Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Siau, yquantum, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, "Why Not?", Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al (sorry if I am missing anyone at this point)

Thanks yquantum and thank you all for your kind words. I will be able to read from a seated position (continually) as of Sunday (Australian time)... Thank you you all for your kind wishes and I am very touched by your concern. And thanks for the "Virtual Brownies" "THEY"!!! they did help!

I must literally get some "shut eye " now.

Cheers

Ahoy GE,

Thougth that I'd inject some nautical humor, since I viusalize you wearing
a patch over one eye. Hope all is well. Good to see you posting again.

All you need is a parrot standing on your shoulder.....that is, unless elves afraid of
parrots?

LL

Hi all,


LL, thank you for the compliment. I must say that it feels great to be "understood". I know that this is as much (or more) because of my "delivery" as anything. Through consistently "re-trying", and with the patience of C2 and GE, I have been getting better at the "delivery". This thread has also pushed me forward, too. C2 once asked me, "what can you do with it?", and that gave me a push, too. What can we do with it??


LL-

That is basically, "the matrix" form; arranging the "fractal" harmonic series without a zero, and instead (of 10_ten), having the "return" (how many symbols used before the first one is used again, with modification) based on resonance, or the 1:2 relation, and creating "sub-steps" between that fundamental principle. "2" is just a "scaled extension" of "1"; a harmonic.


C2 is asking, "am I still reading from my matrix". Yes, and no. It is just logical, simple math that makes the matrix, and I am using that logic. This is similar (perhaps) to WN? 's earlier questions/perspective.


The matrix is not going to "answer", it is a tool to use, and we need to construct "questions" in order to use it. It is like the "hardware" of a computer: it needs software (instructions) to actually "do something".


It would be more instructive (IMO), and keeping closer to the thread topic, if we just look at the traditional "harmonic series", and a recursive "command" that will create it. This is also the "command line", or "quantitative" starting point of the values that can be extended to "matrix" form, although, for those who might have missed this before, it is not a "standard matrix" by any means. It is like combining a frequency comb, with a matrix. This description may still be "lacking", though.


We can start with the harmonic series. As is typical, we'll have to "sort through" a few different definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_%28music%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_seri...8mathematics%29

This is why I refer to our standard decimal system, as a "+1" progression (integer). This is deeper than "what base to use", it is tied to the number of symbols used for the concept of "numbers", and physical counting. Similar to what WN? said recently, " it really doesn't matter what units we use..".

Also, LL posted this:

That is precisely my position; that the math that we use normally is meant to be easy and convenient, and says nothing about "resonance". The concept of frequency as a rate of vibration, and as the "first use of abstract math", goes back (at least) to Pythagoras. He tried (in vain) to describe "consonance" with whole fractions. This was from a "fear" of irrational numbers (they actually though them to be "illogical", and untidy). Of course, if they had our calculators, I can guarantee that he would have embraced them. You see, when you combine "math and religion", as they did, your "holiness" would be judged by your ability to throw around answers to mathematical questions. Everyone looks rather dull, when calculating an irrational number by hand!! Like most religiously inspired "bad guys", things not easily explained are better "demonized", so as not to make the "leader" look bad. This is human nature, and Physics has not escaped the same mentality.


Finding an exponential, that will approximate the harmonic series, is a much better use of your time. That is what I presume went through the mind of the gentleman (sorry, I can't recall his name) who's job it was to "make the harpsichord bigger". There is (hopefully, obvious) more to the story than that, but it suffices to say that musicians wanted the "keys" to be in some ordered (and reachable) fashion, and that means that the "inverse" had to be applied to the length of the strings, which would require very odd, and large instruments (harp). Some sort of "symmetrical balance" had to be achieved, and it required a new look at the interval used to divide "harmonic space". [for those history buffs, I think that the scale was written first, but literally, there were no instruments capable of taking advantage of it]

There is a key factor: frequency is NOT evenly spaced around the integer division of space.


