Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi GE, et al,

This concept seems contradictory from a relativistic and causal perspective.

If, as you have proposed, time "stops" via time dilation and length contraction,
then there is no past or future relative to the event. Under those
relativistic circumstances, causally generated "responses" can never occur
because there are no dimensions of time, or distance. This leads to
a paradoxical situation in which time has stopped and therefore travel across a
distance cannot occur, since it requires an external temporal reference.

The dimensions of time and distance are directly, and causally, energetically
linked. We call this the spacetime continuum.

We MUST keep in mind that EACH separate causal energy event
has its own reference timestamp, and each one is unique to itself, from a
relativistic perspective. Spacetime is the "glue" that links events together, it
is the energetic response to a progressive series of disparate events.

Does an "event" that occurs necessarily require an ending? Reference my
tree falling analogy. An event occured, but was not observed or detected.
That doesn't mean nothing happened. It simply means that, that specific energetic
event had no direct influence, on other systems because it was never, and
never will be, detected.

In the case of a photon, energy has been released (the event), due to causal
factors that led up to the event. There is no requirement for that event to
necessarily sponsor another event, which would represent a continuous closed
loop energy interaction. For this reason, IMO, the universe is expanding because it
is an "open ended" sequence of separate energy events that do not have
"closure". Energy generating events that occurred, at some past point in time,
are seeking an interaction where none is to be found, thus we have an energetic
expansion of time and space. Under this scenario, the universe will
eventually "dissipate" its energy across spacetime, as it continues to expand.
From the "Big Bang", to the "Big Sigh"..... it will just eventuall "peter out" over
time and distance as it continues to expand ad infinitum.

The past is moving into the future via transmission of energy thru space. If
the "past" happens to encounter a responsive resonant sink enroute,
the "past" releases its energy content, its qubit information, and the relativistic
timestamp it is conveying , and at that instant of energetic release, becomes
the "present", and a causal event has transpired.


Comments?
LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Sep 1 2007, 04:22 PM

Hi TRoc et al,

Going to here http://www.falstad.com/mathphysics.html and clicking on the 2-D waves applet gives us a new toy and with it we can weave our own Talbot carpet.

(Click to enlarge)

Fascinating though it is..

Since we can generate a Talbot carpet by superposition of waves I am left wondering whether there is any physics in it that is not already in the 2 slit version.

Best wishes - C2.

Edit .. yes there is some new physics in it .. amazing! Well done TRoc .

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Sep 1 2007, 06:30 PM

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

This concept seems contradictory from a relativistic and causal perspective.

If, as you have proposed, time "stops" via time dilation and length contraction, then there is no past or future relative to the event. Under those relativistic circumstances, causally generated "responses" can never occur because there are no dimensions of time, or distance. This leads to a paradoxical situation in which time has stopped and therefore travel across a distance cannot occur, since it requires an external temporal reference.

I have proposed that time is a dimension that has the possibility for "stationary states" which are responsible for the quantum process. I am only proposing that light alone can travel at the speed of light (of course we already know this) and from its frame of reference everything becomes instantaneously connected in its "rest frame". The rest is Special Relativity and all events observed in the rest frame are simply transferred to the moving frames by way of "Relativistic Conformal Field Theory" anamorphic deformations (as previously noted). This results in the stretching and twisting of the "single event" into what we are seeing as time and space... all time and all space. What I am then saying is for a single event time is non-progressive. The event is the source to sink emission and absorption via Wheeler-Feynman Retarded and Advanced packets. Since our Universe is virtually composed of photon "energy exchanges" for dynamics to proceed then this process is what we call time. This covers all the normal primary forces since they are either in fact the one force in a different realm (Electromagnetism and the Electroweak Force) or there is a strong possibility that they might be (Electromagnetism or QCD/QED and a Electrostrong Force) . This leaves only "Gravity " to explain and as far as I can see gravity and mass are potentially explainable through some residual weak unbalanced reaction through the symmetry of this packet as seen from the inside of the space as compared with the outside of the space (positive or negative spatial curvature)

.. Click to enlarge...
Just depends on how you "measure" R... Which is "trivially" true extrapolated from de Broglie Relationships. The result being related to the reciprocal spatial relationship between the two as it appears to be for the reciprocal relationship of de Broglie Wavelength of trapped photons.. Lorentz-CPT "soliton" particles.

