Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Vern, Aug 31, 2006.
Well, according to QM theory it is. But we can't use QM to disprove the LET conjecture.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
OK, then I will cease to comment. I certainly am not going to take your ideas more seriously than you do.
Hi DaleSpam; thanks for taking the time to comment. There's a quote from Einstein that I like to remember when QM theory gets in the way of an idea.
I'm sorry to be such a hard headed old fart and frustrate you so. I do take these ideas seriously, it is just that I know they are not going anywhere because of the strangle hold the QM theory has on folks now days. No one is willing to crawl outside the box to think of differently developed universe. So I will just continue here.
QM theory is not getting in the way of your idea. There is just no clear idea there, all you have is some sort of vague hunch.
It has nothing to do with the success of QM or thinking outside of the box. Your ideas are just undeveloped. They cannot be evaluated at all as they stand.
If you really do take these ideas seriously then you need to spend the effort required to make them rigorous. Your ideas desperately need some clear definitions and a solid mathematical framework. If you don't take that time and make that effort then you cannot claim that you take these ideas seriously and you cannot claim that you have been unfairly dismissed or ignored by the establishment.
I don't claim that I have been unfairly dismissed. I didn't realize that I had been dismissed Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I do take the ideas seriously, but it is too late in my life for me to develop them. For the first 50 years I was quite happy with QM theory, studied it and used it successfully as an electronics engineer.
Now it's too late; but it is still fun to think about.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I hope you can get to my numbered questions and do not understand why youswitched to propiagaion alont the Z-axis, but feel free to transform my question to you "z-going" photon is you like but at least let it have some realistic numbe of cycles, like my E9, not one and as we are trying to discuss /undersand "electri gravity" you do need two photon universe like I assumed for my questions.
I think you may already be in conflict with known facts in your comments about the max electric field strength potential of vaccuum space. - I think the max knon electric field occurs interstitially in ionic crystal like NaCl*, not in photons, but do not have time to check now. Also, I want to know (as I doubt it) that the peak photon field streng this independent of photon energy ("wavelength" frequency) I.e. why can micro intens microwaves brake down (ionize) air more easily than equal energy radio waves flux density? (I think that is true but would need to check also)
*Probably in one where three electons are tranfered to complete the outter shell ot atom gaining three, instead of NaCl. You might calculate the E field mid way between +++ and --- when the three net charges are all at the nucleus and separated by the distance of a crystal lattice unit space. - I know the fields inside ionic crystals are orders of magnitude greater than man can make or dry air can support.
Must go to bed now without normal check of post.
I will probably leave Sao Paulo around luch time tomorror and not return to computer until wensday.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I placed photon B behind photon A to place it within the light cone of photon A. It is not necessary for them to be only one wave length at this point. The idea I need to convey here is that the E and B fields radiate outward forever as a "photon flux" diminishing in strength with the square of distance. Photon B moving within the fields from photon A is propagated through space in accordance with Maxwell's equations.
Here is the point:
Photon A's "electric gravity" must factor into the equations and contribute to the path that photon B follows.
That's the point.
The rest of my explanation about that with points in space and such was speculation about how that factoring in might take place.
I'm still looking at your numbered comments.
Seems I am at least forcing you to be a little more precise. Also seems that youare hearded towards a "one way electric gravity" in violation to Newton's third law. (which did not deal much with photons so perhapse not big problem)
I have not had time to look into the facts of interstitial E field strengths inswide crystals vs peak E fields of photons of if all frequency photons have the same peak field, I suspect not. Either of these could sink your ideas a about max saturation of space, so I am surprised you have not either as that seemed to be the very heart of you idea.
Hi Billy T; yes either of those would sink the idea. I have spent some time looking but always come back to the energy content of photons as being energy = hv and noticing the absence of amplitude in the equation. Since v is the only variable the amplitude of the E and B fields of a photon must be a constant. Planck's h would derive from that constant amplitude.
I don't think it would be one-way gravity; photon A simply outruns the gravity coming from photon B.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I like looking at your pretty pictures, but I think you should either answer my questions
Or better, see if the electric fields of photons either:
(1) Are stronger than those inside ionic crystals (If not, as I suspect is the case, your photon fields limited by “saturation of space” is nonsense and you appear to agree already that this conclusion follows.)
(2) Always is the same (which I also doubt). I.e. as I send single photon backwards thru large telescope in some sense it can be a several meters wide when leaving the primary mirror. Surely the electric field of such a wide photon is not still the same as when a same frequency single photon is focused down to the physical optics “point” limits of a microscope yet you want the “intrinsic saturation of space” to exist for both to exist at all space points along the path where the E field is max.