The speed of light constant, along with the 1 meter, and the 1 second, create "integer space". When we use evenly divided space such as that, we get JUMPS in their inverse, "frequency". Think about the "foundational equations" of QM, taking integer PATH lengths, and measuring the energy by " E = h f ". "you mean we don't need a "quantum" postulate"? No, it is a mathematical consequence of measuring energy first by integer wavelengths, and then "converting" to the inverse, and calculating by frequency. The concept of "wavelength" is not "simple" integer, it is whole fractions, whose inverse are exponents (when converted to decimal).


The most basic example is 1:2 , and its inverse, 2:1 . If we measure the "minimum fundamental" of 1 wavelength, we calculate the frequency by dividing c by wavelength. This has a certain energy. Now, if we wish to "increase the magnification", and try to measure the next wavelength down, we find that we need "twice the energy" (2f), and so on.


As we learned to probe the atom, and learned about "resonance" the "hard way", we found that only specific frequencies interacted with an atom. We also found a "limit", where the energy changed what we were measuring (ionize). This limit, for every element, is 2 x the fundamental frequency, or "eigenstate" .


So, you see that we can NOT "go down to the next level of accuracy", without changing what it is that we are measuring. This is a "resonant" explanation for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
you mean that there really is no uncertainty in measurement?" No, not unless you try to measure a "complex" value (a rate) with only an integer. We need to measure RATE with RATE.


If we measured with "fractional wavelengths" (wavelets), we can then see an "integer pattern" form in the frequency spread. This just pushes the problem into another corner, however. QM has tried to "side-step" the problem, with the invention of "wavenumber" to get around the "inverse relation" that created "circular logic" with the system of inputs.


Music did not fare much better, arriving at their own "ad hoc" explanation of what was going on. Look at this:

You'll pardon me, if I say that it is "reasonable" for "quantum mechanics", which claims to be very accurate, to go ahead and adopt a "highly specialized tuning".

Please note: this does not mean, nor am I saying, that QM is "wrong". I am seeking to remove the "ad hoc" part of the telling of the tale. It will make the story "nice" to us, and make sense. Isn't that still the goal? Not in Copenhagen!

Here, they changed gears very quickly (this is the next sentence, continued from the quote above). But, you can still see the pattern: if we look at frequency, at integer differences, the "detection" of the wave is "contracted".


In music, also "ad hoc", they get around the "logic" with this:

You see the 2nd harmonic = 2f = 1 octave, and the 4th harmonic = 4f = 2 octaves, but the 3rd harmonic is "a perfect fifth above the second", which still follows mathematically, with 3f, but is NOT in the 3rd octave. It is mid point between "2 and 4", in the second octave. By definition (in the first sentence), we said that an octave = 2f . Whoops! Music just went off the logic track! With the "correct application" of an abstract math & model, developed by trial and error, Music survived being "ad hoc".


If you would like a dose of logic, just to feel good, think about this: a value like "1.5", when counting "whole" things, like cycles, is ABSTRACT. To make it "real", we need the concept of "averaging", and we need more than "one" to do that. In conservation terms (those "piles") terms, 2 MUST exist before 1.5 can exist. (LL noted this about cyclic nature)


Does the Math of QM fare any better?

They're "borrowing" the story from music, so.. we stay "ad hoc".

They certainly take the Math up a few notches, though. Very "good stuff", realizing that "Every term of the series after the first is the harmonic mean of the neighboring terms". It takes a bit of thought, to realize that this need NOT be limited to a "single oscillator" progression, but also mathematically can be a "many body problem" inversely affecting the "average" frequency.

How do we tell the difference between the amplitude of a 8 Hz "single photon", and 2 "4 Hz single photons", or 8 "1 Hz photons", if they arrive at the same time and place (superimpose)?


OK, this has gotten very long..



