Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi TRoc, et al,

On the contrary, you have deviated from a continuous "train" of thought and
bounced around from rainbow colors, magenta (what did magenta ever do to
you? ), harmonics, quantum carpets, and numerous other theories without
tying up the loose ends. Basically, open ended discussions, that you refer back to
sometimes weeks later, after several hundred other posts and discussions have
taken place. Perhaps it is your schedule, or we are all "talking over" one another,
trying to get other points/ideas across. Recently, you have been more available
to post, and at C2's urging, everyone let you finish describing your ideas.

Notice that I had to paraphrase what I thought you were saying, to make it
understandable for all. I really don't like "reading between the lines" to try to
interpret what needs be clearly and descriptively said in the first place.

Even though I recall some helical diagrams that you posted last winter,
I must admit that those recollections are "fuzzy". You still have not
directly answered my question regarding whether you are proposing that your
helical model is aligned along the vector direction of travel , or transverse
to the vector direction of motion (a spherical, expanding wavefront).

This must be answered before we proceed! The "solution" that you provide
mandates that a photon is either a corkscrewing "particle" (bubble), that can
be phase separated, within finite limits, or a spherical wavefront that expands
infinitely.

You need to make a commitment for one model or the other, and it must be
discussed and pass muster.

LL

TRoc,

There is an orthogonal relationship between the phases. What the
model should reflect, is that there are 2 parallel helixes that are
phase separated/offset. They each follow the same "tubular" helical outline,
with the same relative timing, but they have a 90 degree fixed offset from one another.

An analogy to provide conceptual "visualization". The fields are mutually
"connected" at the centerline vector axis (hub) at 90 degrees to one another.
As they advance in time along the vector direction of motion, the fields form a
helical pattern as they rotate/spin around the centerline. The effect is similar to a
propeller moving thru the water, which forms a helical path as it moves forward.

There is a "reverse thrust" or backwash to this forward motion, which I have
previously proposed as being gravity waves that move opposite to the
inertia/passage of energy. It is a spatial displacement "counter force".

This is very ambiguous, and I cannot interpret what you are meaning. If I don't
understand it fully, can anyone else? Please elaborate!

Regards,
LL

Hi all,



I'll try my best.

You're right, the schedule does not permit continuity, and that goes for the "replies" as well. We were in the topic of "the field"; now were going into "form".


It's fine; flexibility is what keeps this thing going. C2 is busy right now, and we can come back to that later. I'm going to be in the "busy" mode for a week, so someone else can have a run.

The overall picture is going to require both, but the answer is "along the vector axis". So that the E and M fields are locked at 90 deg, and "tracing out" their net affect, the helice. Yes, you can put one in for each, and they are like a "braid" (. However, there are more parameters that have to be "mapped". Let's just go to some pictures, and save me some typing!


http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projec...inglePhotonOAM/

Beat-frequency 101: any cyclic measurement, that is a RATE of occurrences per time, or distance, or pi, or whatever model, states that value as "the frequency" of occurrence. When 2 rates are "mixed" (superposed), a third rate is produced. "Geometry", or movement through dimension, and forming "structure", is the result of this emergent dynamic. It is beat-frequency driven.


So, we have our 2D sine wave, and we can "overlap" them, and their superposition creates a "combined" geometry, with a net "angular beat-frequency". When you ask for the result of "interfering" 2 sine waves, of the same frequency", you have to be more specific, as to their states. But, here is one example, that answers questions of LL, and C2.


http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo4.htm

However, if we superpose these same 2 frequencies, 90 deg off phase, we get the following result, which is our "classic photon", EM wave.




When the intersecting plane is looked at from the front then the following image is seen:




Let us NOT forget, our once "separate" concepts, of electric, and magnetic. When they "superpose", or co-exist in the same "phase space", we get our EM wave. This not not mean that these individual phenomenon do not have other "interactive" events. The "photon" is a reaction to other, pre-existing conditions. It is the "beat-frequency" of "zero"; there being no measurable difference between these 2 components.


continued..



T.Roc

..continued


http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo8.htm

You can see that these last few images are "interchangeable", That last one in particular, show what I mean by "counter propagating, and counter rotating are equivalent". Look at the green and red waves: they can be going the same direction, opposite "handed" (rotation), or they could have the same "chiralness", and be moving in opposite directions. It shows, that while W,F-C may not be a "unique" solution, it is viable, and well within the "rules".


http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projec...inglePhotonOAM/

Note the "dimensional" change, in both (OAM and spin) models, and their "zeros". The "plane wave", and the "linear polarization".


On another page of that same website:

http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/projects/AM/

(emphasis added)

(emphasis added)


Every Quantum question needs to be asked in Relative terms.




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

We also have the "Gouy phase", which is a longitudinal phase delay.


