Problem with the two slit experiment, Observing later

Hi Laserlight!
No I'm not ignoring ISL. It's in the opening of my model.
I'm waiting for CERN to find it and for "the "math kids" to arrive at a description of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Read lines to mean the trajectory of a particle-like photon. More area ...etc
No "expanding sphere" here. Just less particle-like per unit area.
Don't ignore .... We would not have to re-normalization if "expanding spheres" worked.

jal

Jal,

Not sure I understand what you mean by the last sentence.

Another argument that might provide credibility to the expanding sphere
concept. Consider how a parabolic mirror telescope or a lens works, they are
based upon spherical geometries that accumulate distributed energy and refocus it.
Isn't that a form of "renormalization" by using a spherical geometry to reestablish
and re-concentrate the spherical nature of a wavefront of energy?

The geometry of the spherical wave front and the spherical geometry of the lens
medium are complementary, IMO. I think perhaps they are re-establishing a
geometric ratio to the originating dipole spherical nature of the wave. The larger
the spherical radius of the lens, the larger the geometric ratio that exists between
corresponding radii of the energy wavefront and the lens, and the better the
energy coupling efficiency.

A flat mirror or flat piece of glass doesn't perform the same complementary
geometrical focusing effect because they are planar and not "conformal" to the
energy wave shape. Energy passes thru them unfocused because they don't
have a complementary geometric relationship to the energy applied.

Just my opinion. Other opinions or discussion welcomed.

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 14 2006, 06:36 PM

Hi jal, LL et al,

We're talking EM not QM here.

One of the problems with electricity is that you can't mke a charge appear and disappear .. hence a monopole simply can't be made.

BUT

If you could make a monopole it would radiate a nice spherical wavepattern.

BUT

You can shuffle charge from one point to another .. the simplest source made in this way is called a dipole (!) which is two monopoles of alternate phases.

See ripple tank http://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/Physics/ri...Tank/ripple.htm .. select 'dipole' in top right box and play about with distance between the monopoles. The waves correspond pretty well with the E (electrostatic) field of an electromagnetic wave. The two (spherical) 'monopole' fields interfere to produce the 'dipole' field (which is not spherical.).

If you started to think about it in QM terms you might notice one or two problems. I think the DSE is a better place for them wot have eyes to see it to observe and seek to understand these effects.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Edit .. I've just seen more posts made while I was having my tea .. sorry I hope this is still relevent. Bear in mind that EM is made up of gazillions of photons .. each one of which can do the interference thing all by itself (DSE .. wavefront m interferes with wavefront n) .

This post has been edited by Confused2 on Dec 14 2006, 06:41 PM

C2-

They are still "spherical" wavefronts being radiated. Even when the dipoles are
different distances apart the scattered wavefronts have a conical radiating shape.

Try overlapping the point charges with your mouse, which would show the
dipole from an "end on" point of observation.



LL

Hi C2,

Only while interacting in the presence of matter. Photons cannot combine energy unless matter
is a catalyst to perform signal mixing. A single photon is a discrete quantum
energy package and remains so until matter interacts with it. A quantum photon
has no time or mass until the energy it is propagating is externally modified by
interacting with the phase modifying geometry of matter.

Case in point. Radio waves propagate and don't interact in free space. They
remain isolated. They can be discretely isolated in a tuner with all of their
original characteristics, even though many other frequencies are interacting
with the same antenna. If they were all interacting in free space we would only
hear noise from a tuner because they would lose their individual wave
and information characteristics.


LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 14 2006, 07:06 PM

Good Day!
Quoting previous posts.

They are particle-like and spread particle-like.

So you get the impression of an "expanding spheres".
That's why you should not use the "expanding spheres" concept. You end up having to renormalize because it does not work.
There are problems with both approaches as was explained in what I said "the must read" link from Troc.
So in the end I've focused on finding a mechanism that makes waves.
As a result my model treats photons as particle-like when going from emitter to receiver. Once inside the cavity (DSE) we get the "weirdness" which is caused by the "hidden/undetected (yet) structure.
jal

Hi LL,

Looking here http://tpub.com/content/neets/14182/css/14182_186.htm (best I could find) .. we see a dipole doesn't radiate vertically .. this is an interference effect (not scattering) .. as in the ripple tank each end of the dipole IS radiating into that zone but they cancel out .. no way to get that back .. it's 'gone' .(but turns up as constructive interference in the horizontal plane). hence a dipole has a gain over a (theoretical) isotropic aerial.

