-


Double Slit Experiment -

"..Given our understanding of light as waves, it is possible to give a more accurate representation of the double slit interference pattern given. The beam of light approaching the two slits from left consists of approximately plane waves, whose crests are shown.

These plane waves diffract at the slits to produce circular wave fronts emerging on the right. These circular wave fronts interfere with each other in the sense that whenever crests meet, they will add (interfere constructively) but whenever a trough meets a crests, they will subtract (interfere destructively). This accounts perfectly for the bright and dark spots observed on the screen.
The presence of such a diffraction/interference pattern is therefore a sure sign of a wave property, as it is very difficult to imagine even qualitatively how such a pattern could result from a beam of particles shone at such a grating..!!."







--

 

--Last edited by saucer on 2006-12-25 18:56:22 --

-









-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2006-12-31 00:25:36 --

You can move this If you like Amen.

  A possible explaination is in compression. The light occupies a certain volume before it enters the slit. Being electro-magnetic radiation , light has limited pathways open when trying to return to the previous volume.
  Being such a weightless particle it has only a momentum when collaborating. While returning to volume the "uncollaborated light " is pushing in a constant direction . but losing the battle.
  This is by far not the only example. Hitting a rainbow scenario. Light cannot penetrate the cloud but takes a new pathway in the attempt before giving up and dispersing. The change in pathway causes a visable slowing down of the wavelenghts before they are returned to whence they came (or all points of vision. )
  I don't however think light and heat are the same. It would be an interesting scenario if heat was released in the presence of light , rather than light dissapating as heat.Because if light can dissapate as heat. Wasn't it heat to begin with?
  If light is the smallest particle how can it become heat by dissapating?...If so , What has it become?  Did it add itself to the object it heated ? then as what?
  Did it cause the objects atoms to move faster? then how ? since it has no mass and no electrical charge?
  Light science confuses me more because of it's need to be a fundamental particle than for any other reason. If it wasn't , Then light can do anything.

Cheers
Iseason
Ps: sorry to add to your page with speculation . Move it if you wish or I can delete it soon.  

  A bit like    

-


ITS OKAY, Iseason NO need to apologise. Your posting is much appreciated, by; us all. YOUR, contributions are much-valued. I will read a few of them this week, as, recently i have been trying to seed a few topics, etc; and, i have n't had much time  for anything-else ...NOT the time YET ~ to reply.
just go ahead and post; if you will. IF, posts need moving-around  ..then we GET-AROUND to covering THOSE, in due-time ......saucer


[ THIS Message will be Deleted in 1 week..]

-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-01-04 23:14:44 --

-


http://msc.phys.rug.nl/quantummechanics/tunnel.htm


-

-


http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/Poster/post/postE.html



-

Hi Saucer and Ferme
   
   how does Quantum explain reflection.
   Since light returning from an object has a minimum of behaviours to take , Which best describes it and why can this be so.
1. Light needs to 'bounce' off something as small , but much more expanded than itself. Therefore , allowing for the freespace around a "solid" particle. the reflected light can only equal one part in so many millions. Each of those light 'particles' must return in differing order than that which hit the object they bounced off.
  The math is the same for distances forwards as well as sideways. So a photon hitting your eyes needs a very much larger source than the recieving reflector and eye.
  The picture is unconservative OR "ultra conservative". Meaning that the reflector and the eye has a reserve of free photons specifically to use. And that the photon that travelled from the star is swapped for
1. a photon in the reflective surface.
2. A photon from the reflective surface is then swapped for a photon "primed beforehand" in the eye.

A primed photon makes more sense because it doesn't mean light must change direction without losing momentum.
This is if I accept that photons move. If I don't accept that photons move, the behaviour still makes better sense .

But I can work with both scenarios.

second scenario is a sling shot photn reflection.

That is conservative , but the photon must exchange energy with something. That means something must be able to impart energy to the highest form of energy we believe in . That requires it to be able to gibve light something. If you can give light something , it must be smaller and absorbed by the li8ght in order for light to make use of it.

The third is Bouyancy. light travelling through or near something that "repels it". anything that can repel or in fact "expel" light needs to be smaller than light in order to affect it.

So the question "really" is Why don't we believe in smaller than light.Since it can be affected, this cannot occur through anything bigger than itself.
The next biggest thing is HOW MUCH bigger than light. And how much farther apart than the distance across the face of a photon?