IMHO a "nice speculation" would be that this reciprocal spatial relationship not only leads to mass for normal particles but also an explanation for the neutrino mass oscillations as well for the "propagating" solar neutrinos as they undergo harmonic "spreading" and "contraction" phases due to photon-like and particle-like "resonance" in space... Their extra 1/2 spin quanta contributing to this phenomenon in some way exchanging/flipping their collective Fermi-Dirac Statistical property (compact phase) for a Bose-Einstein statistical property (spreading phase)... A kind of equipartition of energy between the zero point energy of the quanta and the kinetic/potential energy... leading to mass when it becomes potential energy (Fermi-Dirac ) and then back to "velocity" when it becomes kinetic energy (Bose-Einstein).

He he he... are you going to accept that these "interferences" are going to lead to standing waves in space too instead of those "progressive" waves? That would indeed be a welcome change of heart.

About the inconsistency in standpoints (everyone should think carefully about this)... I want everyone to now explain this "artifact" in some way... why do you suppose that Talbot Carpets are NOT progressive??? You have all heard my explanation for several months now (always unacceptable). If you are about to accept this phenomenon which substantiates the standing wave theory... and that you also accept that interferences can be built one coherent photon at a time.... what is you explanation? Do you doubt that photons go directly from source to final "target" in the screen plane, or is there something else that you want to put in its place? There is a problem with the standard quantum mechanical answer here... the answer being it really does not matter since QM does not deal with individual photons only their collective statistics, and that individual photons have no "history" and provide no further insight. Forgive me for saying this but it is simply intellectual blindsight. The Berry paper above makes some interesting observations indeed about the nature of this quasi-classical "optical" process. That is is directly related to the Fourier components of the packet as it does in the closely allied phenomenon of the resonant state in atoms (periodic "revivals" in the spreading of packets as seen in electrons in confined "shells"), and that in the case of an individual photon wave packet, it spreads over the entire affected "carpet". This is obeying the Bose Einstein Statistics for photons and answering those questions about "how big is a photon?". Is this just another case of "coughing up" with the standard "shut up and calculate" answer here too? If you are expecting me to agree I expect to see you at least "waving your arms about excitedly" as well.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Sep 2 2007, 12:54 AM

Hi All,

The previous post "closed" before I could add that regarding the points made about relativity above and the spatial and temporal "scaling" due to our "anthropically preferred" observer frame, all photons should be treated as equals... both virtual photons and propagated photons. The only frame of reference that truly "counts" is the "home frame"... for electromagnetism this is the rest frame of the photon in which single events per single exchanged photon occur. The movement of individual particles may involve the interaction of many photons at very many different frequencies being transferred from source to sink this denoting "electromagnetic forces". None of these photons are directly observed owing to their quantum nature, neither "in transit" nor in their "rest state". We only observe their influences such as the wavelike interferences or as individual absorption events through a single photon excitation entirely within our eyes. Alternatively we may notice electromagnetic forces such as electric fields magnetic fields, magnetic dipoles and elementary charges (topological charge).

