Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi LL and the rest..

Wikipedia reference of blackbody radiation

Planck's constant emerges here..

So let me rephrase the question.
How can we explain black body radiation with resonance and dipoles?

Jan Rinze.

Very interesting LL.

Hi Jan,

Do you have an explanation or a conceptual model in mind? Are you up to the
challenge of formulating a theoretical model for group discussion/development
purposes?

Anyone?

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 28 2007, 12:31 AM

Hi TRoc!
I want to keep out of interpretations ... for a while.
ref.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_series
----------------
When starting from

Do you have a way of arriving at the following numbers? (Balmer_series, Lyman_series)
That would tell us if one of those numbers, as arrived by your starting number, would give us a "wave packet".
Then, for example, could we do a DSE with one of these numbers and we would have a different way of "seeing" what that "wave packet" is composed of and what it could be doing.
--------------
(I cannot line up the numbers therefore, go to the link)
The wavelengths (nm) in the Lyman series are all ultraviolet:

n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Wavelength (nm) 121.6 102.5 97.2 94.9 93.7 93.0 92.6 92.3 92.1 91.9
--------------------
The Balmer series
As the first spectral lines associated with this series are located in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum, these lines are historically referred to as "H-alpha", "H-beta", "H-gamma" and so on, where H is the element hydrogen.

Transition of n 3→2 4→2 5→2 6→2 7→2 8→2 9→2
Name H-α H-β H-γ H-δ H-ε H-ζ H-η
Wavelength (nm) 656.3 486.1 434.1 410.2 397.0 388.9 383.5
Color Red Blue-green Violet Violet Violet Violet (Ultraviolet)
-----------------
I hope that this is not too fast for a 12 year old.
jal

Re: Blackbodies

Just for grins, I will throw some conceptual gedanken "ideas" into the "ring"
to stimulate discussion.

1. Radiation arriving at the surface of a blackbody does not generate visible
photon emission until the electrons in the mass are highly thermally excited
and mobilized as internal electron current flow, within the atomic lattice.
This would infer high electrical resistance properties.

2. The blackbody represents a thermal mass that is capable of totally absorbing
incident EM radiation, up to a maximum absorption threshold/breakdown energy
level.

3. The physical structure of a black body is resonant to all EM frequencies
according to the physical layout of its atomic lattice structure. This infers that
there is an unlimited number of dipole frequency combinations to which the atomic
structure can resonantly tune itself. It would appear that a blackbody has a
dynamic frequency tuning capability, with unlimited tuning resonance/range.
This would represent a linear tuning response to all frequencies across the
full EM spectrum.

Let the arguments begin....
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 28 2007, 02:29 AM

Who's neo number 1, do you mean me? There's character named neo in the Matrix. He's superman he runs on walls. A stuntman taught the staff how to really run on walls, running horizontally. Centrifugal force.

This post has been edited by Neil Farbstein on Aug 28 2007, 02:11 AM

Hi Neil,

Someone new, named NeoNo.1 posted this:

He averages 33.4 posts a day since joining last week.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 28 2007, 02:27 AM

Hi Laserlight et al,

I hope it's ok if I dwell for a moment on the consequences of a 'one slit or the other but not both' approach...

If we agree that the amount of energy absorbed (a photon) is the same as the amount of energy transmitted then conservation of energy suggests that the photon either goes through the slit or it doesn't. In terms of electromagnetic waves this suggests the beam from the dipole will have to be very much more directional than the commonly accepted view. If we use the Sun as the source we can see that the beam-width must be .. very very narrow. The possibility of incorporating reflectors into our source has already been mentioned .. we could go on to look at the diameter of the reflectors (mounted on the surface of the Sun) required to create such a narrow beam. Should we do the calculation or maybe consider the possibilty of some other mechanism?

Best wishes - C2.

Hi C2,

I'm not sure where you are going with this. You apparently have something
in mind, but are being sarcastic and timid in your approach.

Which direction do photon's at the sun's surface move? Inward or outward, and
why?

Please continue.

Regards,
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 28 2007, 01:41 PM

Hi Laserlight,

You have produced the only stable theory so far .. I am just exploring the implications..