Plenty of options to create frequency specific geometries.



ciao,


T.Roc


This post has been edited by TRoc on Sep 18 2007, 06:23 AM

Interesting, no counter arguments. Reassessments/digestion ongoing.

Troc,

The silence is a good thing. It means that everyone is evaluating the
information and trying to rationalize how it will change their preconceptions.
From 2d wave theory, to resonance in 4d.

Excellent site.

http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo0.htm

http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/

LL

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

Not so quick... I have a few points to advance...

Firstly I would like to give some kudos to TRoc with his excellent web page site that he has found. It says it all regarding circular dichroism and circular polarization in materials.

Circular Dichroism and Circular Polarization

I would like to clear up this point since it is essential to understand Special Relativity. Doppler Shift with respect to light is different to Doppler shift with respect to sound. Unlike sound the frequency is not affected by "relative movement in a medium" that has a fixed propagation velocity. You can actually exceed the velocity of sound in air. Sound travels through air at a fixed velocity so movement away from source relative to the "motionless" air results in the sound being received at a lower relative velocity than if source and observer were both at rest. This means the "pitch" of the sound is lower... Sound is just the alternating longitudinal pressure waves in the atmosphere as they impact our eardrums.

Regarding light the velocity is always measured as being C relative to all observers everywhere in whatever state of relative motion. What changes is the "optical pitch". "Optical Pitch" (frequency) is simply the number of optical wavefronts that pass the observer per second (NOTE: ... of the observers time relative to an observer clock). If you compare clocks (difficult) the actual "relative rate" of the observer and the source clock times are running at different rates dependent only on the relative velocity. All observers think their own clocks run at a fixed constant rate. As a point of truth they all do but comparisons with that observer clock of relatively moving clocks will always show other clocks marking time differently.

Now there is an absolute effect and there is an observational effect. Moving clocks "always" run slow (they all lose time relative to "stationary" unaccelerated clocks) but when we are talking about the frequency (color) of light the relative timing of clocks can "visibly" be running fast or slow depending on the "sign" (+ve or -ve) of the velocity of the moving frame relative to the observer (and his "standard" clock). This often confuses people. Special Relativity can lead to a real loss of synchronization between clocks whereas with sound we insist that clocks remain synchronized. As a rule of thumb you can always tell which clock is running slow by referring to the clocks history since initial synchronization... the accelerated clock will have always "lost ticks". If both clocks are brought back into the same inertial frame again and a local measurement made, both clocks will have the same "ongoing" rate of time with a loss of synchronization provided there is nothing mechanically wrong with them.

That comparison between different time scales is what causes the difference in pitch. The different pitch/frequency can lead to differential aging on round trips at high velocity. If an observer clock appears "slow" relative to a relatively moving source then the "pitch" of the light being emitted is raised relative to the observer. ... The source clocks all seem to be running at a higher/faster rate when the source is approaching. This is seen in such effects as the Jet from M87 (probably due to a black hole). What is happening is light emitted from M87 over a period of 6 hours is received on earth over a period of one hour. The speed of that light is always measured as constant but the pitch of the light is raised correspondingly since the jet is moving toward the earth at "almost" the speed of light. The light wavefronts are correspondingly "crushed together" in the direction of the earth.

What is not happening is the source traveling at 6 times the speed of light though this is what "appears" to be happening. A particle in that "jet stream" would visually appear to cover six times the distance that light traveling at C would travel in the same time. The source (where the illumination is coming from) is moving close to the speed of light in our general direction but is closely "following" the previously emitted light and continually emitting new wavefronts. We (observers) receive them as if they were from a source at rest in our frame of rest at 6 times the emitted frequency. However this is not the case and the source is moving rapidly towards us near the speed of light. Each "new" wavefront is emitted from a translated "origin" (read dipole source) ... this "origin" is continuously moving closer and closer to earth so successive wavefronts are "crowded" together.

So regarding the pasta spiral analogy above... the 'speed" of the pasta spiral is unchanged but the length of the pasta spirals are changed due to time dilation, the crests are closer together in our observer frame of reference. This is because the fundamental dipoles that created these "spirals" are moving toward the observer at an appreciable proportion of the speed of light effectively moving the point of origin toward the observer and providing him with a view that appears as an increase in source frequency.

The next point I would like to make is that light is not "moving" as in traveling in time. The photons are all "frozen in time"... Due to our relative "movement in time" the photons appear to be moving but they are simply wavefronts that are passing our observer position. The "need" to describe light moving is a cultural one and does lead to confusion. Light spreads not moves like a "wriggledly snake" which needs the benefit of the passing of time to do that trick. This light is like a dead "bent" snake, with a severe case of rigor mortis, being dragged past the observer. If there is no passage of time there can be no movement... also there can be no "dynamics".