This is where we can see the emergence of EM forces such as electric and magnetic fields through the influence of these virtual (unobserved) photons entirely within their evanescent region. The differences between virtual and the propagated photons being only in the anthropic frame of virtual photons being entirely within a "preferred evanescent zone" which is connected to the larger far field propagated zone. Distance is not the connection but relative motion is the connection. In the former case of a single "anthropically preferred" rest frame we see "The World" as composed of "stationary evanescent" particles (standing waves) at rest relative to us all (see de Broglie Theory... particles at rest have an infinite wavelength so we are within their evanescent zone)... and in the latter case of other "less preferred" relatively moving frames, we observe particles in relative motion and conforming to Special Relativistic Coordinate Transform "distortions" as I have noted above and also here below in the quote. The "anthropically preferred" evanescent Universe is simply the collection of co-moving particles and virtual photons that have resulted in the forces we can see and measure locally. "The two "ends" to The Special Theory of Relativity... Einstein and de Broglie... provide us with the entire dynamic of space and time. In one way this is stating the obvious... In another way it is reducing everything to a single holographic phenomenon that is electromagnetically "indivisible".

So from a simple single evanescent zone our global space is a deformation as seen from our "anthropically preferred" observer frame and all other objects take up a place as other relatively moving sub-atomic particles. Some of these are progressive... such as moving particles in other frames of linear translational movement and even others are moving particles in spin rotational relativistic movement. Of course most things have many degrees of freedom in which this movement must be decomposed into several types of motion. Both of these create their own specific closed Rindler Horizons. Our Universe would be "closed" if its size was 13.5 BLY across and the extremity need only have a transverse velocity of C for closure within a light cone wall... and this would mean it rotate only once in 42 billion years. Considering all the spin we see there must be something left there you would think. The Universe would "expand" into additional Rindler Foliations not into "extra space".

This is due to Ehrenfest Paradox. The rotation speed of a quanta is defined by the size of the particle. The photon spins faster as it gets smaller with greater quantized particle energy. Conversely the energy of an energetically "smaller" photon the spin rate lowered because the physical size is much larger.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-05/7-05.htm
Our total space is composed of both relativistically generated space and additional unobserved Rindler Foliations. Much of the additional dimensional space is still primary sub-atomic particles and their interiors which are compact dimensional spaces relative to our own spaces. Their potential as fully fledged spaces in their own right is simply a case for individual investigation.

I needed to say that... Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Sep 2 2007, 02:37 AM

Could there be a subsurface associated with the convective flow of lightor perhaps a time differential created by an incline in the magnetic field?

Hi oracle1,

I am only describing what I believe to be is the quantum phenomena. In some ways anything "could" be possible. So the answer is "I don't know".

Cheers

yes

An excellent idea. Could I add .. please describe what you see before you start the explanation.so it might be a little bit clearer what you are actually explaining.
----------------------------
What I see..
Essentially the effect is that a diffraction grating produces a virtual diffraction grating at the Talbot length .. this produces another virtual diffraction grating at the next multiple of the Talbot length .. and so on.
-----------------------
The pattern generated by the applet is purely the superposition of waves ( this is the only algorithm implemented in the applet ).
Referring to the results of the wave applet as shown in this post ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=255829 ) .. the picture shows a Talbot length's worth of 'pattern'.. as far as I can tell this is a good representation of the "Talbot effect" . Hopefully we can get a hold of the idea that a plane wave source would be nice but the effect won't fall apart if it is a bit 'spherical'.

Rather than attempt to preach to the unconvertable I'm going to predict an effect which will help to distinguish between current theories .. ( the good, the bad and the ugly? )

If we look at the repeating pattern we might see that for a single photon is is pretty much like a pinball machine. The effect requires that a photon has an equal probability of passing through each of the 'real' slits .. this produces an equal probability of the photon being detected at any of the virtual slits. (Edit .. (almost) all of the photons that pass through the 'real slits' will end up at the virtual slits)

Appendix 1
Since the effect is wavelength dependent it would be convenient to consider only monochromatic light. To generate the effect 'in reality' I think it would be important to ensure that the light from the source is spread over the slits (20 in my example) so that the slit are illuminated with equal intensity. By 'equal intensity' what I really mean is that a photon from the source must have a (roughly) equal probability of passing through any of the slits. There is another restriction .. the source (wave/photon) must arrive with roughly the same phase at all/any of the slits (roughly a plane wave). The plane wave concept doesn't introduce any new or abstract physics .. just if it isn't 'plane' (say it is a bit 'spherical') the pattern will be somewhat distorted. The applet gives a good indication of the type of distortion to be expected with a non-plane wave if you change the 'angle of incidence' slider. If the diffraction grating is (say) 3mm long then I'd guess a narrow slit at (say) 500mm from the grating would produce as close an approximation to a 'plane wave' as any reasonable person might wish for. The effect is 'robust' .. it will degrade gradually as you increase the number and magnitude of the errors.