The simple, elegant beauty of the "12th root of 2"

R = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463 = 2^(1/12)

Start with ANY "fundamental value"

1

multiply recursively by R, 12 times, to create a "fractal/resonant series"

1.059..
1.122..
1.189..
1.259..
1.334..
1.4142..
1.498..
1.587..
1.681..
1.781..
1.887..
2

You will note that, at "half-way through" this progression, we have the sq rt of 2 ; sort of a "short cut" (at the phase node) to the resonant value/harmonic 2f.

You will also note, that we have the closest approximation possible (while minimizing the terms), of the inverse of a "harmonic series". Not an exact
replica of that series, but "including" the important values, none-the-less.

1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5

When you've gone that far, "between 1 and 2", you don't need to go further, because we are already starting to "converge", because 1/4 is a harmonic of 1/2, and 1/6 would be the harmonic of 1/3, and so on.


Moreover, if we divide by R, we reverse direction, we will naturally produce the inverse set, also irrational, but forever maintaining the original, "fundamental" relation of 1:2 . We are just measuring "cycles", and allowing "frequency and wavelength" to change by less than integer values, yet still in "discreet chunks".

One cycle = 2 parts, however, One part (phase) can never = 2 cycles. This gives us "direction", that would only be "reversible" from the perspective of the detector/observer, and the "transactional interpretation".



This is the simple mathematics that are at work inside "quantum mechanics", that have gone unnoticed, perhaps because the group that they borrowed from had yet to realize this as well.


regards,

T.Roc


PS. rest well, good elf <:)

This post has been edited by TRoc on Aug 17 2007, 08:03 PM

Hey Good Elf, LL, et al.,

Good Elf,

Thank you for the response. I can only imagine the effort it takes to type like a one-eyed fish!

I must be missing something and I appreciate your efforts in trying to clear up the MM interferometer on the train. But I am still confused.

So will the interference pattern seen by the observer on the train and the observer on the platform always be identical, regardless of the speed of the train or will the interference pattern vary with the speed of the train because length contraction occurs only in the direction of motion? I have tried the "shut up and calculate" approach but am honestly confused in how to calculate the time and distance for the arm pointing up. This arm is parallel to the observer on the platform and perpendicular to the direction of motion so it should not need correction. But if it is uncorrected then we get different results, which imply different laws…

Mahalo

Hey TRoc,

Is there a minimum size to the "discreet chunks"? If "yes", then your quote above is what I was trying to express all along. A rate is a "spacetime interval". By definition, rate = distance divided by time. Relativity sets a the maximum value. Does TRoc theory set a minimum? If "no" then the chunks are not discreet.

Mahalo again...

EDIT** Ps,

The amplitudes are 0, 2 and 8 respectively. We can differentiate the three by measuring their respective energies through the photoelectric effect.

This post has been edited by Why Not? on Aug 17 2007, 08:56 PM

Hi TRoc!
I'm going to be straight man (ask questions for clarifications).

Can I say that you have divided the "distances" between 1 -> 2 into 12 parts?

Can I say that the middle of those 12 parts is the square root of 2? (1.4142..)

Why Not?
Don't take it too fast There are some readers who are just learning how to use a calculator.
(I'm sure that "THEY2" IS NOT IN THAT CATEGORY. )
JAL

Hi Jal, TRoc, WN, and All,

Jal, the reciprocal of 1.4142 is ~ 0.707.

For those with an electronics background, you will notice that we are looking at the
RMS (Root Mean Square) value of a sinewave, which is used to compute power
functions of an oscillating wave.

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

Comments?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 18 2007, 12:46 AM

Hi WhyNot, et al,

It should be a "sliding" scale that adjusts for the differences in spacetime
according to the energy content that occupies that space. Remember, it is an
exponential analog scale that follows a gradient.

An analogy. If you stand next to a ringing bell, you hear a fixed energy tone
at a fixed/maximum energy level.

If you move away from that ringing bell and measure at discrete distances, the
tone (frequency) remains the same, but the energy of the tone diminishes with
distance (it follows the ISL). As you continue to move away you continue to hear
the tone, until at some distance you can no longer detect the frequency, because it
falls into the background noise and cannot be discriminated.

