Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

C2, jal,

The quantum measurement problem is one of the most fascinating and challenging topics in physics both theoretically and experimentally.

C2, it involves deep questions and the use of very sophisticated and elegant techniques. After analyzing the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. The measurement problem and rigorously reformulates the "collapse of the wave function" by measurement, as a dephasing process quantitatively characterized by an order parameter, what we call the decoherence parameter according to the many-Hilbert-space approach to the problem.

This might be TMI, just hope it sheds some light (now that is funny) on how difficult the experiment really is.

Duality/Lisa

Hi Confused2, Laserlight, Duality, fivedoughnut, Jal et al,

Click on small images to enlarge...

OK I am trying to establish higher dimensions (reciprocal dimensions) by physical argument. I will (once again) turn to the de Broglie Matter Wave (DBMW). I can readily associate this with an Electromagnetic Wave of some kind since it is compatible with Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity as shown below and propagates with the velocity of light. In my theory the DBMW emanates from "higher reciprocal dimensions". The relationship for this is:

Wikipedia: De Broglie hypothesis
I hope that all are convinced that the DBMW is no longer a "Hypothesis" and is an established fact regarding all particles recently even regarding macroscopic materials such as the famous Bose-Einstein Condensate, electrons, Buckeyballs etc.

While the electron has no measurable extension into our space the electron can capture a photon (see Feynman's QED). In my theory which is a combination of ideas including some from a paper by Williamson and Van der Mark, the electron is at least one and possibly more photons executing a doubly looping path in an internal toroidal space which also leads to topological wrapping of the EM wave and the existence of "permanent charge". This is one solution in accord with some aspects of String Theory where all particles may be constructed from photons with suitable boosts and spins.

A "Universe Construction Chart" is presented here from a book A First Course in String Theory by B. Zwiebach, which shows all these sub-atomic particles constructed from D6 Branes (6 dimensional) in just such a manner leading to the Standard Model. I admit these particles rely on compact non-reciprocal dimensions but a transformation of all dimensions to their reciprocal changes nothing other than the topological mappings. This "geometry" is exactly equivalent to the Fourier Plane Transforms.

The way in which the electric and magnetic fields are twisted (at least the most simple case) is shown in this illustration from the paper...

Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark
The "topological wrapping" of the electromagnetic stressors of the internal propagating photon of this higher dimensional standing wave results in the appearance of permanent charge on the outer surface held in place by dimensional bounds and causality in its "dimensonally separate" cavity.

Let us try and "model" the "de Broglie particle". Lets say the DBMW is generated from an oscillator which is like those crude devices that are used in wave tanks. Something just "bobbing up and down". Lets say it is moving at 10 mm /sec across the tank. What would we see on a water wave tank. We would see the wave propagating along a streamline shaped like a "vee" the top of the "vee" pointing backwards. If I increase the frequency of this oscillation this will not change the angle between the two arms of the "vee" just shorten the distance between the wavefronts. If I keep the frequency (of bobbing) constant and increase the velocity (lets say double), the distance between successive crests will also double which has the effect of halving the spatial frequency of the oscillation on the water surface in the direction of motion.

We know that the de Broglie particle such as an electron emits waves at the speed of light as shown in the equation shown above. The reality is the faster a particle travels the shorter the wavelength. This is exactly opposite to what is the case of a "bobbing source" where increasing the speed just spreads out the bobbing in space. For a moment ignore the mass dependence and focus on the inverse velocity dependence. Velocity is s/t where s = linear distance and t= time. The dependence of the DBMW wavelength is not proportional to distance and through this relationship is not proportional to time it is actually proportional to inverse distance and to inverse time which are reciprocal linear dimensions and reciprocal time which is frequency.