Best wishes - C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Sep 2 2007, 12:20 PM

Hi Good Elf!
Your reference (which you have used before)
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-05/7-05.htm
7.5 Packing Universes In Spacetime

"Interestingly, beginning with R1 and R2 we can construct a perfect tetrahedral packing of eight epsilon-complete lightspheres by placing six more spheres in a hexagonal ring about the z axis with centers in the xy plane, such that each sphere just touches R1 and R2 and its two adjacent neighbors in the ring. Each of these six spheres represents a region reachable from P with speeds less than u1 relative to one of six worldlines whose speeds are (1 - 4e ) relative to W0. The normalized boundaries of these six ellipsoids on a time-slice t are given by...."
-------------
Before you can pack universes you got to pack at the minimum scale (big bang??)then you got to find a mechanism for expansion (which has not been experimentally found).
So.... since you want hex packing of universes then you will have no trouble understanding how our own universe is of quantum hex. packing involving minimum length and the same structure as shown in your reference.
jal
ps. Go check my summarry if you forgot.
Think small
Think 10^-18 (quark scale)

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

I thought that you would be as tired of my explanations as I am at giving them. If there is anything you are unsure of please feel free to ask a specific question so that I can give you the specific answer you require.

I think it is a lot more than that simple "revival" of the clear image of the slit. Between source and the secondary "revival" of the source are stepped versions of this temporal function...
Circular Orbit Wave packet Rochester U
These "revivals" are smoothly continuous equivalents of the spatial function you see in this illustration...
Talbot Carpets and Mountains
The main difference being the "source function". In the case of the the electron in Bohr Orbit it is a continuous smooth function rather than a discrete step function and the revivals are in time rather than in space. In both cases of atomic revivals and in spatial revivals the functions are the same "carpet".

As to the idea that we are dealing with a pinball machine, I suggest you read MV Berry's Paper for his interpretation to see what is said there. He is "independent" of my influence and is a famous "living" modern interpretation of the phenomenon.
Integer, Fractional, and Fractal Talbot Effects MV Berry, S Klein: Journal of Modern Optics, 1996
Quantum carpets, carpets of light Physics World June 5 2001

Cheers

Hi Jal,

Gave up using Mecanno sets and Lego Blocks long ago. Yes... I use some references over and over when I can. I am respectful of your close packing structures but I can only think in my own terms. I want to keep to the results of experimental physics as far as possible and to relate to Physics concepts that have a common touchstone. I also want to answer as many questions as possible using one kind of "language". Relativity is one of the simpler "languages" that can be used. While i have alluded to physical changes in geometry I do not want to tie myself to any specific mechanical model as did Maxwell. I would prefer to speak about symmetry.

It is an interesting thing about expansion. It depends on measuring rods to tell if we are expanding or we are actually contracting. What if the length of rods of any kind depend on some local continuously variable parameter? All of our attempts to examine the distant Universe could be way off and out simple models a load of bunk. Not so easy to tell the difference. My simple adage is "As above... So below". In the case of the Universe and its perceived expansion we must be ever aware we are looking into the past with our telescopes and we have no direct evidence to say where we are presently at now. It is really down to that Cosmological Constant that Einstein thought was the worst mistake of his life. What if space was reciprocal then the expansion into a Reciprocal Hilbert Space would simply be causing the extremities to parametrically "shrink" being the subject to anamorphic relativistic deformation... who really knows and until we have some real data it is a question we may not be able to answer reliably.