I'm not quite sure what point I might be failing to make.. to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible .. please say where you feel I have misunderstood your theory ..

1/ We can use sunlight as a source for the DSE (evidence Thomas Young used sunlight)
2/ A photon is received with the same energy as it is transmitted (evidence .. light doesn't get 'tired')
3/ To fit in with 2/ we accept that a photon is either received or it isn't .. no half measures
4/ To fit in with 3/ we accept that a photon (in it's entirety) must pass through a slit
5/ To fit in with 4/ the transmitter (dipole) must have sent a narrow enough beam to 'fit' through a slit
6/ We agree a dipole radiation pattern can be focussed by a lens or mirror
7/ If points 5/ and 6/ are agreed then we can calculate the approximate theoretical size of the required mirror/lens using the result that the radiation pattern of a transmitter will be the same as the radiation sensitivity pattern of a receiver
From Wiki ..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution
Just to get within a few orders of magnitude..
Single telescope case
Point-like sources separated by an angle smaller than the angular resolution cannot be resolved. A single optical telescope may have an angular resolution less than one arcsecond, but astronomical seeing and other atmospheric effects make attaining this very hard.
The angular resolution R of a telescope can usually be approximated by
R = λ/D
where
λ is the wavelength of the observed radiation
and D is the diameter of the telescope's objective
Resulting R is in radians. Sources larger than the angular resolution are called extended sources or diffuse sources, and smaller sources are called point sources.
--------------------
Wavelength of light is say 660nm. For a 0.5E-3 m slit at roughly 1.5E11 m we get
D = 660E-9 x 1.5E11/0.5E-3
= 66,000 kilometres
Where have I gone wrong?
Best wishes - C2.
Any comment on the 10^30 discrepancy between Laserlight and Einstein?

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

For a theoretical derivation of Planck's Law and how this correlates with Planck's Equation of E = hν....

This is the "basis" of the quantum harmonic oscillator and to the emergence of the famous equation. As you all can see it is based on the principle of equipartition of energy and to cavity resonance of dipole resonators. "The law of equipartition (In classical harmonic systems the energy is equally distributed between Kinetic and Potential Energy each having KT/2) breaks down when the total thermal energy kT of an oscillator is significantly smaller than the spacing between atomic energy levels. K is Boltzmann's Constant. Equipartition no longer holds because it is a poor approximation to assume that the energy levels form a smooth continuum, which is required in the derivations of the equipartition theorem .... Historically, the failures of the classical equipartition theorem to explain specific heats and blackbody radiation were critical in showing the need for a new theory of matter and radiation, namely, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory."

"Good Elf" says that this is due entirely to limitations of the physical size of primary dipole radiators and the fact they are composed of fundamental "building Blocks". This is the quantum harmonic oscillator where the base energy is the lowest achievable energy is not zero, but , which is called the "ground state energy" or zero-point energy. All other harmonics are related to the first by being related through a simple "ladder" with equally spaced rungs based on this lowest frequency... straight multiples of an integer n...

The upshot is as quoted from the Planck's Law source above...

The next point that is to be made is this...

It is clear that we are dealing with resonant systems and these are at least "semi-classical" except that we have zero point energy instead of zero energy for the lowest state of any system. This energy cannot radiate away and "fill" any other system with a similar zero point energy because every other system in the Universe has that level always filled. According to "Good Elf's" interpretation of Wheeler Feynman Absorber Theory this radiation cannot take place unless some site in the Universe can be found that will accept that zero point radiation (absorb that photon) and produce the matching advanced potential to "cancel the retarded photon emitted"... there are none anywhere so the emission cannot occur. The bosonic photon is the "exchange particle" of forces in our Universe. I can see no good reason to distinguish between "internal" inductive virtual photons and "external" propagating photons. propagating at the speed of light. The concept of the distance is ours and not one that the photons know at all due to Special Relativity.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Aug 28 2007, 04:04 PM

Hi all,



I'm not sure where C2 & LL are going to find a "common ground", but I'm also not even sure exactly what the issue is.


I will say, to C2's last post, that in order for us to have the "system" in Optics that we do, it has to be made "relative" to something specific.