The illustration TRoc supplies of the superposition of two electrically polarized waves is a very interesting analogy. Dichroism is "supposed" to be describing two (or more) colors (frequency) in materials when light is split according to frequency. Another meaning (meant to confuse but the more appropriate definition in this case) is the same word used to describe a chiral polarization states in a material dependent on the "handedness" of the atoms that compose it. There are left handed and right handed "optically active" materials. Some organic chemicals and even some inorganic chemicals have this property such as sucrose solution for instance. They absorb/block one type of chirality and not the other. This indicates that even "simple" plane polarized light can be a superposition of a left handed chirality and a right handed chirality both at the same time since plane polarized light can be broken down into two counter chiral states that 'sum" to a plane polarization. We see that principle in the animations provided by TRoc.

While this effect is very interesting it is actually not the topic we are discussing. The discussion is not about continuous wave electromagnetism in different states of polarization it is about individual photons which possess chiral properties that constitute individual wavepackets. The question is what kind of chirality individual wavepackets of light possess?

A continuously excited electromagnetic dipole radiator always produces a plane polarized wave. It is "apparently" composed of equal amounts of left hand circularly polarized light and right hand circularly polarized light... Both at the same time. I can only assume that this means that each packet can be either left hand circularly polarized or right hand circularly polarized at the one time but that two different photons one left and one right circularly polarized "sum" to make plane polarized "continuous wave" light. Alternatively does each wavepacket of light have both left and right circularly polarized light in it? I can only assume the former position since a circular polarizer will reduce the beam intensity by half. This means that 1/2 the photons are left circularly polarized and half are right circularly polarized in a plane polarized beam. I think what is actually happening is that if you use a polarizer this "forces" the photons to be absorbed or be transmitted with a particular polarization. It just so happens only 1/2 the photons can get through a (perfect) polarizer. The other 1/2 are absorbed (blocked). Those that get through now all have that exact polarization through a forced alignment of the electric field vector. Since photons are quanta and are either absorbed or not .... 1/2 are absorbed as particles and the others will undergo the "indignity" of realignment without loss of integrity in the wave state. So 1/2 the intensity of the beam is lost. This polarization would occur regardless of what type of polarization is applied... if plane polarization is applied a further orthogonal plane polarizer will block all those 'aligned" photons. Conversely if left circularly polarized a right circularly polarizer will block all the remaining photons. If left circularly polarized and a plane polarizer applied the beam brightness will drop by 1/2 while half will be absorbed again.and the light will be plane polarized again. You would be able to repeat this operation as many times as you wish with the brightness dropping correspondingly. This operation is similar to that when a Holographic template is used to transfer OEM to a photon. The photons are not simply selected from photons statistically, they are modified by the template since the OEM is not in the photon originally. In a likewise manner the photons that pass into various polarizers (linear and circular polarizers) some photons are modified through "interferences".

The next important point issue is getting back to the single photon... it must contain usually an arbitary polarization or in the case of a single dipole atomic excitation, a fixed polarization angle aligned along the axis of the radiators (the primary alignment of the electron "jump" between the two shells). In the case of a gaseous LASER radiator it is probably "natively" non-aligned because of random motions in the gas (yet still coherent) or it may indeed be aligned due to the population inversion process forcing a particular polarization. I will be guided on what people think about that process. Internal to single photons we have a single polarization state which should be linear aligned to the primary radiator. This may be composed of one retarded wavelet that is "circularly polarized". An identical phase reversed and time reversed "circularly polarized" photon from the future (advanced wavelet) will "capture" and move with the single photon's retarded wavelet as a resonance between the past and the future. The sum of these two wavelets is a single plane polarized retarded photon packet.

Polarizers will not be able to separate those two "Wheeler Feynman" internal advanced and retarded photon packets since they are actually one and the same and not separate events.

Now to the "mysteries" of topological charge. Electromagnetic vortices exhibit this phenomenon. That is the EM wave is wrapping around itself and according to the amount of this twist can exert a force on charge dipoles. This is therefore a kind of synthetic electric charge created by the dynamic of the EM wave when it becomes knotted. Recall electromagnetic waves contain no charge in the vacuum but instantaneously or through resonances the electric field can have a pattern that can externally be seen as charge. These usually need Laguerre Gaussian Modes. Still another possible use for the topological charge is in creating the electronic charge for fundamental particles. See "Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?" by Williamson and Van Der Mark

... Click to enlarge...
...and of course "The Nature of the Electron" by Qiu-Hong Hu
Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?: by Williamson and Van Der Mark
The nature of the electron: Qiu-Hong Hu

In general I am very pleased with what TRoc has said but as you see there are some "nit picky" points to clear up. Other input welcome... criticisms etc... all welcome.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Sep 19 2007, 07:50 AM

Hi Good Elf, TRoc, Laserlight and all,
Sorry I don't have time to put this better.. a variation on what Good Elf is saying ..

Apparently Einstein said..

Much the same applies to snakes.