Now if you stand next to a bigger bell, of the same frequency, and perform the
same measurement exercise, you will be able to detect the frequency/energy at a
further distance.

All that has changed is the power scale. It has moved from one location on the
scale to another location on the same scale, to compensate for the difference
in energy at a fixed point in space/time. The distance vs measured energy level
represents the energy gradient.

So, it is a graduated magnitude scale, whose minimum value is the detection
threshold (quantum noise limit) of the energy for the frequency being measured.

TRoc, please correct me if I am not clear or incorrect.


LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 18 2007, 01:17 AM

Hi "Why Not?", Siau, Confused2, TRoc, Laserlight, yquantum, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Terry Giblin, "THEY" and "THEY2", Janrinze, Montec, et al,

So will the interference pattern seen by the observer on the train and the observer on the platform always be identical, regardless of the speed of the train or will the interference pattern vary with the speed of the train because length contraction occurs only in the direction of motion? I have tried the "shut up and calculate" approach but am honestly confused in how to calculate the time and distance for the arm pointing up. This arm is parallel to the observer on the platform and perpendicular to the direction of motion so it should not need correction. But if it is uncorrected then we get different results, which imply different laws…

I can understand your confusion. I should "add" that the shapes of objects "seen" by moving observers is unaltered by motion in the main... This is not quite true since movement along a primary axis of relative motion in SR is "privileged". What is measured using synchronized clocks in a different inertial observer frame of reference is "data" that needs correction when this data is "interpreted" by a single observer vantage point, since the speed of light is such a large number it is outside of our normal "perception".

The human perception of "now" is always interpreted "psychologically" as all events being observed by a single observer at one point relative to the observer's time and space coordinates. We "know" this is not right since light even from the other side of a room takes time to reach an observer and this light was "propagated" from an event at an earlier instant in the observer history. An extreme example of this is a star like Eta Carinae may already have gone Supernova and life on earth may "functionally" be doomed already yet for us life goes on until the event finally reaches us sometime in the future... our future. When we look into space we are looking back into the past and because the past holds events that have "actually" already happened, predestine us to a future we may already predict if only we knew enough about the laws of physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eta_Carinae

The binary system, Eta Carinae, is a giant cosmic Russian Roulette Table that could discharge its "round" in our direction even within our lifetimes, and extinct all life as it goes "Super or Hyper Nova". "Luckily" this spin gives us a "sporting chance" and it may direct the explosion away from us by sheer chance. Already it is possible that this "bullet" is rushing toward the cradle of mankind and could arrive "before lunch" today or it may be as much as a million years in our collective future... But it will happen sometime with consequences that are potentially already able to be predicted.

The position and timing of events are also subject to relativistic motion and I have often quoted the relativistic Jet from M87 as another interesting object. The Jet is "roughly" in our general direction and probably indicates there is a Black Hole source at the heart of M87.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87
Here is a picture of the object...

That Blue color is due to relativistic motion toward us of this Jet of gaseous "matter", currently "clocked" at six times the speed of light. I can assure you it is a "subluminal" velocity but the light that was emitted in the past is arriving at the vicinity of the Earth only slightly ahead of the matter that is the source of this light.

