Curving light waves

page: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
Well, it's posted on physicsforums.com, wonder how we will go?

"What happens to a photon wave packet when half out of a moving device?"

Linky


Photons are too small. I honestly dont know how to explain any better that there is no "half out" of the device. But the guys at PF will

If the source was ocilating at close to the speed of light there could be some interesting effects, tho I imagine it would have to be awefully close to c.

Edit: I think if it was close to c, then you could redshift the light but idk
edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


I'm excited!


(But I'm bracing myself for the smartass replies you might get.
)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by primalfractal
 


I'm excited!


(But I'm bracing myself for the smartass replies you might get.
)


Better than the dumbass ones hes getting here.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Which include mine, I'm sure.




posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Photons are too small. I honestly dont know how to explain any better that there is no "half out" of the device. But the guys at PF will
Reading the thread might have helped because we did discuss ~7 meter long photon wave packets earlier in the thread here. That's probably too large for the proposed experiment, but the point is, even though some photons are indeed small, doesn't mean all of them are too small.
edit on 1-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Photons are too small. I honestly dont know how to explain any better that there is no "half out" of the device. But the guys at PF will
Reading the thread might have helped because we did discuss ~7 meter long photon wave packets earlier in the thread here. That's probably too large for the proposed experiment, but the point is, even though some photons are indeed small, doesn't mean all of them are too small.
edit on 1-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Ok, thats why you dont get it. You dont know what a photon is.
A wave packet is not a photon. YOU CANT THINK OF A PHOTON LIKE A PARTICLE. WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY.

*facepalm*
edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
Well, it's posted on physicsforums.com, wonder how we will go?

"What happens to a photon wave packet when half out of a moving device?"

Linky


Hmm so far the only response was the same as mine. Could I be right? Of course not, it must have been me who posted that. So lets wait for another.

(see im picking up on how you guys do things here.)

Edit: To claify, i was being sarcastic. I have refrained from posting on the PF forum, i didn't want to be accused of influencing responses. (gotta feed the baby birds)
edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Ok, thats why you dont get it. You dont know what a photon is.
A wave packet is not a photon. YOU CANT THINK OF A PHOTON LIKE A PARTICLE. WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY.
I don't understand your response. If I thought the photon had only particle-like properties I wouldn't see any point in doing the experiment. The quantum wave function I posted earlier when I mentioned wave-particle duality relates wave-like properties which I'm also interested in:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If each wave packet is a particle or at least has particle-like properties in addition to wave-like properties,....
abyss.uoregon.edu...
I am actually interested to see how wave-particle duality is expressed in the experiment, and I would like to see if the wave function influences where the photon is detected in this experiment as the double slit experiment also shows evidence of the wave function.
edit on 1-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Ok, thats why you dont get it. You dont know what a photon is.
A wave packet is not a photon. YOU CANT THINK OF A PHOTON LIKE A PARTICLE. WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY.
I don't understand your response. If I thought the photon had only particle-like properties I wouldn't see any point in doing the experiment. The quantum wave function I posted earlier when I mentioned wave-particle duality relates wave-like properties which I'm also interested in:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If each wave packet is a particle or at least has particle-like properties in addition to wave-like properties,....
abyss.uoregon.edu...
I am actually interested to see how wave-particle duality is expressed in the experiment, and I would like to see if the wave function influences where the photon is detected in this experiment as the double slit experiment also shows evidence of the wave function.
edit on 1-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


I posted earlyer that there is no way for the packet to be half out of the source while its moving. That violates relativity.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 

Hence the relevance of the quantum wave function.

Can't you define with quantum mechanics a time prior to the time the photon impacted the detector where the wave function probability of the position of the photon would show a 50% probability of being outside the source and a 50% probability inside the source?

Obviously both probabilities cannot be realized simultaneously, because if you measured the photon position, it would be one or the other, which means there's no violation of relativity with such a probability wave function. Right?

So, the measurement of a single photon would not he helpful. In order to measure the effect of the quantum wave function, just as in the double slit experiment, you have to see the pattern formed by many separate photon impacts on the detector to observe the wave properties of the wave function, and in this case, there is no relativity violation.
edit on 1-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Me to


This seems already, to be definately at least a new quantum theory until either proved or disproved by our experiment or others. It could be a lot more.

Also as Arb says it is an interesting experiment that has never been done before. Describing something new.

It is obvious from the illustration that it is possible to do, arguement is semantic disinfo.

TD has defined the new theory from my idea as.




The fractional quantum hall effect in anyons but in a photon. Moving the laser mid-packet would have the same outcome as any other type of quantum mechanical measurement: the function collapses to either of its basis states. By "either of its basis states", i am referring to the collapse of the wave function to ket1 or ket0. In the case of a laser, ket0 is filtered out which leads to the coherent phase. "either" can turn into a menagerie of intermediate states depending on the length of the probe. So, at the new trajectory, it will collapse either of its bases. No matter how quickly you move the laser, you will never change the angle (change the frequency) of the photon.
By using a smaller probe (shorter time interval) for measurement, you will introduce virtual particle interactions. I think this could be legitimately described as "curving" the vector potential but the particles will only be manifest at their known energy quanta.