If we have a fast moving train going through a station..

Two passengers use walkie-talkies to talk to each other across the carriage. From the station PoV the EM snake appears to be going somewhat sideways. Does this make sense? The pictures of fields only make sense in the context of source/detector (at least without a lot more relativity than I am capeable of).

EM is a can of worms too.

Best wishes - C2.

Hi Troc!
Very good!
If everyone agrees to use these pictures/references
http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo8.htm
This is a very good base to start to do the analysis.
Now we should be able to do your analysis (divide up the pattern into 12 harmonics.)

After this has been done we should be able to analyse Good Elf's statement.
"Due to our relative "movement in time" the photons appear to be moving but they are simply wavefronts that are passing our observer position."
jal

All,

You will end up in Alice Wonderland if you go by this person.

This is his level of skillfulness by virtue of possessing special knowledge of DNA Binding Protein prediction.

http://www.enzim.hu/~szia/cddemo/edemo0.htm

Regards,
maybe

DNA Binding Protein prediction

This server predicts whether a protein is DNA-binding from its structure and/or sequence. The algorithm is described in the following paper:

Szilagyi A, Skolnick J:
Efficient prediction of nucleic acid binding function from low-resolution protein structures.
J Mol Biol. 2006 May 5;358(3):922-33. Epub 2006 Mar 10. PubMed

Important note: The method was essentially developed to predict DNA binding ability from the three-dimensional structure of a protein. Although it can predict DNA binding from the protein sequence alone, pure sequence-based prediction was only validated on a very small set of sequences (all of them belonging to structures in the Protein Data Bank). Therefore, the actual false positive and false negative rates of purely sequence-based predictions could be higher than the estimate indicated here. A three-dimensional structure should be used as input to the server whenever possible.

By András Szilágyi (szia (at) enzim (dot) hu)
Comments and suggestions welcome!

LOL
maybe

Hi Confused2,

Easy primer on Special Relativity (bits from Wikipedia... but not all)... The relative positions of origins of the two Inertial Frames (observer and observed frame) in relative motion is an important consideration. This little discussion is to emphasize the difference between where events are and what is seen by an observer..... And of course what is the difference. There is a special direction in Special Relativity. This is the direction of the relative velocity vector, it is "different" from the other coordinate directions. Special Relativity does not affect the orthogonal directions so align the two frames (observer and observed frame) such that both origins are selected to be "in" the initial position of the point of interest in the relatively moving observed frame at t=0.

The motion of the observer should be thought of as being at rest regardless of any "trick" that describes the state of motion. Remember all observers can be considered at rest in their own inertial frame. This actual frame extends to infinity in all directions (in the absence of gravity fields) so we can pick an arbitrary origin for both inertial frames that includes both the observer and the point of interest in the moving frame and still align the preferred frame along the mutual velocity vector. Now we have the two frames with the observer, in general, displaced from this origin of its own frame by this fixed position vector.

Special Relativity (without corrections) describes single sets of coordinate transforms between the two coincident frames (which coincide with the "point of interest" at t=0). The x axis must also coincide since it is a "preferred direction" along the velocity vector.... most important point.

So for an event in the unprimed frame p with coordinates
the coordinates in the primed frame (observer frame)




... where...


This transform will give you "new coordinates" in the other frame for the same event. Just plug in the values of v,x,y,z,t in the moving frame and the equations churn out 0,x',y',z',t' in the observer frame (in this scheme the primed coordinates indicate the observer frame in which the observer is at rest). This is an "event" in the moving frame at t=t. This event is "witnessed" by the observer with coordinates (p',q',r') relative to the observer frame origin. By calculating this t' and adding the time of propagation from the event for light to reach the observer (expanding on the surface of a sphere)... This is...

sqrt[ (x'-p')^2 + (y'-q')^2 + (z'-r')^2]/C = t".

This is simply the time light takes the event at (x,y,z,t) in the "moving" frame and consequentially at (x',y',z'.t') in the observer frame to propagate to (p',q',r') where the observer is physically located. So the new time coordinate as measured by the observer is (t'+t") and thus the event as seen in the observer frame is (x',y',z',(t'+t")) from the observers position and time at (p',q',r',(t'+t")). This could be a single flash of light... an event. In the simple case it would be convenient to locate the observer at the origin but obviously this is not possible in the general case. So this is what is "seen" and the event is "observed" at (x',y',z',t'+t") and the event itself is what "occurs" is located at (x',y',z',t'). To work out all kinds of stuff you need to know what you "see" and what/where the event "is" as being logically separate.