This establishes a "theory" that provides "mechanism" based on a reciprocal dimensional interpretation and an excellent reason why renormalization will fail since division by zero is such a damaging term. All the theories of physics so far attempt to describe the electron and other particles as a linear extension of the external three dimensional space (even Williamson and Van der Mark's Paper). If our space and energetic processes are defined only within zones where our three dimensional space exists then there is a reason here. I am not saying that a sub-atomic particle does not share our three dimensional space, what I am saying is we share common space with these objects but a separate space (particle by particle) is also "linked" by a weak connection... that of resonance.... a D6 Brane. These two spaces (actually these are three spaces each one composed of three dimensions) together give us a 10 dimensional object without further considerations.

This was the interpretation supplied by earlier experts on this problem and I think still holds today. You cannot explain the electrons matter wave properties other than "tunneling" from the evanescent region of the particle of a wave that cannot be damped by energetic processes in our system, in other word the energy system for this "radiation" quickly dissipates with distance from the particle but nothing seems to absorb this radiation like we can do with a photon. For instance if an electron hits an atom it may be absorbed into an electronic structure but it cannot dissipate. On the contrary a photon may be absorbed into a particle or a shell and the energy may be dissipated through virtual processes which can produce short range forces such as magnetism or electric fields. Some residual photon energy may be lost as kinetic or potential energy.

The de Broglie Matter Wave is a superluminal effect where the internal wave has two components, one of them is the group velocity (which is related the the particle packet velocity) and the other frequency is the phase velocity which is superluminal. de Broglie in his paper in
"Comptes rendus, Vol. 177, 1923, pp. 507-510" Louis de Broglie
I cannot show all the images here with the site restrictions so please look ... but de Broglie stated...

The assumption is that the photon carries almost no "rest mass"... In actual fact it has identically 0 rest mass but this only draws the group and phase velocity to the one number of C. These effects are seen in the near field of radio broadcast masts. We are not unaccustomed to them. But in particle fields they appear to be emanating from a separate space that is not seen and is reciprocal to ours.

The main "failing" of this paper is self admitted in that no mechanism has been shown as to why the internal structure of the electron exists such that it has the magnetic dipole moment and the electric fields in an otherwise "featureless" "point source". All EM Theory insists on extended sources for such entities. String Theories do not insist on such restrictions provided added dimensions are used. It appears the quandary is that the fields of the electron emanate from a point in space but whatever it is, that is the source of this "wave" occupies no measurable space in our Universe. This is compatible with my argument that the electron exists in a higher dimensional space from which these features (static electric and magnetic fields) emanate. This is same problems associated with Williamson and Van der Marks Paper (also self admitted). Of course they are all trying to fit this object into a three dimensional space using coventional theory. I do not accept that these properties are adequately accounted for by Quantum Theory either. Logic should be used rather than to argue from a position of "illogic" which has become accepted as part of the "quantum postulates".

It seems to me that scientists that retreat into "magic" to explain this issue and then claim that it is the most logical means of explanation is a kind of "Cowards Castle" safe from debate and immune from the "reason" and "logic" of experiment (present company excepted of course). In the total absence of any other "logical" answer I suggest this would have be accepted other than for an "artifact" of Science History.

This concept is closely aligned with Robert A. Close's view of Special Relativity which can be found here...
The Other Meaning of Special Relativity:Robert A. Close
While "Close's Theory" is very "close to the truth" he once again makes the "slip-up" of being unable to explain the electron in three dimensional space. I have discussed how Special Relativity is a rotation in 4 dimensional spacetime "out of the plane of our Universe"... this is explained away as "length contraction"... if you want we can discuss this too. The opposite end of Special Relativity is de Broglie Matter Waves as V -> 0 for particles such as electrons and a "special case" for photons.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 3 2006, 01:47 AM

Hi Good Elf,

That was a good argument. I'm assuming that the electron's helical wave EM field
"model" that was shown is an "idealized" field representation for a single
"steady state" electron around a single hydrogen atom? It would seem that
the EM field relationship around a more complex atomic structure would have a very
different phasing relationship due to localized "charge dislocations" induced by
the presence of additional electrons and protons and their corresponding
EM phasing and induced field line interactions. Or, is the model depicting the
E and B fields of an electron purely as a function of 1/2 integer spin with no
external influences?