Since the object is 52 mly distant it took 52 Million Years for "first light" from this object to reach us for the first time. For that entire period all we currently see of this jet was "invisible" to us and in our future. Now that we see it this light being emitted by this gas, it's sources are "frequency bunched up" in the direction of motion and is being "replayed" to us on Earth at six times the rate of the events that originally created this light from that gas in the first place. Each photon emitted toward the earth by each event in that cloud of gas expanding on the surface of a perfect sphere toward us. Successive "photon emission" events from this gas occurring at equal "short" time intervals all equally exhibiting a source frequency Relativistically Doppler shifted in the direction of motion to the "blue end" of the spectrum. The centers of these spherically expanding waves are sequentially displaced toward us at nearly the speed of light such that successive 'flashes" are "transported" along the "beam" almost with the light that was emitted originally such that successive flashes from one point in the "cloud" emit similar events of photon emission much closer to us than would otherwise have been if there was no proper motion of the source.... thus almost keeping pace with the original flash's wavefront. The "frequency" of successive flashes of photons from this light appears higher than the original flash rate for "blue" light (which is its internal frequency of a stationary "blue" source). The speed of light from these "moving sources" is not changed, light still expands on the surface of a sphere, but due to source movement the frequency is increased by way of "length contraction"... a perception of shortened elementary dipole oscillator dimensions in the direction of motion. Due to this "motion" a spatial rotation has occurred of nearly π/2 radians such that the light now approaches us from what appears to be a foreshortened radiator of higher frequency and from an "unexpected nearly orthogonal direction" as we are seeing it on Earth ... As mentioned before Special Relativity is "about" the Laws of Physics being always unchanged relative to all observers.

This "distortion" is only seen from the perspective of the single Earth observer. Multiple observers placed along the path of the passage of the M87 Jet still in "our" Earth's inertial frame of reference will measure the passage and timing as observers being "johnny on the spot" as nearly the speed of light and the color of the light being "blue shifted". Interestingly it is subjected to several spatial distortions and called "Stellar Aberration", Chromatic Aberration and a "intensity bunching" forward and red shifting aft of such scenes. Here is one place you can download software to simulate these effects but you could also look at these Gallery shots which also illustrate the events as well...
http://wwwvis.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/relativity/
and gallery shots showing the distortions ...
http://www.vis.uni-stuttgart.de/relativity/gallery/

Physical rotations and distortions are graphically illustrated by the picture of the Eiifel Tower at 99%©.

Spatial distortions and rotations Doppler Shift and Intensity Brightening at 90%© toward center of field of motion and view of several objects arranged in a "scene".

Notice the "tunnel vision" effect... look carefully at the checkerboard "rectilinear" arrangement of floor tiles.

There are other examples there as well that show these effects seen by single observers. Of course in this case the speed of light is so high and these actual scenes "small" compared with the speed of light that it is obvious that human eyes would not see anything at all... Yet a high speed SLR Camera could record a picture as seen in these scenes. More likely what human eyes would actually see is similar to the "Stargate" scene in 2001 A Space Odyssey.

These effects are "entirely symmetric" this scenery could be moving past a "stationary observer" or a "moving observer" is moving past a "stationary scene"... It does not really matter. What is important is to realize the objects in the forward direction "appear" to a single point observer to be rotated away from them by up to an angle of π/2 radians... This rotation angle in radians is equal to arcsin (V/C)... You "seem" to be peering around the back of the relatively moving objects.... This imposes a very special "dynamic" in the observation and electromagnetism of events by a single observer frame of reference.

I would stress these visual effects are solely due to a perspective "enjoyed" by a single observer. This is not usually what Special Relativity is "all about" as taught in schools and first year University. The "data" collected within a single frame of reference from all observers using synchronized clocks is distorted if you only have a single "one eyed" view of this effect. A "picture" can only make sense if you collect and correct the locally gathered data then using the transformation equations of special relativity put them all back to their respective positions as they would be seen in the rest frame of the observed phenomena. I stress this cannot be done usually from a single data collection point of view unless you are able to adjust all these parameters for propagation delays which really are quite "bewildering" and in general not actually fully known... In the end, corrections for special relativity will give the right answers and they will show that at all relative velocities these optical distortions are an "illusion" of perspective and velocity and present the same position when corrected to all observers. We should be trying to determine the events in the rest frame of sources for intelligent interpretation to be possible.

Ultimately there is no physical distortions and no physical rotations but it is like looking at the world through "anamorphic eyes" subjected to time dilation. Given the right set of data and correct distances and times to events (in the laboratory rest frame) What I would also stress is that the meaning of "illusion" is the same meaning that a mirage in a desert is an "illusion"... not a psychological process... a real image like the Fata Morgana in North Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fata_Morgana_%28mirage%29
... Real objects seen through the distortion of a "lens". They are objectively "real" though represent an optical distortion.