Iseason

Hi Iseason ;


Reflection of light may be specular (that is, mirror-like) or diffuse (that is, not retaining the image, only the energy) depending on the nature of the interface. Whether the interfaces consists of dielectric-conductor or dielectric-dielectric, the phase of the reflected wave may or may not be inverted.

Hi Ferme
 Let's narrow the parameters. I am looking into a mirror.
The image is reflected back to my eyes from the object.
 What speed does the light travel in either direction and what is the behaviour as described.
    Wouldn't the light have to make several journeys back and forth to gain an image.
  1. light hits an object. Then travels to my eyes. The light must return to the object (in a curcuit). Not in order for me to see it , but just like a mirror reflection the light caught between two reflective surfaces will recreate the image(slightly off centre)the portion that returns must equal the portion I actually use to see the object(which needs to be next to nothing)
   HEY !THAT is the answer to the mirror puzzle. (sorry , I like to think in flow)
   Light does not visit an object once , but in a steady stream (that's easy) but what's harder is the retention of the original image without being affected by the cumulitave light coming up from behind.Our eyes are designed to make use of the stream of light without excess queing of the stream.
   So the half sphere best suited to even distribution of light enables us to reject the greater portion of the reflection to keep the flow of photons in a steady state. The reflection and rejection of light is what enables us to see.
   Under water the light cannot arrive and depart at the correct speed for our receptors. The speed of light through oxygen is important for us .
  our range of visible realities would be enhanced by using other parameters. I know this is true since we enhance our visual properties by changing the way light arrives all the time(microscopes telescopes). But we are discussing light speeds.
   Glass must both slow the light (being a solid as dense as water) and then allow it to return to it's original speed. How can this be so? a non-speed - changing light in a particular medium (try and make sense of that) can only occur if the wave is propagated from each piont in the travel pathway (on each side of the glass)

   Because otherwise we would not recieve a stream of light at all.light must go around the atoms or be affected by the glass(as seen in spectral prisms) The que on the source side of the glass would dissable the pathway immediately. Photons may not be big but they are individual in the space they occupy.

Cheers
Iseason

The speed of the light would be approx. 300,000 km p\sec. I suppose deflected (accidental-light) in effect is ONLY bounced, isn't it; so, its rough velocity is still constant. I suppose that in Cosmology where light is "bent" by BlackHoles or stars or Stella-activity, then an irregular path is "described" for it! Iseason I'm not so sure these events are observed so adherently in micro-reality, per se. This is in the area of QED.  

--Last edited by ferme on 2007-01-28 04:55:51 --

I agree. i am minded of light "paths"..an event a photon starting/finishing point, occuring. zee

Thanks for replying guys.

If it is bounced , the problems are numerous.
 The beam of photons cannot arrive in the correct order or number. What would be dense enough to bounce a photon?
 At the very least the order must be changed by the depth a photon penetrates the surface of an object. The likely hood of a photon being directed back accuratly and in order is too huge to write.
 Given the nature of refraction , the directions of photon "bouncing " puts the percentage at verry high for diffusion and verry small for singular directional bounce. Yet this is what we observe.
 the beam of light hits a mirror and emits a similar beam . that means a HIGH amount of the energy that hit the mirror was reflected in one direction.
 that means the electron shell had something that could react to the intrusion of a photon.
1. either the electron moved into a protective position .
2. the motion around the shell created a barrier which was "everywhere at once". This needs to be faster than light to create a barrier that could be in that position faster than light could move through it.

 several other behaviours I find odd in current thinking. the Photons,(the smallest thing) should pass enaffected in qm,rather than be reflected at all.
 That is not to say that the light is not fully reflectable in my opinion.Just that science is at odds with itself.
 The two points that could and should bounce light are those directly facing the direction of travel back and forth. (in an atomic sense)
 Picture an atomic structure. The likelyhood of a photon/electron being in the position of the curve around an atom at the same time as a photon arrives is next to nil. the chances of the photon hitting the barrier , even if it WERE a solid wall and 'bouncing in similar directions' ARE nil.

  in Iseason's world (a truly amazing place), bouncing makes no sense at all. The photon must come to a full stop and then immediately regain the speed it entered the object.
several other behAVIOURS make more sense

one which makes sense is the LACK of energy. If the eyes go fishing for a particular energy and the return is within certain ranges THE BRAIN REACTS to information not recieved.
   Think of the radar picture. The quantity of waves that actually return to a radar is incredibly small. It is the lack of returning waves that builds the picture. If they all did the screen would be white.