As for your emphases on energy being a function of only photon frequency, yes it is, but consider two photons of essentially same frequency. Let one be E9 cycles long an other only E8 cycles long, but still both have in any measurement essentially the same total energy. As one extends over ten times as much space (and I easily could have chosen E16 and E7 cycles to make one occupy E9 times more space along the path, instead of transverse to it as was the case in the "telescope vs microscope" case of prior paragraph.). How can both be driving such vastly different amounts of space into “saturation”?
The more I think about the implications of your theory, the less reasonable it seems to be. I think you should stop drawing one cycle photon pictures and think about these fundamental conflicts.
Hi Billy T; your tone suggests you're ready to quit thinking about this. I appriciate the time you have taken and will look into the things you suggest. I'll go ahead and post my off-line response to a couple of your numbered questions. Good luck in all your adventures !!
At time T0 the center of photon A is at T3, however it's saturated points exist at T2 and T5.
Let me change that to points in front of photon B caused by the existance of photon A. We can let the hash marks between T4 and T6 be the points where the E field of photon B is changing toward the saturation amplitude. These points reach saturation when the E field associated with them passes through time T6. The saturation point at time T6 reaches saturation slightly offset toward increasing field strength of the diminishing fields (photon flux) from A.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are going into detail (of your model and your understanding of it) but I am still having great trouble know what you are talking about. Part of this is true because you (understandably) only draw one cycle, not the E7 to E16 cycles that might exist. With one cycle, your two points of saturation and “center of photon” seem clear but if there were any number of half cycles (and surely there could be as photon even with photon only approximately E7 cycles long) then the “center of photon” and one of the “saturation points” would be the same point.
Even in the one cycle case you illustrate, the only reason that the effect of A on B is “in front” is that is the way you have drawn it. Slide A back a little and it will be “behind” (or make it more realistically many cycles long and slide it ahead a little in your drawing)
You have not addressed any of the concerns I have about the basic ideas, but appear to be lost in the details of particular drawings that conforms to you text, rather than equally possible ones that produce the “behind” rather than “in front” effect. Surely your theory is not to be limited to only cases when photon A precedes photon B in time by just the "correct amount."
If a long E16 cycle photons were considered, part of (99.9999% of if you like) of B could be in the light cone of A, with any amount of “behind” or “in front effect” you like. Surely you do not want your electric gravity to switch from accelerating to retarding just by minor shifts in the lead time of phonon A wrt photon B.
It is ill explained basic consideration like these, which you do not seem to be able to address, that is causing me to loose interest in trying to understand details of what your saying. You need (MHO) to think about the basics, not one cycle drawing details first.
For example, already asked, how can one of two essentially the "same energy" photon produce 2x10^9 times more saturation points than the other if there are two saturation points associated with each of it E16 cycles and the slightly less well defined (Fourier analysis gives line shape 0.0001% wider, for example) in frequency other photon has only E7 cycles, each with two saturations points.
Does it not take energy to stress or "saturate the vacuum"? How can the “same energy” long photon saturate the vacuum if it must do it E9 times more?
Photons definitely come with very different lengths.* For example, the high pressure sodium lamps that light road produce such short one that the two “sodium D” lines appear unresolved and yet these same two lines from a cold low-pressure lamb (narrow tube, wall quenched, with argon to sustain the discharge) are very well separated, and very narrow compared to the energy difference between the two "D lines". That is, the atoms in the high pressure lame may only be able to radiate E5 cycles before they are “hit” by another atom with complete “pressure broadening” of the line as the energy levels are dynamically changed and briefly more related to a two atom molecules than isolated sodium atom levels.
I think part of you problem is you have too little understanding of the nature of photons and are thinking of them like one cycle of a radio wave that your EE background makes you familiar with.
Before going into more drawings of one cycle photon pair and details of temporal relationships between sub components of their radiowave electric field models, think about fact than none of this may exist as defineable structure of photons.
What is saturation? How can essentially same energy photons** differ by E9 or more in how much "saturation" they produce?
*Not just Fourier theory but measurable in the lab by the path difference possible in a "two path interferometer" for which the interference pattern is preserved. - see prior post for more on this.
**One short one from the high pressure lamp and one long one from the low pressure lamp, but both produced by the same electronic transition from the same upper to the same lower states of sodium atom.
Hi Billy T.
We are already at a place that we can't get past. We can discard this idea if a given photon can have multiple frequencies. In my thinking, any photon with energy E will have frequency v and so have a certain wave length, one cycle of which will comprise the photon. We may have to observe many thousands of these single photons before we know anything about one of them but single photons must still exist.