If I understood the intent of your argument correctly, it is because of
harmonic "coupling" between "dimensions" that allows an electron to "phase"
into our space time. The implication is that it is "time sharing" its existence
between dimensions in a reciprocal relationship. If this is the case, then
if it is coupling to the charges of an atom here, it must also be coupling
to "something" in the adjacent dimension to maintain harmonic "balance". In
other words it is "phase balanced" between charges in adjacent dimensions.
Is this what you are implying, or did I misinterpret your discussion?


Regards,

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 3 2006, 03:33 AM

Here is something that just got published.
http://chip-architect.com/physics/Higher_d...M_radiation.pdf
Detecting and analyzing higher dimensions via the EM radiation field.
J.R.G. (Hans) de Vries
(Dated: December 1, 2006)
jal

This post has been edited by jal on Dec 3 2006, 03:38 AM

Hi Jal,

That is an interesting paper but it does not capture the resonating cavity approach. It is a sort of String Theory with additional dimensions. I think this is an excellent starting point but with its Planck Length and any number of intercommunicating higher linear dimensions it is far too general a solution be useful in my case. As in our Universe it is my conjecture that three dimensions plus time is a "special set" in which physics operates as a closed energetic system. An object might have 10 dimensions , three of which it shares with the rest of us and the other six (plus the internal time/frequency dimension) work in groups of three as well as dynamically separate domains. The other point that reciprocal space embodies is its ability to accept very large external objects into its small structure through reciprocal resonant dimensions. This is like saying if I was a magician... instead of pulling a rabbit out of my hat, I can pull an elephant out of it... he he he! Shades of "Looney Tunes" eh?

I really appreciate that paper though and it is a start. I would say where did you get it and where are his references? It appears not to be sponsored by any Institute and come from "nowhere".

Cheers

Hi Laserlight,

It is just an electron. It makes no claims about the external environment of the electron. It is a known fact that photons can be absorbed by the single lone electron. As explained in the previous post to Jal... internal environment is mapped as a reciprocal space (relative to us) inside the roughly spherical external spherical geometry. The Hubius Helix only shows us how the internal flat-space is connected inside the toroidally connected spacetime. For instance our Universe has internally complex connectivity in our flat-space.
A cosmic hall of mirrors Sept:2005
Here we see that the WIMAP Data supports a Poincaré Dodecahedral Toroidally connected internal space for our local Universe. This model is probably only the simplest possibility that will solve the problem. Without further data my statements and those of the other authors are inconclusive at this stage of our understanding. Beyond that I assume that the internal space itself would appear to be a sphere of spheroid with a possible number of interconnected Rindler Connections. As the article says "The geometrical explanation of the power spectrum thus implies that we live in a finite, multiply connected space that is smaller than the observable universe". The external boundary of our space is smaller that the internal boundaries.... probably a whole lot smaller through "contraction" or "rotation" on the light cone wall through Special Relativity.

You recall the electron simulation trapped in an Bohr Orbit around a nucleus...

This is its wave expression in a cavity. A particle cannot be seen with any of our technology it appears as a point source. If the particle exists it is inside another cavity. This "system" of electron plus nuclear proton is a wave picture and the cavity the electron is pictures in here might also possibly contain a photon as well within the cavity. This is aside of photons possibly within the electron as well. Feynman's Book describes the capturing of "internal" photons and their quantum numbers in a similar fashion to the way that Circuit QED captures a single photon within its resonant synthetic "atom". Remember that the source of the quanta are not "there" these are the shadows on our spacetime. They are also states we cannot directly measure.

In the helical model this photon wave "circulates" twice around the circuit with a half twist in the electric and magnetic polarizations each time until it catches its tail. In our Universe a resonant photon will "circulate" through 12 pentagonal regions each one imparting a 36 degree twist to our spacetime.