Cheers

Hi Good Elf!
Keep reading from Kevin Brown
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-08/7-08.htm
7.8 Global Interpretations of Local Experience
Obviously we're free to construct a geometrical picture in our minds of any gauge theory, just as we can form a geometrical picture in any arbitrary kind of "space", e.g., the phase space of a system, but this is nothing like what Einstein, Weyl, Kaluza, Weinberg, etc. were talking about. The original (and perhaps naive) hope was to eliminate all other fields besides the metric field of the spacetime manifold itself, to reduce physics to this one primitive entity (and its metric).
In fact, many (perhaps most) theoretical physicists today consider it likely that general relativity is really just an approximate consequence of some underlying structure, similar to how continuum fluid mechanics emerges from the behavior of huge numbers of elementary particles.
The point is that we can always postulate a set of physical laws that will make our observations consistent with just about any geometry we choose (even a single monadal point!), because we never observe geometry directly. We only observe physical processes and interactions. Geometry is inherently an interpretative aspect of our understanding. It may be that one particular kind of geometrical structure is unambiguously the best (most economical, most heuristically robust, most intuitively appealing, etc), and any alternative geometry may require very labored and seemingly ad hoc "laws of physics" to make it compatible with our observations, but this simply confirms Poincare's dictum that no geometry is more true than any other - only more convenient.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/conclusion/conclusion.htm
Conclusion

…Of course, it's entirely possible that the theory of relativity is simply wrong on some fundamental level where quantum mechanics "takes over". In fact, this is probably the majority view among physicists today …
------------------------
My conclusions See my summary
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...35&#entry255384
and remember that there is no proof that the expansion is caused by an unidentified force. (LL gave us his idea … needs verification of course)
Of course my idea … just add more units.
jal

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

Unfortunately Berry and Klein do not discuss sigle photon excitation so we are left 'in the dark' as to what they might predict under those circumstances.

Anyone else willing to play describe and predict?

Or any other comments about my description and/or prediction?

Best wishes - C2.

Good Day All!

Kevin Brown has presented material for the high school and college level.
I have found that the more that I learn that I have more questions.
Good Elf, you present your material as if you have no more questions. Kevin Brown does not do that. The physic community does not do that.
You are coming across as a “cherry picking” to continue to support an outdated and college level interpretation of the DSE.
I’m sure that you want to come across as having an open mind to new ideas and interpretations.
Look at alternative explanations that are being presented at the university level.
You have probably already read the links from the Home page of Alexey A. Kryukov http://depts.uwc.edu/math/faculty/kryukov/

------------
The EPR experiment: A paradox-free definition of reality,
June 2007
The double-slit experiment: A paradox-free kinematic description,
June 2007
Geometric Derivation of Quantum Uncertainty
Submitted, March 2007
On the Measurement Problem for a Two-Level Quantum System
Found. Phys. 37, Jan. 2007
Quantum Mechanics on Hilbert Manifolds: The Principle of Functional Relativity
Found. Phys. 36 (2006) 175
Linear Algebra and Differential Geometry on Abstract Hilbert Space
Int. Journ. Math. & Math. Sci. 14 (2005) 2241
On the Problem of Emergence of Classical Space–Time: The Quantum-Mechanical Approach
Found. Phys. 34 (2004) 1225
Coordinate Formalism on Hilbert Manifolds
Mathematical Physics Research at the Cutting Edge
(Nova Science, New York, 2004)
The Emergence of the Macroworld: A Study of Intertheory Relations in Classical and Quantum Mechanics (with Malcolm Forster)Philosophy of Science 70 (2003) 1039
Coordinate Formalism on Abstract Hilbert Space: Kinematics of a Quantum Measurement
Found. Phys. 33 (2003) 407
Conformal Transformations of Space-Time as Vector Bundle Automorphisms
PhilSci Archive (2001)
----------------------
Remember the words of Kevin Brown, “. We only observe physical processes and interactions. Geometry is inherently an interpretative aspect of our understanding.
If you cannot put it into a precise wording (math) then it cannot be analysed.
Secondly, just because it is in a precise wording (math) does not mean that it corresponds to observations (reality.)
Now, LL idea of a photon not finding a receiver is similar to my idea of adding more “units” to explain expanding universe. However, it would need to formulated in a more precise language (math) to discover if there are inconsistencies and to discover if it agrees with observation (falsifiable).
Perhaps C2 and TRoc can find some acceptable explanations in the Home page of Alexey A. Kryukov