So we definately have at least something



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Arb and TD. If (and of course that is a big if) the experiment gets funded I would like to invite you both to participate



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Although not a science expert I am at “ expert” level in some things (still learning every day though).

Navigation- I know the way, an instinctive wave function. Various Championships in Australian and international orienteering.

Fighting- I have trained all my life in martial arts (hard/soft) and have fought in the ring MMA. I have been rated as a world class fighter by champions.

Dancing- Matrix style ghost dance.

I have 20 yrs. esoteric study and practice(including alt science). 20 years Permaculture. 10 years PT/rehab and alt health which puts me at initiate/journeyman level for these.
And on esoteric subjects I only just feel ready and able to comment to more than a few. They say it is a 20yr course lol.

So do remember to be polite ub

PEACE

edit on 1-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-10-2012 by primalfractal because: Spella



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by ubeenhad
 

Hence the relevance of the quantum wave function.

Can't you define with quantum mechanics a time prior to the time the photon impacted the detector where the wave function probability of the position of the photon would show a 50% probability of being outside the source and a 50% probability inside the source?

Obviously both probabilities cannot be realized simultaneously, because if you measured the photon position, it would be one or the other, which means there's no violation of relativity with such a probability wave function. Right?

So, the measurement of a single photon would not he helpful. In order to measure the effect of the quantum wave function, just as in the double slit experiment, you have to see the pattern formed by many separate photon impacts on the detector to observe the wave properties of the wave function, and in this case, there is no relativity violation.
edit on 1-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


Your using to much logic. Your missing alot of pieces to the puzzle. To many for me to continue to fix.

words like "seperate photon" make no sense in QM(atleast in the context you are.

Im intrigued by the first paragraph, but not sure I get it fully. can you elaborate

Edit: sorrry for being short, i got this tesla loony on this other topic(s) being clown shoes. It gets frustrating but I must say I enjoy talking to you possible the most out of everyone I have had sustained convo with.
edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
Although not a science expert I am at “ expert” level in some things (still learning every day though).

Navigation- I know the way, an instinctive wave function. Various Championships in Australian and international orienteering.

Fighting- I have trained all my life in martial arts (hard/soft) and have fought in the ring MMA. I have been rated as a world class fighter by champions.

Dancing- Matrix style ghost dance.

I have 20 yrs. esoteric study and practice(including alt science). 20 years Permaculture. 10 years PT/rehab and alt health which puts me at initiate/journeyman level for these.
And on esoteric subjects I only just feel ready and able to comment to more than a few. They say it is a 20yr course lol.

So do remember to be polite ub

PEACE

edit on 1-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-10-2012 by primalfractal because: Spella


I got no problem with you being wrong. Or even being crazy. Just don't tell me im wrong when im the one with the established theories made by experts in their field, and have been through rigorous testing. Unless you have done the same with your hypothesis, which i can saftley say with credentials like that, you haven't.

sorry, hard truths.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
"come at me bro" haha



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
"come at me bro" haha


I think im good on the ghost matrix dancing.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
words like "seperate photon" make no sense in QM(atleast in the context you are.
Obviously you've seen the double slit experiment, where one photon at a time impacts the detector. I posted such a video earlier in this thread. One photon impact doesn't make an interference pattern. Only lots of them do, by separate photons. What don't you get about this?


Im intrigued by the first paragraph, but not sure I get it fully. can you elaborate
Again consider the double slit experiment. The quantum wave function determines statistically how a large number of photons will interact with the 2 slits. Similarly, would the quantum wave function determine statistically how a large number of photons will interact with passing through the exit of a moving source?

When the photon impacts the detector, if you know the distance from the source to the detector and how fast the photon traveled to get there, then if it traveled in air at 99.9% of the speed of light you can calculate when it would have been at the exit of the source. Since the wave function hadn't yet collapsed at that time, then we don't know exactly where the photon was, so we can only say what the probability was that it was in a certain position using the quantum wave function at the point in time when its most likely position was at the exit of the photon source.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ubeenhad
words like "seperate photon" make no sense in QM(atleast in the context you are.
Obviously you've seen the double slit experiment, where one photon at a time impacts the detector. I posted such a video earlier in this thread. One photon impact doesn't make an interference pattern. Only lots of them do, by separate photons. What don't you get about this?


Im intrigued by the first paragraph, but not sure I get it fully. can you elaborate
Again consider the double slit experiment. The quantum wave function determines statistically how a large number of photons will interact with the 2 slits. Similarly, would the quantum wave function determine statistically how a large number of photons will interact with passing through the exit of a moving source?

When the photon impacts the detector, if you know the distance from the source to the detector and how fast the photon traveled to get there, then if it traveled in air at 99.9% of the speed of light you can calculate when it would have been at the exit of the source. Since the wave function hadn't yet collapsed at that time, then we don't know exactly where the photon was, so we can only say what the probability was that it was in a certain position using the quantum wave function at the point in time when its most likely position was at the exit of the photon source.



I said in the context you used. Pleases take what I mean, not what will be easy to argue, out of my posts.
Obviously the word photon emplys 1.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Obviously you've seen the double slit experiment, where one photon at a time impacts the detector.



Originally posted by ubeenhad

Obviously the word photon emplys 1.








new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join