I think we can say with some confidence there is plenty of science for future generations yet to tackle.

Actually electrons never "visit" our Universe in the way that the force carriers the photons do. Photons are able to be absorbed and aside from particle - antiparticle annihilation events the electrons influence remains beyond our Universe and we see them as charges and magnetic fields emanating from a "point source". I am willing to listen to other ideas on this but this is what I think it means. Electrons are truly "stuck" in quantum space.

Matter Waves and the electric and magnetic fields from the electron can enter our Universe but the electron itself is mysteriously unable to "reach" us through that reciprocal barrier. Now I do not know just how many dimensions an electron contains once again I am resorting to conjecture about things we just do not know. Is an electron made up of two or three quarks? You used the word phased... indeed it may be that we are dealing with a three phase Universe "a la Nicola Tesla" each of these dimensional phases embody three separate three dimensionally orthogonal spaces sharing one largely inflated space we call our Universe and two other "compact" three dimensional spaces reciprocally related to our Universe at the particle brane level. There is no immediate reason to assume that they are any smaller than our own Universe being "joined at the hip" as it were. However there is no reason to think they are not extremely tiny as well. I really just do not know. In my "String Theory" these Universes are not "absolutely" everywhere they are mostly where there are sub-atomic particles. There are also a few bigger ones related to the branes of our Universe too. There are a lot of particles like "bubbles" scattered in our Universe which are the surface of higher dimensional "rotating" light cones.

These represent "optical systems" like camera obscura's for the concentration and imaging of "Kondo Phantoms" using the matter waves of the external Universe. These are like a "hall of mirrors" as well with their own internal histories due to the different physical positioning relative to the external Universe re-ordering the event sequences that the interior eventscapes are totally unaware of. This is linked through Wheeler-Feynman Emitter-Absorber Theory. Since the brane walls are a frequency domain compared with the internal time domain the events on its surface are not synchronous to events in the outer Universe due to the advanced and retarded nature the event strings that are written on its surface (like a hologram or like the aperture of our Camera Obscura). These "strings" only code for frequency(reciprocal time) and not explicitly for time so histories internally may be subtlety different due to slightly altered event causality from the external Universe. A many worlds interpretation that allows our Quantum Computers to work. As previously stated all the multiple quantum images are for free only emission and absorptions actually cost anything at all.

The Universe is "Holographic". Check out Leonard Susskind on Holographic Universes
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...nt-horizon.html
http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/geman/am17...%20Universe.htm
... or David Deutsch with his many world (Multiverse) Interpretation...
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0104033
The exact nature of the "clones" is not exactly known... yet! But I am certain they are there simply because quantum computers will actually work.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 3 2006, 06:19 AM

Hi Good Elf,

We seem to keep bringing up the same points without putting them together.

( 1 ) For present purposes my definition of a 'wave' is that it is a representation of the probability of finding a photon .. this probability appears to vary cyclically.

( 2 ) Your definition of a 'wave' remains unclear to me.

( 3 ) We agree that the do Broglie Hypothesis correctly describes the wavelength of both our hypothetical waves.

( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?

( 5 ) The DSE equation 'works' and suggests the photon is not confined to one 'wave'.

( 6 ) The Kennedy Thorndike experiment suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave' over large distances.

( 7 )The ripple tank gives the 'right answer' with continuous excitation at a single frequency (and not otherwise) and suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave'.

( 8 ) Feynman's sum over paths method works and suggests that the photon is not confined to a particular wave.

( 9 ) Can you reconcile 5, 6 , 7 , 8 with the concept of a wavepacket (perhaps clarification might help) which you strongly imply is localized on a particular 'wave' or 'wavefront'.

Best wishes,

-C2.

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 3 2006, 12:10 PM

Hi Confused2,

You sure know how to ask a lot of questions!

