlap into each other's discrete
"energy channel" since they are discrete quanta that originate from different
atoms but that, over distance from the source, there is a separation of the "channels"
over time/distance as it follows the ISL. "Space" expands over
distance from the source (ISL), but the individual light channel does not, which is
why each photon is able to infinitely maintain the discrete energy package it is
transporting until such time that it is detected and the energy it contains changes form.

Comments, other ideas, discussion welcomed.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Apr 22 2007, 03:50 PM