The other point is what is "seen" is what the observer senses as being all at the same instant in time at the observer position. This is a difficult problem in practice so a computer would be needed since it is the inverse of the problem above. To watch a particular set of points (say on the vertices of a moving cube in the observed frame), what you see at a particular instant must be corrected for propagation delay so that the light from events at all 8 vertices arrive at the observer at the same calculated time according to the observer frame clock... I suggest the easiest way would be for you to derive a world line for all 8 vertices for a large number of times as seen from the observer position and then match up the position of the 8 points with the exact same time index. This would indicate what is being "seen" at a particular instant at the observer position... A position for all 8 points for the same sequential instants in time. Do people understand what I am saying here and I hope I am not sounding patronizing?

I would also add that in the real world things are happening far too fast for human eyes to actually notice anything at all.Some simulations on the web slow the speed of light down to a couple of kms per hour... Pretty unrealistic but you need that to 'see" anything at all... After all we are talking about "the speed of light" here.

There is a further complication... "Nailing up your own local set of coordinates". In general the preferred observer frame is not the coordinate frame of choice by people who want to ask "silly questions" of position relative to a "local road map". This coordinate orientation may not be convenient for the observer if the observer has chosen a special local coordinate system (perhaps relative to the surface of the Earth for instance). This set of coordinates we have derived would need to be subject to a translation and a rotation in three space to coincide with the local coordinates which may need to center on the observer. We are now using another point as the origin of the new local coordinate system. We have done all the hard work of converting the original event into "preferred" observer frame coordinates, we now need only "rotate and translate the preferred coordinate system" into coincidence with the new local coordinate frame using the Euler Angles. These are usually quoted using the directional cosines between the the three orthogonal principal basis axes expressed in the anticlockwise direction. Please note that signs for everything such as the positive and negative axes and velocities and in this case how to define the coordinate frames (left hand or right hand) and the Euler Angles between them... Important conventions if you want the right answers.

So this translation is simply the difference in the origin of the "preferred observer coordinate system" and the origin of the "local coordinate system".That is the translation bit. So we subtract that from the present preferred coordinates leaving the position vectors of the "preferred coordinates" relative to the new local origin. Now using this 'vector" operate on it with the rotation matrix to get the final coordinates relative to the local coordinate system.
http://anorganik.uni-tuebingen.de/klaus/nm...er/rotmatto.gif
Where the angular directions are alpha, beta and gamma.

Assuming we have these two coordinate systems in the one inertial frame of reference. The first coordinate system is a "specially selected" orthogonal coordinate system. The next coordinate system is the "local" coordinate system that could have an arbitrary relationship with the first observer frame of reference. Like I say a computer is the way to go.

Generalized coordinates cannot be used as they can in General Relativity. The main "flaw" in General Relativity is to assume that you can use generalized coordinates... you can... only if velocities are small relative to the speed of light. This is OK for calculating geodesics in a very "slow" Universe but Special Relativity is still the method of choice in a "high speed" Universe. I have seen another attempt recently where GR has been used to calculate a high speed Universe and some pretty unconvincing results seems to come out of it... still it may be worth looking at.

Physicist to Present New Exact Solution of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation
http://www.physorg.com/news10789.html

Interesting reference...
http://anorganik.uni-tuebingen.de/klaus/nm...uler/euler.html

Hope this helps...

Cheers

Hi Good Elf and all,

A while back I thought I had solved the twin paradox .. it is 'obvious' that the twin taking the longest path will end up being the youngest. Pride comes before a fall. .. to save myself embarrassment I won't point out the actual post .. the kind response lead me to see that my 'solution' defies ordinary logic and is in itself paradoxical . The transforms give the 'right answer' but give no insight into HOW/WHY .

I suspect the HOW/WHY of QM and the HOW/WHY of relativity (edit 'spacetime') must be intimately linked ** .. but just HOW and WHY I have no idea.. nor (I suspect) does anyone else.

Best wishes C2.


Wireless is the same, only without the cat. <- !

Edit ** .. after reading my own post I'm not even sure of this QM/SR/GR link .. those remarkably clever people with the Standard Model would probably have done it already if it were possible ..

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Sep 20 2007, 09:31 AM

Hi Confused2,

They are and you are right... Special Relativity is the high velocity end of de Broglie wavelength. They are reciprocally related and literally "wrap on the speed of light" and "zero velocity" respectively. For particles as V -> C the wavelength λ -> 0 and as V -> 0 the wavelength λ -> ∞

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_wavelength
A careful examination of Special Relativity and de Broglie Theory lead to a reciprocal relationship as I have mentioned a number of times before. These transformations are rotations on the surface of a "sphere".... the angle of rotation is arcsin (V/C), this is Special Relativity.

This is the surface of the light cone and as V -> C it undergoes a rotation on the surface of the lightcone away from the direction of initial propagation to an orthogonal direction as V approaches C. It is like a conker on a string where the force of application is now centripetal (orthogonal) rather than collinear.... Putting it another way "spin" rather than "thrust" in a highly curved space. If flatspace has become curved then there are additional dimensions to flatspace since this is telling us "something lies beneath" the veneer of spacetime..