In some respects our entire world are such "illusions" but we come to think of this as "real" in the sense that what is "seen" is what the phenomena "is". In one sense of this meaning it is indeed very real since electromagnetism is the very nature of the electromagnetic force, our rooms and the shape of our world we view is subject to optics every bit as much as as the influence of Relativity. The size and shape and physical displacement of everything we measure is subject to the speed of light defining the geometry of the space under investigation. This is one good reason why we are unable to accept the existence of more dimensions simply because we are unable to "see" them while objectively we are able to calculate them.

The answer is there is a distortion for the observer viewing a relatively moving frame of reference but this will look very much like a "rotation" in space away from all observers and when he corrects for motion using the Theory of Relativity, he will arrive at the same DSE experiment with all elements and positions correctly in place as would be expected in the rest frame of that experiment "on the train". Seen by external observers a distorted visual perspective will be seen but will be no different interference patterns just rotated and crushed into the forward position with brightening and chromatic aberration but despite the color of the light due to Doppler Effect the same pattern will be seen with the same maxima and minima in the same "relative" physical positions if the optical distortions are removed. This is in a way similar to the Cylinder Mirror Optical Illusion as seen in this series.
http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/cylinde...l-illusion.html
In older times a saucer with an anamorphic design like these would be reflected in the vase showing a fully corrected "scene"... The problem of the reverse transform is an exercise in 'Conformal Field Theory" with a large number of initially unknown parameters which needs to be inverted. While the distorted "images" has only one "true image" in the inertial frame of the observed system... other frames in relative motion produce similar distortions as seen from these frames. The DSE is a distortion but it is a conformal distortion in Special Relativity so that there are no functional differences between systems other than the illusion of the distortions. The number and amplitude of the pattern is retained and the relative maxima and minima but it can be distorted due to the choice of relative motion of the observer.

In a practical system we "know" the movement of particles relative to one inertial frame of reference and we want to know the motion of these particles in its own special "rest frame" or from another velocity regime. Another problem is only seeing the distorted "signal" from an observer frame of reference (say M87 and its apparent hyperluminal motion) predict what this looks like in its own internal frame of reference (of co-moving particles...) with respect to the Jet. Luckily we have Special Relativity eh?

PS: I will be sitting up normally tomorrow. Only one more "sleep" he he he! I took all day to do this post in bits and pieces.

Cheers

Hi TRoc and All,

I am still a bit uncertain about what is considered an absolute minimum
detectable energy level, as it pertains to your model.

Each different frequency photon has a minimum discrete energy package that
gives rise to a detectable wavefunction that operates at that specific frequency.
This follows E=hf.

Longer wavelengths (lower frequencies) are less energetic than higher frequency
wavelengths because of the time factor that is associated with each wave that
is propagated. So naturally, each wavelength has a different minimum power
level that is necessary to generate, and sustain, that wavefunction.

Shouldn't resonance have an inverse relationship to wave propagation?

One phenomenon, stimulated emission, stimulates a photon to be released at some
minimum threshold energy level, while the complementary phenomenon,
resonance/detection, is stimulated by that minimum threshold energy level.

Something is missing...and I can't put my finger on what it is.

I am visualizing GE's sync function model, which illustrates the leading and trailing
harmonic frequencies that "bracket" the main sync pulse, as the phase matching
components that are responsible for stimulating resonance phase matching at the
quantum/atomic level.

Following GE's sync function model, it would seem that a cornu spiral for an
individual photon EM pulse should actually be comprised of two reciprocal
spirals, one for the leading edge harmonic energy build up, and the other for the
trailing edge harmonic relaxation of the main sync fucntion impulse.