--------------
See
http://depts.uwc.edu/math/faculty/kryukov/...uncertainty.pdf
Geometric derivation of quantum uncertainty
A. Kryukov
Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin Colleges
(Dated: February 25, 2007)
One is faced then with a new point of view on quantum mechanics that makes that theory quite similar to Einstein’s general relativity, but considered on a manifold of states rather than on space-time. The approach turns out to be extremely fruitful in explaining various paradoxical results in quantum theory via the geometry of the manifold of states. Moreover, the formalism allows one to naturally embed the physics of macroscopic particles on the classical Riemannian space into the theory (see Ref. [8]). In light of this, the provided geometric derivation of the uncertainty relation and the uncertainty identity is another piece of the puzzle falling into place.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.3306v1.pdf
Quantum mechanics on Hilbert manifolds: The principle of functional relativity
Alexey A. Kryukov _
April 25, 2007

"… the geometry of the classical space and the dynamics of particles on the space have
been shown to be “encoded" into the geometry of an appropriate Hilbert space of
functions of abstract parameters. In particular, the formalism eliminates the need
for a pre-existing classical space in quantum theory."
--------------
jal

Hi Jal,

I agree entirely. Believe it or not I put most stress on Special Relativity (SR). General Relativity (GR) can only be used in the most symmetric of systems and since you can always choose an inertial frame or a piecemeal inertial frame, SR is far more convenient and understandable. GR is dealing only with symmetric gravity and mass and cannot deal with issues involving the interaction of the continuum and the anti-symmetric electromagnetic field. As I often say... Gravity is a pseudo-force as Einstein had stated. You may conclude that I believe in a true continuum and not the proposed quantum foam you want me to investigate (I could justify this ... but not here). The other point is GR as it is usually quoted omits affine torsion or other treatments of spin on the manifold and is "incomplete" and I think there may be some "errors" in that area as it is usually applied. You can Google these points if required and these issues have been reported much earlier on this thread by me.

I agree that the connection between spacetime and any additional compact physical dimensions I use is not the usual one that others employ which is wholly theoretical. It is an experimentally derived connection we see all the time from experiments and is resonantly connected to our space. Spacetime "likes" triplets of spatial coordinates and these are energetically separated/coupled to other spatial triplets. The nature of reciprocal space (a spatial triplet) and reciprocal time (frequency) does not allow simple linear extensions similar to Kaluza-Klein Theory. Theory will fail using any linear process like tensors. The proposal is the coupling is "perfect" as resonances on the surface of a hypersphere and we already know what these are as being "Fourier Harmonics" in the additional dimensions.

I do not need to place the maths into this page. It is entirely unsuitable for this process here since only a maximum of six images may be used in any single post nothing important can be shown here... Anyway all the relevant maths and analysis has been done by others. I do not think this is an accident. The other point is I have already supplied all the necessary information to allow anyone to do their own research through the references I have supplied. If people do not read them I am not going to read them on their behalf... I simply state in words what they have already proposed/stated but I pick and choose how and where and in what order to quote. If you want kudos you need to do some of the work... not me... I am not being paid for it. When I state that Special Relativity is used or that certain transforms are required go to the associated papers. I only quote from papers that I have been able to download.

Cheers

PS:

Pure "conjecture"... I have my own "experimentally proven conjectures".... IMHO Quantum Theory does not employ "classical space" so there is no direct relationship there so you can't "quantize" the manifold.

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Sep 3 2007, 12:41 AM