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Sep 20 2007, 10:06 AM

Hi all,



Good Elf Posted on Yesterday at 7:36 AM

Those are certainly better off "addressed", than "ignored". Any potential errors should be pointed out, as they are noticed. This helps us all grow.


I don't see any "serious" problem; I think it is the usual semantic nature of definitions, and habits formed by specialization.

This is worth "checking out". No disagreement there, GE. The relationship of the "time evolution of phase and field cross sections" is definitely not the same as sound in a medium. The relativistic Doppler shift (RDS) is not the same, and it is what I, and the links are referring to.


What you are concerned with, is that I am "constructing scaffolding", with which to establish a preferred reference system. Don't worry, I'm not that clever. Fortunately for me, the concept of "beat-frequencies" already does this for me.


I am using the term "scaffold" to mean "temporary geometry", aka, "phase geometry", and several other names. Even if this only happens for a few cycles, it is enough to cause self interference, and dictate the shape of the envelope, from the inside, out. This is a true emergent dynamic.


The fact is, that 2 waves that are "moving" at c ("photons"), are moving (of course) at the same, constant velocity. Therefore, any difference in the ratio of that constant, divided by its wavelength (recursive distance) is ABSOLUTE. It is independent of either source, because it starts from a wavefront. (node)


What didn't I say there, that needs "filling in"? The 2 waves are the same frequency, and they are superimposed, so on the same axis as well.


They will not "spread" here, because there is no impulse, no energy, 0 frequency difference to cause this.


However, any difference in frequency (with the other parameters unchanged) will create an absolute self-referential metric, stemming first from the fundamental axis that is inherent to Doppler/Lorentz/Einstein modeling. Secondly, the "world lines" that are used create definite lines connecting the geometry of the shape under question, to the sink, also are establishing reference points, as well as center of symmetries.


In the end, Resonance Theory (RT) asks for such small, and logical changes to the "interpretations" of these existing "giants", that I think people will have no problem in making the small mental trek.


RT is more a set of "software updates", than a true "new Theory". At the heart, yes, there is "new Physics", that must be understood before the "final answer" will really make sense. After a very logical, and "tabula rasa" beginning, the "giants" are seen to be "more realistic", and without conflict.


The Bridge does exist. We must hammer the last nail into the coffin of "Monochromatic Assumption" first.


We also must "pull weeds": "timing" is not subject to "contraction", without a symmetrical accompanying of a "change in rhythm". If you change the denominator in a "rate", then you are only allowed to use integer ratios with the numerator. Time is the common denominator in this relationship (frequency-wavelength). If that parameter changes, the both of the others do. If you find that the "frequency stayed the same" when you measure, then you can either believe that "space-time contracted", without any explanation, and in disregard to conservation of energy (based on the QM zero point "fact").


Or, you can see that it is our "measurement" that changes. That measurement is "frequency", and there are additional "frequencies" that are contributed by the medium (Space), that are the cause for Conservation of Energy that is the final result. "Contracting" Space AND Time is asking Energy to "go away". Contracted into where? Other dimensions? Hmmm, I'm going to hold out for the Logical approach. Answer the more pressing questions/problems first, and see where we get. Conservation of Energy DEMANDS NON-Linear methodology. The linear approach is a disaster, when looked at closely; it CAN NOT support the Laws of Thermodynamics.


There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS of the "vacuum = nothing" premise.


There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS of the "monochromatic nature" of light, except as some form of "mean" frequency.


There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS that "Time" can be stopped, or reversed. Only the "concept" of the abstraction can have imaginary properties.


There is NO QUESTION as to the FALSENESS of the "constancy of the speed of light". See #1 above. THERE IS NO VACUUM for light to travel "c " in. This value is a measurement result, and WILL NOT WORK unless MODIFIED with the Refractive Index of the REAL medium (average position of atoms at equilibrium). What IS constant is the RATIO, with TIME unchanging as the denominator.


If "Space" is treated as a "real vacuum", then "clever methods" of conserving energy must be used. Unfortunately, those methods are not logical, nor self-consistent. "True" velocities MUST be calculated, and this takes the path through "transverse" modes.


When you get to the "Transverse Doppler Shift", the "method" runs out of steam.


That is what you are asking (C2), with the "side view" questioning. It is a "bad question", because we can not "collapse" from that angle. To what are you inferring that needs "contracting"? You can't "contract nothing", unless your math has become Science Fiction.


NOTHING with MASS can travel at the speed of light. This includes (for those Science fiction fans, and I am not one) "observers riding on 'photons'". Non-questions give non-answers.


IF you are "basing everything" on this "gedanken", then you are writing Science Fiction. This is NOT the Holistic picture. "Consciousness" requires mass, reflecting pure thought. Yes, there are certain benefits from "God meditations", but you can not be of service to others in this state.