If that concept is not permitted, either by theory, or convention, or fact, then the idea of electromagnetic gravity we were discussing can make no sense.
This is foolish for dozens of reasons:
Foolish as I think you can do the Fourier analysis.- What is the frequency content of one cycle of a sine wave? Answer: many different frequencies with peak content near the frequency of many repeated cycles of that sine wave.
Foolish also as any two-path interferometer would fail to display interference pattern (unless it by chance had the two paths exactly the same length. - photons only interfer with themselves.*)
Foolish as the pretty-colored thin oil films on water could not exist as they are much thicker than your single cycle photon is long (They are caused by interference between the possible path with reflection at the top air/oil interface and the path with reflection at the bottom oil/water interface. Thus, the extra path traveled by the bottom reflection is at least twice the thickness of the oil film. -Each photon interferes with its self only*)
Foolish as it is "Pressure Broadening" by collisions in a high-pressure lamp that terminates the emission of light (E5 cycles at least typically) by each radiating atom (Can be much greater than Doppler broadening. - some of the Argon II lines I measured for hot dense plasma during my Ph.D. work were broaden to several Angstrom widths.)
Foolish as all of the above are "single" photon effects - do not think that they are just the average of many slightly different photon frequencies. In the case of all the interference effects, one can show that each photon only interferes with itself, by just reducing the intensity and making long (days if need be) exposures so that more than half the time there is not even one photon in existence - When there is one, it in some sense impossible for humans to fully understand, goes by both paths of the two path interferometer or reflects off both the top and bottom oil interfaces etc.
There are many other, both mathematical and experimental proofs that no photon is a single cycle, and of course the uncertainty principle shows this also (for the to be zero uncertainity* in the photon frequency, it must have existed for all time, born with the big bang, at least and stretching across the whole universe, which is hard to do if it is only one cycle long)
*This "uncertainty" or energy /frequency “spread” of each photon is not only a limit on how accurately it can be measured in a set time interval of measurement duration, but a statement about its fundamental nature.
The only way for you to postulate otherwise is to ignore your mathematical inconsistency (pure single frequency is inconsistent with single cycle - Fourier) and have "faith" not “facts” (actually your faith results are contradicted by many facts) about the nature of physical existence. (If it is impossible IN PRINCIPLE, to measure/ observe some thing, then one can only claim it exists by an act of faith. Sorry - your theory is faith, not science.)
Hi Billy T; yes I have done Fourier analysis and have no problem with it.
The above quote makes perfect sense to me, it is the radiated E and B fields of this single photon that are doing the interfering. They extend outward forever bounded only by time since the photon was created. Since they diminish in strength as the inverse square the only effect we notice is their contribution to gravity.
I don't have "faith" that this concept represents reality, just suspect that it might.
how much of the zero field before and after the single cycle did you include in the function, F(x) , resolved into its Fourier frequency components?
What was the width between half amplitude points in the frequency space?
Why do you think that one cycle of any function has only a single frequency?
To get a single frequency as the result of Fourier transform of F(x), I think that f(x) = sin(x) which of course is not a single cycle, but as already noted in agreement with the uncertainity principle, F(x) or the photon, must extend forever in both directions if a precise frequency is to exist. (Nothing to due with measurement, but existance!)
As help with how much zero field region to include in the Fourier analysis, lets imagine your single cycle sin photon bouncing back and forth between two mirrors one 10 cm apart. I.e. crudely the electric field distribution between the mirrors for your single cycle photon looks like:
|______________________________/\ .____________________|...F(x) is zero everywhere except for one cycle. Not a single frequency!
Ignore the dots which are the only way I can place the negative half cycle and numbers here at the forum. Each mirror shown as three vertical lines.
The following is not a single frequency either but much more narrow band of frequencies than a single cycle:
I also note you are ignoring the many facts I have mentioned related to various interferometer experiments that show photons are typically E5 to E16 cycles long. What you are describing is not a photon. Your "one cycle photon" can not (I think) even exist as it would exhibit dispersion, I think, in your "saturable vaccum" just as all EM waves exhibit some dispersion in any meduium they interact with while passing thru it.)
Billy T; I know we can't apply statistical analysis to a one-cycle wave shape and get a meaningful result; all I can do is agree to the facts you present that show that Fourier analysis can't describe one. I don't think that excludes the existence of a one-cycle photon.
But a one-cycle photon is not necessary; it is just that the gravity inducing mechanism I was trying to describe takes place in each single cycle. We can attach any number of cycles before and after the one I used to try and explain the concept. What is critical is the idea of electromagnetic saturation of points in space.