( 1 ) For present purposes my definition of a 'wave' is that it is a representation of the probability of finding a photon .. this probability appears to vary cyclically.
I understand that you are defining a wave of probability the square of this function normalized per unit volume is supposed to describe "probability". Certainly this is not an electromagnetic wave
( 2 ) Your definition of a 'wave' remains unclear to me.
An electromagnetic wave
( 3 ) We agree that the do Broglie Hypothesis correctly describes the wavelength of both our hypothetical waves.
No... it only describes electromagnetic waves since it is no probability function
( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?
You must ask the question of what you consider what a photon really is. There is a wave aspect and a particle aspect. Its position in a wave theory is not defined since its position cannot be determined without collapsing the state (as a particle)
( 5 ) The DSE equation 'works' and suggests the photon is not confined to one 'wave'.
Ummm... Do not follow you there, you better state what you really mean. The Ptolemaic System works but that does not make it a correct interpretation of the Physics. A photon finds an existing wave pattern in space this is unchanging for that one photon. Coherent photons will all "illuminate" the same pattern as long as the geometry of the system remains constant over time
( 6 ) The Kennedy Thorndike experiment suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave' over large distances.
I have had a "read" of the Kennedy -Thorndyke Experiment and as I see it was a null experiment simply confirming Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity for time dilation and nothing more than that. What do you read in it?
Wikipedia: Kennedy–Thorndike experiment
( 7 )The ripple tank gives the 'right answer' with continuous excitation at a single frequency (and not otherwise) and suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave'.
Your ripple tank gives progressive waves and cannot be considered an exact analogy for light. A single photon with a coherent phase will produce the same result as a continuous excitation of the chamber with CW... this will not happen in a ripple tank... ever!. The Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment is convincing argument for that to me
( 8 ) Feynman's sum over paths method works and suggests that the photon is not confined to a particular wave.
Once again I have no idea what you are meaning there. I think you mean that a particular photon could be found anywhere. No... it will not. "Statistical" photons will be found "anywhere" from a white noise source but coherent photons are ordered photons of a single frequency (or at least their waves are). Canonical Typicality refutes this point and you will not be able to show evidence against it using a theory derived from pure statistics. You have also forgotten (I think) about the nature of boson states. It is like saying the average Citizen of the US is 50% Male and 50% female and will have 60% Caucasian, 20% afro-American and 20% Hispanic heritage and lives in several large cities 90% of the time. While that is true (or my version of it ) it is not Canonically Typical. Show me a single "coherent" photon that is physically out of place. Do you suggest that a single photon will belong to different waves at the same time? Are you speaking of "electromagnetic waves" or waves of probability? How many probabilities will a photon have at one point at the one time according to your theory? I know what quantum theory predicts but Quantum Theory will fail to predict exact results for any measurement
( 9 ) Can you reconcile 5, 6 , 7 , 8 with the concept of a wave-packet (perhaps clarification might help) which you strongly imply is localized on a particular 'wave' or 'wavefront'.
A wave-packet is similar to the sync function. It is not a sync function but that is the best one to illustrate it since its transform is idealized so that it is an impulse of fixed width in time and a specified height (in magnitude). It is the most general "pulse"

That is the "pulse" and the "packet" form a transform pair. Of course the real pulse will be complex electromagnetic response since this impulse will produce a response which will result in oscillating electric and magnetic fields against the "brane wall of our Universe". This is a complex time and space varying function.
A continuous wave may be constructed from overlapping transformed pulses into a single wave as seen here...

I have made this simple since I cannot really show a true wave packet. The wave packet extends over surfaces as shown by this cross sectional image which is in the plane of the (unseen small) dipole...

Contributed by Zephir.
The wave packet moves like this animation over an existing changeless pre-existing pattern which is able to know the ultimate state of particles in the Universe not by rippling around in the space but by the standing waves in space formed with this "packet" whatever it may be. As I have previously said it is like a shadow on the ground of something removed from our three dimensional world. That is until it is absorbed or scattered as a "particle". Until that happens no energy interchanges occur.