You must bring back what you "imagine", and then apply reason, and logic to it, to get a "story" in which to share. This is the way to help others realize the "unknown".


Bottom line: you MUST INCLUDE the perspective of ALL of the electrons involved with this transaction (light energy). IF you TRY to accelerate an electron so that it has the same "perspective" as "Albert riding on a photon", then the electron will DUMP Mr Einstein off at the nearest "relaxation station", THROUGH ASYNCHRONOUS (inverse symmetric) MOVEMENT. This is how Energy is conserved. The "photon" continues on the path, WITHOUT any "riders" (mass), AND the electron changes direction, shedding the velocity induced extra mass (rider) too.


Saying that the "photon", from its own perspective, does not experience time, and therefore, can not have time based dynamics, doesn't lead anywhere. The time based dynamic requires electrons to count, and fortunately, they DO experience "time", in the form of "trapped energy". That is why our concepts of "velocity", "frequency", and "wavelength" work together: because there is a FIXED ratio of time between energetic events/exchanges. (those are between electrons, of course)


In fact, the "timeless" imaginings for the "photon" are completely incongruent with the way in which they (waves) are measured. Time is required for the measurement. The only value that this "mental exercise" has, is to give a LIMIT to which the exchange of energy can take place in. Since THIS is what we MEASURE WITH, we LOSE "lines on the metric", from this perspective. Now TRANSLATE and INTERPRET those "lines": time changes, or the frequencies that balance the energy exchange? [if E=hf measures energy without "time", then changes in energy would require only changes in "hf", also without time.]





regards,

T.Roc



This post has been edited by TRoc on Sep 20 2007, 09:24 PM

Hi all,



OK, we can "re-group" around the "response of the field".


Just for "argument's sake", we will treat the "input field" (light waves), and the "response field" (matter waves) in an "interference" experiment, as ONE system.


We want an answer that includes the source, the first slit, the slit wall: slit width and slit separation, the medium: state and statistical positions between atoms, and finally, the image on the screen: includes intensity, phase "fringe pattern".


It would seem that, either an "on the way" explanation, using the parameters of "detection", intensity and phase, would be sensible, or, possibly an "at the detector" explanation, that used the parameters of "the field". Some "translating" is in order.


At the start of the thread, I suggested "wave transforms" as a alternative to Fourier. Whatever we do, I agree with the idea, that we need MORE INPUT to truly understand (solve) this problem. More observers, more measurements, more data..


This seems similar enough with the concept of "protective measurements", or even just "extrapolation and inference" by reductionary logic. If the behavior of the interaction of light and matter, in the DSE set up, is VERY PREDICTABLE, and regular, then "inference" is NOT "guessing". If we repeat the experiment 1000 times, each time FROM A DIFFERENT FRAME, and we compile the results, we get a "snapshot" of the true, holistic-non-linear event. I believe this to be EQUIVALENT to the 'inverse' idea, that THROUGH the linear approach, ADDITIONAL dimensions will have to be added to "capture the essence".



We are fortunate to live in the "computer age". Modeling, based on theory, and its equations, is becoming a new "method" for Physics. There are quite a few different areas in which this is happening, which makes it a little harder to pursue. Not only can we learn from their successes, but from each different methods weakness, too. Again, we need to "line up" our parameters, so that our detector is giving the same measurements as we can calculate for the field. We need to be able to "transform" parameters: like frequency/velocity, intensity/cycle count, amplitude/transverse wavelength. We also need to be able to understand "re-radiation", the refractive index, direction change, polarization, apparent velocity change, and resonance of the relative frequencies, in a seamless way.



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


Optical coherence tomography tomogram of a fingertip.

100nm, in the visible light band, is "equivalent" to 1/4 octave. The whole band, is from ~400nm to ~770nm; just less than a full octave, 2f. 1/4 distance in change of wavelength is equivalent to the "peak of the real phase", so they have a good comparison between the "movement~change in position", and the "center of that movement". The energy of that "pixel", or crossing of parameters (node) is easy to "isolate", by change in relative frequency. The frequency comb utilizes this idea, which is no more than an "imaginary" measuring tape, with lines based on "known" frequencies. By reducing the "unknown" to "within an octave" of the known, we are establishing a simple, logarithmic limit, based on 2. Every time we divide this space in half, we increase "resolution", down to the "single parameter". This is why RT can take "phase space", and divide it into 12 equal parts: when any 9 "divisions" are made, we end up with 3 parameters "sharing space" at a common junction. Conversely, if we have any 3 values, within an octave bandwidth (Nyquist), they will have 3 potential "alignments", that will change their "average position". Either we get the "peak" alignment", from the perfect phase match, or we get "walk off" to either direction; higher or lower than our "starting value".