As you say, mixing requires a non-linearity and air normally behaves linearly. I understand a Megadodo laser can drive air into a non-linear region but this is a rather exotic effect that doesn't normally happen. Interference is not the same as mixing.

Hope this makes sense ???

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi jal,

I'm going to get into trouble for this - bear in mind I'm not trying to steal souls here.

Have you considered the possibility that there might be a particle that naturally moves in a way that would allow you to mistake it for a wave .. if there were a lot of them you couldn't tell the difference .. only when you get them one at a time can you see what they're up to. If a single photon can interfere across its own Wn/ Wm wavefronts** then is it even a wave?

Thoughts/comments welcome.

-C2.

** do you see that happening in the DSE?

Confused2

Good point and I have and I get the "weirdness".
As a result I can only come up with a possible explanation that requires info from CERN. I think that a lot of the answer is in the dynamics.
We have not figured or detected what is moving or how.
We cannot even describe a photon ... particle-like, wave-like, point-like.
That is why I'm interested in TRoc's approach.
jal

C2, Jal, and All,


IMO, a particle has mass (physical substance), energy does not. Energy is the
transport mechanism of a "force".

How do you assign "mass" to the energy of a water wave, a sound wave,
a shock wave, a light wave. They are pure energy, not particles, but they do have
momentum, energy density, and propagate as a periodic energy cycle. Energy
waves "disturb" fixed matter by changing its "rest state" potential energy into
kinetic energy by disrupting the normal rest state energy level by temporaritly
adding energy to it.

Free energy propagates, matter does not. Matter relocates and can remain stationary. Matter can have many energy states, radiating free energy only has 1 state.

May the "Force" be with you!

LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 14 2006, 09:38 PM

C2,

Definition of interference:

Definition of mix:

My contention is that interference only happens when matter is involved as
the mediator. Interference is not a spontaneous event. Interference is
the instantaneous superimposing of 2 or more signals such that they
saturate the ability of the detector to discriminate each separate signal
individually.

Case in point. The observable universe is filled with every frequency imaginable
yet, with technology, we are able to discriminate all radiating objects clearly by virtue of
filtering out or only passing certain frequencies which we want to observe.
The entire energy spectrum is radiating throughout space, yet we can selectively detect
those (within our technical ability) that we desire to, and they do not show signs of spontaneous
interference.

Conversely, without filtration to discriminate specific
frequencies, our eyes can only see the saturated energy patterns because we
don't have the frequency resolution necessary to see the infrared, ultraviolet,
radio waves, etc. that are also part of the entire radiation spectrum. Our physical
"detectors" (eyes) become saturated by all the energy in the visible spectrum that
is being received.

The mixing or interference takes place at the point of "detection" or transmission
but only when matter is the reaction catalyst.


LL

This post has been edited by Laserlight on Dec 14 2006, 10:27 PM

Hi LL,

Where did that come from?

Bit out of my depth here .. maybe help will arrive ..

I can only give it as I see it..

From here

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../releng.html#c1

we get the relationship between Energy (E) mass (m0) and momentum.(p)

We know (we're told it so it must be true) that photons have no mass so we get

E = sqrt( p^2 c^2 + 0)

E = pc

we don't need mass to have energy, just momentum.

From the photoelectric effect (probably) we know E = h f soo

hf = pc

gives p = hf/c

So the momentum of a photon is given by (frequency) x (Planck's constant)/(speed of light)

If we worked out the radiation pressure of an EM wave of a given frequency and intensity and then worked out how many photons are involved and the momentum of each photon .. we should get the same answer.

Radiation pressure..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

I have no idea whether or not this helps ????

Best wishes

-C2.

C2-

EXACTLY!

Once you are past the E=mc^2 equation, mass is not a part of the radiating
energy solution. Energy is a FORCE....it is not an entity.

Energy originates and ends in how it responds to the presence of matter.

Hope this helps.....LOL!

LL

hehehe
Since this the season to be jolly... got to http://www.elfyourself.com/
jal

Hi all,


Just a note: I am a very slow learner when it comes to computers. I swore the last time (#3 I think) that the "system" ate my post, that I would write all posts "offline" to prevent that. I got lazy, because it has been a long time since it happened, and this morning.. BAM!

A nice, full mornings' work, down the tubes!

So, I tried to respond, but "failed".

I will try again when I get some more time. (and patience!)


regards,

T.Roc