This is also Zephirs Image. It is the best I have seen and probably represents an electron rather than a photon. The shape of the wave-packet is probably not right unless it is a pencil beam but what it shows is very right up to a point.

In the course of this thread I think I have explained these points to you and to others many times but it seems there is something missing. There are those who use particle descriptions get very similar answers to the wave descriptions. Modern theory now extends 19th Century physics and we can understand much more about these phenomena than they were able to in even the 1930's. The particle paradigm gives some fairly good visual ideas and very good mathematical results, but today I am certain that since the particle approach is the inner product of a simplified wave approach... the wave approach will give the same if not better answers with less "magic". Feynman has given the right answers to the problem. Remember that there are two theories here the Wheeler-Feynman Theory is an Electromagnetic Wave Theory not specifically a Quantum Theory and the Quantum Electrodynamics is an easy way to to calculate the same results using a non-classical wave theory which can be shown to be absolutely equivalent. I happen to think "particles" do not give a satisfactory result anymore.

Cheers

This post has been edited by Good Elf on Dec 3 2006, 01:45 PM

Hi Good Elf,
I think we may have to cite 'irreconcilable differences'!
I suggest you carry on with Elf theory without interference from me unless I have an obvious positive contribution to make. When you feel 'satisfied' perhaps we can restart from a QM approach and see what the Cookie Fairy brings.

For reference..my comments to your comments
( 1 ) For present purposes my definition of a 'wave' is that it is a representation of the probability of finding a photon .. this probability appears to vary cyclically.

My 'normalisation' is over all space and time .. not a unit volume. I suspect you will find you have to do the same with an EM wave since whatever does not come out clearly stays in there until the end of time.

( 2 ) Your definition of a 'wave' remains unclear to me.

( 3 ) We agree that the do Broglie Hypothesis correctly describes the wavelength of both our hypothetical waves.

Both our 'waves' are cyclic functions using the same number .. most likely there is a common cause for this. ( ! )

( 4 ) Where is the photon in a wave?

I feel 'collapsing the state' is a mixed metaphor .. in your answer to ( 2 ) you wrote 'electromagnetic wave' .. this is something you can detect without reference to 'collapsing the state' .. from the EM equation you can work out an exact solution.. the photon is not an exact solution .. hence the problem. Electromagnetic wave (from the text book) or 'Elf wave'?

( 5 ) The DSE equation 'works' and suggests the photon is not confined to one 'wave'.

Again 'Elf wave'? You suggest space contains waves ready and waiting for all possible combinations of source, photon and destination? My comment .. if you lose your photon 'wrapper' you might recognize something that looks very much like the ripple tank result for a single frequency .. maybe not.

( 6 ) The Kennedy Thorndike experiment suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave' over large distances.
One of the disadvantages of the DSE is that the intensity falls as the number of peaks is increased because you have to make the slits narrower.. the general compromise seems to be five or seven 'peaks'. The Kennedy Thorndike Experiment uses a partially silvered mirror to create the two paths (instead of slits) and the intensity limitation is removed. Single photon interference takes when the path length differs by many metres. There seems to be a problem localising the photon within either an electromagnetic or Elf wave that I'm not sure the mixed metaphor 'collapsing the state' is adequate to cover.

( 7 )The ripple tank gives the 'right answer' with continuous excitation at a single frequency (and not otherwise) and suggests the photon is not confined to a particular 'wave'.

The essence of the ripple tank IS continuous excitation with a CW .. I don't understand your comment that this will never happen. You seem to understand the importance of wavelength and single frequency excitation .. your continued references to de Broglie wavelength suggest you want one wavelength .. I assume your prepared paths are one wavelength .. (like the ripple tank) .. what am I missing?

Please clarify.
( 8 ) Feynman's sum over paths method works and suggests that the photon is not confined to a particular wave.