I can not say enough times, that there is no "white" light; the best that you can do is "transparent". That is what is in "the system" that makes this possible. QM has absolutely nothing to say about this, because of their "zeroing out" their calculations of ground state energy.


Our concept of "glass" is very general. We know, from a much more detailed point of view (QM or Chemistry), that we have a collection of oscillators, in an "equilibrium" type of state.


Our concept of "air" is no different. The "flat-earth" view is that "air" is "nothing", just like in outer space, where the "vacuum" exists. None of these concepts are valid, when you look at it from a "Fundamental" perspective, which means an over-arching Theory, from first principles.


In order for "mixed" light to "go through" a clear glass, unchanged, and produce consistent RI values, a "benchmark" is used.

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

So, three values are used, to give sort of an "average"; or, as this chart shows, just make the "color" of the glass relative to some visible wavelength:



Here they are using 587 nm.


So, the "glass" in your telescope, C2, by its reaction to light, was already used to figure the RI, and THAT is why the RI is wavelength dependent, because it has a "Fundamental" value built into it.


In order to predict the change, we have to say "compared to what".



jal is asking about the "simple case", of the "1 electron" atom (H). The answer is "yes", jal. However, just like the simple "Balmer~Bohr" models, they had to have greater "resolution" (scale) to continue to make predictions, as we add an increasing # of electrons, and in a specific geometrical way. So to does RT.


As a value goes into its' "cornu spiral", we lose the ability to "measure it", because the scale that we started with becomes invalid. Similar to, in S & GR, the "photon" experiences "no time", because we have nothing "faster" to measure it with.


In these atoms, if we look at the "next level" (the named series in QM; the "harmonic" or next octave +/- in RT), we find that the value "crosses over", into the next row.

IE 488nm in the Balmer series is a harmonic of 121nm, in the Lyman series. Before anyone "corrects" my math, just realize that we have our "linewidth" to contend with, and we can NOT measure (in this model) accurately "to the nanometer".


more later..


regards,

T.Roc

Hi TRoc (LL),

Hopefully the common ground is well established - how does the darn DSE thing work? Within LL theory it is unclear why a piece of paper bends light but an object with the mass of the moon doesn't. Also, if a photon is EM .. then how do you get the beam narrow enough to even go through a slit? I could say "Great theory Laserlight" .. in my book that's patronising and unhelpful. If he has answers he can post them .. if not .. he's up and ready to go again.
The whole thing is crazy .. if we get back to the delayed choice experiment LL is going to ask where the 66,000 km reflectors might suddenly be appearing from (yes?) .. and so it goes on.
If LL asks me to refrain from posting anything relevant to his ideas then I will (of course) respect his wishes.
Best wishes - C2.

Hi everyone -- way to many names for such a great post,

July 3, 2007 paper.

Please everyone take care. (If I overlooked this being posted, it was unintentional).

It is worth the read.....

http://depts.uwc.edu/math/faculty/kryukov/files/twoSlit.pdf

I have read and it has given me fond memories of my younger years of institutional studies. I hope the above will give you some information that is current and based on the recent experiments yet true to the DSE as it was intended.

caio_
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Aug 28 2007, 06:37 PM

Hi C2,

After reading your "commentary" a couple of times and not understanding what
you were attempting to do, it finally came out in your response to TRoc.

You were "designing" a parabolic reflector with a focal point relative to
the distance to the sun....Yes/No???? If so, you have completely missed the mark.

I'm short on time, but let me pose a question/scenario to you.

A large telescope looking out into a fixed point/galaxy in space, say 12B light
years distant requires many hours of observation to collect enough photon's to
render an image. The photon's arrive one at a time and an image is built up.
The longer the observation, the clearer and more detailed the image, and the
rendered structure of the galaxy is exactly reproduced, albeit a very small image.

If the waves are continuous waves, as in a ray from each atomic source, why are
we receiving a single photon hit at a time, (this is verified)?

Recall that the individual photon's could be hitting at any point on the parabolic
mirror and being spatially "reconstituted" to provide a clear image.

Out of time.....for now! I will address your other "comments" later.
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Aug 28 2007, 07:11 PM