So is the way the universe builds it's picture in all forms including gravity. "Nothing coming back. Nothing to react to."

Just food for thought.

Iseason

IF the iterative is to deflect,
then normally - In such collisions involving a sphere and a plane the collision angle formed with the surface normal (the incidental angle α) must equal the bounce angle (the accidental angle β), α = β.
I am trying to  remember my college-Physics, Iseason. Can we  agree that if a photon were a sphere it would behave as accidental-light. However historically this is Not true.

The photon is either a Packet or a Wave.

Can a Packet be spheric? A photon Wave can be cancelled in this equation, that would seem to be true? But the photon Packet may be a different proposition.


I hate the pun Iseason, but can you shed any further light, on meaning. Is this, nearer to/further away ... this thread?    

--Last edited by ferme on 2007-01-28 05:15:13 --

I'm Happy to use a dedicated thread for this discussion if Amen wants to open that.
  the light wave or packet , in order to travel along a straight pathway needs to behave as a particle regardless of how mant photons make up the packet. The parameters don't change.
  Whatever the photon bounces off needs be in position to prevent the forwards travel and repel it likewise"as a packet."
  what it hits cannot dissapate the light(Multiple reflections ) above a given maximum.
   since even the largest would have to give up a proportion of its 'reality' to create such a barrier, the concept seems flawed.
   I keep coming back to a conservative point of view. that the photon reacts based on it's own understanding of it's environment.I am a believer in much smaller dimensions than any one I know of , so to me there is no problem with light generating an advance picture of where it is going the same way we do USING light. Whatever 'intelligence ' light has is anyones guess. many particles react to environment. In fact this is the one thing that is unifyable in science.ALL THINGS REACT TO OUTSIDE INFLUENCES. any force is met with an equal and opposite force.

Cheers
Iseason

-

Just to mod a little fellas; feel free to continue HERE. saucer [ also known AS; amenhotepi ]


-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-01-29 05:46:25 --

Hi Amen

Just to clear the air.

I am opposed to gravity where the larger object attracts the smaller by use of "pulling". This to me is unconservative. the energy in the universe would be used up too soon if everything needed to "hold on to each other"

It makes more sense to react to a greater mass supposing that in doing so an object(smaller) which is losing energy at a certain rate can instead find a rest state greater than that it already enjoys. This then , becomes a conservative option.

If the smaller object uses a given 'quantum ' which is available without using more than it contains , it can achieve the rest state without loss of it's mass.
Extremely small metter (heat,electrons) contain greater energy than universal distribution levels and so volumize to find equalibrium. They however are a small portion of the picture , since everything around them is on an opposing "mission".

Cheers
Iseason

**Conservation laws state that a measurable property (such as energy or mass) remains constant in a closed system over time **

I assume Iseason that you mean you are in favor of an open system, not a closed system.
Would this apply to; models of complex QG Quantum gravity?
***Much of the difficulty in merging these theories at all energy scales comes from the different assumptions that these theories make on how the universe works.***  

--Last edited by ferme on 2007-02-01 00:51:00 --

the constitution of a closed system could be rather variable . Don't you think?
 It could well be that our universe is just one level of "closed systems" , But since we only look up wards in scale , everyone seems ok to accept that.
  but in going down , there seems to be a problem. Since the smallest tools we use to measure are also the smallest objects we can percieve,I don't find it so unusual that it would be difficult to prove.
  The conservation in atomic doesn't suffer despite using an awful lot (for size) to keep itself in reality. Science allows for a quantum of energy to materialise from somewhere. My thoughts are what Is the somewhere.
  In doing so I must not limit this to the behaviour of the atom , but the universe. As if Either both or neither existed, because that is just the reality. You cannot realisticly seperate the bricks from the house and still have a house. you can have a house of different kinds of bricks , set into different designs and in differing states of decay. but you still need bricks.
  It serves no purpose to even begin a theory that will not explain every level. If you run ahead in stella without mastering the atom , AND gravity, The temptation will be to ADD theories to prop up one level at the expense of the other.

Cheers
Iseason