If photon A with energy E joule/seconds and frequency v cycles/second can exist at all then photon A must have a certain number of wave cycles. The only way we can change E is to change v. This implies to me that the maximum amplitude reached by the E and B fields in the photon is a constant. If that is not so, we can abandon this idea of electromagnetic gravity.
Note: Well; a photon might be time-varient; if so, what I am referring to is wave-cycles.
(1)I never mentioned "statistical analysis."
(2) As one CAN apply Fourier analysis to almost any F(x) I never said Fourier analysis did not apply to your one cycle long photon, so do not "agree" with me in what I did not say.
One of my many points is that a photon of E12 cycles has almost exactly the same frequency content as one of E13 cycles. Thus there energy is essentially the same. Certainly they different in energy by much less than 0.000,1% yet one (the E13 cycle one) is making 10 times more vacuum saturation points BY YOUR MODEL. - Do you not find that, at least, strange?
Most of my points were experimental evidence that shows (by the existence of interference patterns) that photons have considerable length, sometimes more than a meter, so they experimentally are known to have very many cycles, but you seem to be finally acknowledging these FACTS in your latest reply, so now the main objection is the fact that one of two photons, with less than 0.000,1% difference in energy between them, is making 10 times more vacuum saturation points.
later by edit:
I realize that I have been exaggerating. - No photon every observed by man is E16 cycles long. E16 is a very big number. A hundred meter long photon of 5000 Angstroms light (approximately green) has wavelength of 5xE(-7) meters so a 100 meter long photon line has only 2E8 cycles.
The longest photons come from isolated atoms. (They can be moving steadily in your reference frame so the energy you measure may not correspond exactly the difference in the energy levels of the radiating atom because of Doppler effect.) Any collision would thus change their steady velocity and you could consider the width of the photon due to Doppler effect, but Doppler effect is normally considered to be a statistical effect of many different photons from different atoms with different speeds. Not necesarily due to collisions changing the speed of the radiating atom. (Collisions only made a "thermal distribution" of the atom velocities.)
In true "collisional broadening" you could (I think more accurately) think that the energy levels themselves are dynamically changing during the collision so EACH photon has a broader range of frequencies if its radiating atom is in a dense source. - Solids being the extreme case of “continuum radiators”. Thus very long photons always come from low pressure sources.
Another requirement for a very long photon is that the life time of the upper state must be very long. This is directly related to the uncertainty principle but in ways perhaps impossible for humans to comfortably relate to. Putting it crudely and incorrectly, if it takes a long time for the electron to transition to the lower state, then the ‘delta t” of the uncertainty principle is large and consequently the “delta E” or energy spread / uncertainty of the photon frequency can be small. (A “sharp” spectral line, can be measured, but the "uncertainity" is fundamental to the photon, to "reality," not only the measurement. IN PRINCIPLE, IT HAS A FREQUENCY SPREAD)
I like to look at it with a more classically and surely a more wrong POV. - Namely that long lived upper state slowly “pumps out” the photon’s EM structure for a long time and the head of the photon has been traveling away for the radiating atom for some time. - All nonsense I am sure, but it makes me feel better, as if I understood, and it is consistent with Fourier analysis POV in that many cycles are required for the frequency to be sharply defined.
I think the longest photon ever observed is that of the “green line” from high atmospheric glow, excited by (and part of ) electron induced aurora. It is a “forbidden line” of the oxygen atom. (The transition violates quantum mechanical selection rules, probably is possible only by perturbation of passing electron or something.) As it is “forbidden” it has a very long life time for the upper state. It can not be produced by man, still, I think. I do not know, but bet it is a few hundred meters long. Each photon of it might have E9 cycles.
Perhaps the least number of cycles in a “line” photon is a few hundred. Thus even if they differ much less than 1% in energy, two of these extreme line photons could differ in the amount of vacuum saturation they produce by a factor of a million!
Oops; sorry; I meant harmonic analysis. All components of the E and B fields would be harmonic functions of the same frequency in a single photon. I can't get it in my head that this fact that I agree with you about (I think) means that photons must exist as more than one cycle. Why not nine E1 photons instead of one E9 photon.
The idea that a given photon can exist as any number of wave cycles seems alien to me. I think a single photon is what we are describing as E = hv = h bar wavelength. One wavelength is one cycle. There must be two places in that one cycle where the E and B fields are at their maximum values. My hunch is that those two places are at electromagnetic saturation. If we can show that this cannot be true we can dispose of this hunch right away.
This cannot be true if a single photon (E = hv) can have an arbitrary number of cycles because if so we could somehow vary the E and B peak amplitude to keep h constant and so disprove the saturation concept.
Edit: Removed a link.
Separate names with a comma.