So, I see two different models. One follows the ISL for a coherent wave that
represents a maximum energy pulse, which eventually "flat lines" at some
minimum sustainable energy level. The other, is a resonance that exists at the
atomic level, that is created by naturally occuring atomic vibrations of the "lattice",
or by unstimulated "dipole moments", which represents the minimum possible
atomic energy level, or harmonic sensitivity level.

The atomic resonance level then, is dependent upon the structure and energy
that resides within each discrete element. This is the atomic vibration or
minimum energy level that is sensitive to a specific frequency or spectrum, in
the outer valence band. But what of the inner electron bands?

We must also realize that a complex atomic element, which is comprised of
many electrons in multiple energy bands, also internally resonates at multiple
frequencies and contains multiple dipole moments, and associated resonances,
that are in harmonic balance within the structure of the atom. We observe this
in the multi-colored (frequency) spectral response that is the signature of each
discrete element.

Therefore, we must consider that each discrete element possesses an electron shell
structure that has different energy levels, that each represent a resonant
bandwidth range of operation, according to the total charge energy
density contained within it's atomic structure.

So, what in this vibrating atomic structure, is the minimum detectable threshold
energy resonance level? Is it the innermost dipole moment of the atomic structure?

Anyone?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 18 2007, 03:52 PM

Hey Good Elf and everyone,

Thank you for pointing out that when looking at the relativistic forest, one must correct for the position of ALL of trees!

By playing around with the MM interferometer on the train, I found that by applying the time element associated with one of the arms to the distance element associated with the other arm (and vise versa) you always wind up with the same answer, which happens to match the answer generated in the rest frame of the experiment. The rotation through me a curve. Thank you for clarifying. That the rotation = 1/2pi at c and zero at rest makes some sense to me now.

Applied to the DSE, it seems that "sum over all paths" is REQUIRED if you want to get the "right answer" (interference pattern). It also looks like if you “rotate” “sum over all paths” you get Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory.

Enjoy sitting up!

Mahalo nui loa!

Hi LL,

EM is a form of 'self' induction.
The 'self' induction implicitly generates both the frequency and the propagation speed.

now what would happen if a resonant system would be in a field that is cycling at its resonant frequency.. it would simply tune in..

Maybe I am over simplifying things here (I have a lot of reading to catch up with..)

Jan Rinze.

GE: nice to read your last post :-) good to see you have been able to follow the thread!

If you shrink the mirror or reduce its size there are less paths to sum over. What do you expect to occur if smaller mirrors are used? Is there a limit where bizarre measurements are observed by the observer on the train?

This post has been edited by Neil Farbstein on Aug 19 2007, 01:56 AM

Hi Jan, and All, Too many names to address!

I am visualizing a quantum lock and key arrangement, (someone coined that
phrase some months back, I think it was you) that is similar to a
type of synchronous frequency and phase locking (PLL- phased lock loop?) arrangement.

The resonant atom acts like the "lock" in the form of a tuned "cavity", and the
arriving EM frequency sync pulse "leader" matches with the cavity, making it "ring"
at the resonant frequency, which makes it responsive to the full energy of the
arriving EM sync pulse.



The leading wavelets in GE's sync pulse, that act as leader (and trailer) pulses,
are "ordered" harmonics that persist at some energy level that is considerably
lower than the total energy of the photon impulse which is denoted by E=hf.
Yes, the total energy of the photon follows theory, but the ordered harmonics
are "part and parcel" of the total photon energy package, which is a point that
TRoc has stressed, for a long time.

These 2nd, 3rd, 4th... order harmonic frequencies are the "bumps" in the key
that "unlock" an atom that is vibrating at the correct resonance frequency.

TRoc's cornu spiral exponential power function describes these harmonic
frequency orders, that exist at an energy that is lower than the total photon
energy level.

Comments? Discussion? Alternative views?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 19 2007, 02:37 AM

Hey TRoc, LL, NF, and all,

I think there is a minimum, but I am waiting on TRoc's response before I reply further.

TRoc?