If that starting value is a position, then we have "push and pull" as the force results. This can be followed by charge, magnetism, and gravity, as well as intensity, superposition, and constructive/destructive interference, and into Pauli exclusion principle/spin. The electron (node) will never be "phase aligned" with the "photon" (anti-node). This is a hint at the "pay off" of RT; breadcrumbs for the weary travelers to find their next meal, and sustaining the journey.

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

(emphasis added; see link for full equations)


RT meets all these requirements.

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

CLICK for larger image


Again, a picture is worth a thousand words. But you have to ask a question to begin the process of "putting it into words", and the chances are, that you'll have to ask many questions to get the whole answer.


Besides what it is intended for, I find that this Haar wavelet TOTALLY visualizes my PRIMARY premise, the fundamental conclusion of RT. We ARE NOT measuring a "fundamental value" of ONE to ONE ratio. If the "real part" of this fundamental wave has an amplitude of +1, and the "imaginary part" has -1, the current system "reduces" this value to ONE, and just counts that.


If the "amplitude", or movement through the curve (angular momentum~frequency in 3D helice) is NOT "primary" or "fundamental", as the "one wavelength" = "the distance from zero to one" model suggests, then what is? One wavelength MUST have several parts, to accurately describe. It is not the fundamental "starting point". If we just go one step further, into the "binary-like" (& bifurcation) model of the "Node and Anti-node" relationship, where any "one" must be surrounded (asynchronously bounded) by two of the other, as a set, or Triad.


RT gives a simple alternative to the "variation in 2 dimensions" of the "zero point" of the current model, as shown in the above diagram. On one axis, we have the fluctuation (curve) between "-1 and +1", and on the other (orthogonal) axis, from "zero to +1". Can you see the QUESTION, begging to be answered, just to the LEFT of this "zero starting point"?


It suggests that we are taking a "linear snip" out of a "non-linear process". The "change in time" can be measured from zero, but we are NOT actually measuring from "Time Zero", which we have defined in the framework of Science, as "the big bang", or the "big bounce". In all experiments, "start time" is a fixed, preferred reference point", to which "end time" is absolutely dependent upon. The "snip" is an image in an interval of time; no matter HOW you magnify this image, its ratio to the "flow of time" will not change.


The holistic view only says, "what is good for the observer (sink) is good for the sender (source)", which means any "Doppler shift" experienced by one, will be inversely experienced by the other. So, if time is "contracted" inversely, then the "rhythm" doesn't change. [ 2:1 = 4:2, etc] The only "meaningful" interpretation, is to take the RATE of the signal (cyclic) difference, which stands "outside of time" while superposed in space. That is, the beat-frequency is locally dependent (interaction zone of integer wavelengths) on the input signals, but independent of their source places OR times. The two signals, within the "time-frame" of the experiment, are ALWAYS coherent, on at least one axis.


Look at the Haar wavelet diagram again, and change the scale. From (x axis) "0 to 1" will get replaced with "from 1 to 2", and the FUNDAMENTAL change of "ONE UNIT" does not change. What does change, is the relationship of the "amplitude" to the "movement in distance": they become "synchronized" into a "discreet value". This is also equivalent to saying "from the center, out", starting from "1/2" and moving asynchronously to zero, in one direction, and to one, in the other. RT would say, "from 1.5 to 1, and from 1.5 to 2", again, those are the same intervals as the current model, but with different (real) values.


One and Two have to be understood in Resonant terms: they are the Fundamental ratio. They are the "book ends" that contain a "hinge point" like "positive and negative", or "yin/yang", "forward/backward", between dualistic terms. There is only ONE other ratio, that supersedes it, and that is of course, 1:1. That ratio is not differentiable, and 1:2 only offers "slightly better" chance of detecting the difference of less than one. You are starting, and ending ALL measurements on these "nodes". What happens "in between" is the "anti-node", or peak change in energy; simply put, a value that is NEITHER of the inputs, but EXACTLY their mean. Note that this is a limit, because, as we go higher than 2, we must use "harmonic mean", instead of arithmetic mean. The relationships between arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic mean were laid out by Pythagoras, over 2000 years ago. When you understand wave resonance, you will find that this is the logical equivalent to the Uncertainty Principle. There will be a "difference in location" of the point determined by geometric mean (spacial coherence), and the point determined by harmonic mean (frequency coherence).



The Wavelet Tutorial
by
ROBI POLIKAR

OVERVIEW: WHY WAVELET TRANSFORM?

FUNDAMENTALS: THE FOURIER TRANSFORM AND THE SHORT TERM FOURIER TRANSFORM

MULTIRESOLUTION ANALYSIS & THE CONTINUOUS WAVELET TRANSFORM

MULTIRESOLUTION ANALYSIS: THE DISCRETE WAVELET TRANSFORM


This is a must read, for those seeking "new Physics".



regards,

T.Roc


This post has been edited by TRoc on Sep 21 2007, 09:08 PM