Back to the Kennedy Thorndike result .. the DSE doesn't seem to have given enough evidence..

Do you see only one wave in the KT experiment?.. what does it show about the speed of an electromagnetic wave?

Best wishes,
-C2.

Is it the same man? Is the work legitemate?...accurate?...you decide.

Hans de Vries?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0606/0606171.pdf
Mass terms to break susy-like degeneration
Alejandro Rivero
EUPT, Univ de Zaragoza, E-44003 Teruel Spain
E-mail: arivero@unizar.es
September 11, 2006

Hi jal,

I suspect this is our Hans de Vries..

http://www.chip-architect.com/

Looks like he plays about with numbers. Nothing wrong with that but probably little or nothing to do with physics except by accident.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hmm..
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/spr/2004-07/msg0062084.html

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 3 2006, 06:11 PM

Confused2
That is what I found.
Does it matter where he comes from?
Does his logic and math work?
I come from this forum. Does that make my work and Good Elf less valid?
jal

Confused2, jal, Good Elf, all,

First what is going on as far a the dynamics of this post is what you view as healthy physics.

Confused2, do just a little research on David Bohm and understand what Good Elf is trying to achieve. There is views worth consideration and others that seem to be just to hard to except, but still worth the time to get a perspective on all that has been said by many in the camp with realism. Hope I said this correctly Good Elf?

Jal, I will still stay with the 3D due to the reality we live in, saying that, I do not think that QM lives in the same. Look into quantum leap-jump and dynamics of the electron and you will see how it behaves if you do not already know. Then you have the VP's, that is another subject.

GR, has problems with infinities due to the inside of Black Holes the density of matter and & strength of the gravitational field quickly becomes infinite.
QM, has problems with infinities due to the electric and magnetic fields that have values at every point in space, so you can do the math & see this tells us there is an infinite number of variables.

So, we all see there needs to be a better understanding and what we have, is just not complete as much as I would want to tell you all is well. We all know about the Standard Model problems but it has served us well thus far.

Confused2, & Jal, do not stop with Good Elf because you guys have come along way from my perspective & I hope we all progress in our fields of research.

Just wanted to mention this, it is where we all want to be, searching for answers about very complex micro problem of the weirdness of the QM world.

Duality

Hi jal,

You force me into it..

It is my belief that analysing photons as impulses is like holding their little faces under the water until they cease to struggle.

-C2.

This ( http://www.robots.ox.ac.uk/~parg/mlrg/papers/arfgtw.pdf ) by Mr Valens from mindless.com .. looks well worth bookmarking.

Good Elf,

Wait a minute...electrons have mass, the energy that they contain
electromagnetically binds atoms together and seek to balance the net charges of
the nucleus. Electrons can be "manipulated" by charge interactions and directed
to follow high level charge paths. IMO, they exist in our space-time. They
may have unique properties that we are still trying to understand, but they are
a physical component of matter and they stay harmonically in tune with their
core atomic structure unless acted upon by external forces with higher or
similarly tuned energy levels with which they can mutually interact.

As for photons, if we consider that all energy action-reactions, and EM type events,
appear to be geometrically "scaled" as a requirement to maintain universal
harmony, energy transfer and "flow", is there room for simpler and more intuitive
interpretions of the mechansims that we are attempting to explain?

The observable universe is all a matter of progressive energy "scaling", why
should we assume that it does not directly translate from the macrocosm of
large scale interstellar interactions back to the microcosm of quantum atomic
interactions? The entire physical universe is nothing more than a collection of
the very small it is just scaled up. Light is pure energy, perhaps there is no
way to assign it a single physical description. How do you easily describe thought
or sound or shock waves? They are pure energy with no physical makeup, they
have similarities in how we quantify how their energy propagates, but they have
no physical "being", other than they do affect how matter responds in their
presence.

How do you explain the inexplicable? How do you precisely explain energy in all
its various forms? Perhaps there is no answer.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 3 2006, 10:51 PM