A quantum theory of light: the Double Slit experiment explained.

[halB]

I cannot stand the notion that light is both a particle and a wave. Tis a particle, and here's the proof.

All this is is merely looking at what we have known about light in a different way.

Let us start with a sun in empty space, that has just been created. It is emitting light in all directions. Since it has just been created, anyone at a distance could not see it, because (according to the classical explanation) the light has not traveled to the observer.

Let us instead consider this: the light is not travelling at the speed of light, instead what propagates from the sun is the "sphere of interaction." Within this sphere, all the energy the sun produces travels at an infinite speed (since we know now that light, since it lacks mass, does not experience time). This energy shall be called KA (which is roughly the japanese symbol for power, this label being used since energy is used for other things in formulas).

According to the classical definition, a star's luminosity decreases according to the distance squared. According to the proper definition (mine), the odds of this KA interacting with an observer (some other particle) decrease according to the distance squared.

The important implication is that KA is travelling infinitely fast within this orb, and it is more likely to be found interacting close to the source than far away. This is nothing more than luminosity reimagined.


Implications:

Let's shoot a particle of light, matter, anything at a double slit. (As we all know, these slits must be a specific distance apart (within the "wavelength") to produce the effect.) Since it is being shot "straight on," the odds of it being found outside this line are very small to nil. Within the line, you get close to 100%. Now then, when it reaches these slits, it has equal odds of interacting with either slit. Since KA travels infinitely fast, the one particle reaches both slits at the same time.

Once it reaches the slits, the whole thing starts over again. The odds of interaction are the same for both slits (as mentioned). Once the particle travels through the slits, it is once again traveling infinitely fast. It is the ODDS that cancel or amplify the light that is seen on the other side.

[An aside: The problem with viewing light as a wave is that there is no reason for the pattern seen to be stable. The pattern of amplification should vary, shimmer, waver. Because there is no reason for the wavelengths to continually line up.]

Final implication:
There is a metronome for the universe. While time may be relative, the time we experience is ticked off in a minimum unit of time. This is necessary for the odds to work. The odds must be computed using this metronome. Since a metronome ticks off the time, this is why the pattern does not waver. Because the odds keep getting calculated AT THE SAME TIME from both slits.


Wam, bam, this one's in the bag. Nobel prize please.

edit: Best implication: Faster than "light" travel should be entirely possible. It is not light that is slow, it is the zone of interaction. But we know from entanglement that there is another way for particles to interact with each other. We must find whatever medium their zone of interaction is using.

[Pyrate Jim]

Gotta hand it to ya.
This is evidence like no other that there IS a god, and evolution is disproven.
If natural selection were truly the way of the world, you would have been carried off and eaten by a superior species.
Say like, squirrels.

[Dark Side]

Gotta hand it to ya.
This is evidence like no other that there IS a god, and evolution is disproven.
If natural selection were truly the way of the world, you would have been carried off and eaten by a superior species.
Say like, squirrels.

Are these the classic woodland variety squirrels? Or since we are on the subject of light maybe something more sinister like squirrels with a really good tan?

[Pyrate Jim]

Black hole squirrels of infinite density. They consume all the nuts that come within the shwarzsquirrel radius.

[Dark Side]

Black hole squirrels of infinite density. They consume all the nuts that come within the shwarzsquirrel radius.

These unholy squirrels of death can travel faster than light, there is no escape.

[cockerpunk]

pure particle does not explain the obvious frequency related effects. why can i polarize light? why can i filter light by frequency?why does light interact differently with different frequencies when put through a material filter.

ill take that nobel prize back.

[LK-13]

your very experiment is dependent on the "wavelength" that light is travelling at.
if light is not travelling as a wave, then wavelength would be irrelevant.

I would suggest that it is actually the explanation of lights duality that needs revision.

It is plausible that particles of light travel in waves. this would allow light to be both particle and wave.
The trick would be to capture said particle in order to prove lights true nature once and for all.

FYI,
sub-atomic particles have already been made to travel at velocities in excess of 1C.
the name and country of origin of the experimentation is escaping me for the moment;
but confirmation experiments have been booked for the Large Hadron Collider.
so for now it's wait and see.

[halB]

pure particle does not explain the obvious frequency related effects. why can i polarize light? why can i filter light by frequency?why does light interact differently with different frequencies when put through a material filter.

ill take that nobel prize back.

Everything that uses wavelength can be restated as odds of interaction.

You can polarize light because when light hits the filter, all unpolarized light particles have a 100% odd of interaction with the filter (thus meaning they do not go past it) and the polarized light has a 0% odd of interaction.

Why can light be filtered by frequency?
Frequency just means how often something interacts with another particle every second. I guess one explanation is that different "frequencies" use different times, but that is not one I am satisfied with. I would just say that particles with that "wavelength" have 100% odds of interaction with the filter, while particles not having that "wavelength" would have 0% odds of interaction with the filter and would pass through. So a red filter would display red light because all other colors would have 100% odds of interaction with the filter, while the red light can pass through unmolested, and then interact with our eyes.

As to why it appears to us as different colors, this will take some noggin scratching.

[cockerpunk]

Everything that uses wavelength can be restated as odds of interaction.

You can polarize light because when light hits the filter, all unpolarized light particles have a 100% odd of interaction with the filter (thus meaning they do not go past it) and the polarized light has a 0% odd of interaction.

Why can light be filtered by frequency?
Frequency just means how often something interacts with another particle every second. I guess one explanation is that different "frequencies" use different times, but that is not one I am satisfied with. I would just say that particles with that "wavelength" have 100% odds of interaction with the filter, while particles not having that "wavelength" would have 0% odds of interaction with the filter and would pass through. So a red filter would display red light because all other colors would have 100% odds of interaction with the filter, while the red light can pass through unmolested, and then interact with our eyes.

As to why it appears to us as different colors, this will take some noggin scratching.

you don't understand how frequency and wavelength are associated with light, good work world class phyics man. your answers don't make any sense. if color is just probablity, then light would have to be a population of enharrently different photons in order to be determinisitically filtered by "apparent" frequency. then how do you explain the fact that radation can change frequency? does it change the nature of the photo spontaiouly? constuctive/deconstructive interferienece patterns, not to mention, how do you justify changes in refractive index without wave theory? poeple have proven light is BOTH a particle and a wave (or more correctly, that it acts like both a particle and a wave).

sadly, your doing what many amateur scientists do, pick a side, and figure out how to make the data fit it. when in reality, what we need is a comprehensive theory, that explains why and how light is both a particle and a wave. this is a theory currently being worked on, which include such ideas as you and i having a frequency, even though we are most certianly made of particles.

here is a good summary of the dual slit experiment and its obvious conclusion that light behaves as a wave - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

[Frizzle Fry]

sadly, your doing what many amateur scientists do, pick a side, and figure out how to make the data fit it.

OH MY GOD. WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL THAT KETTLE?!?

[cockerpunk]

OH MY GOD. WHAT DID YOU JUST CALL THAT KETTLE?!?

i have no idea what your talking about. compelling post. cuddos.

[halB]

you don't understand how frequency and wavelength are associated with light, good work world class phyics man. your answers don't make any sense. if color is just probablity, then light would have to be a population of enharrently different photons in order to be determinisitically filtered by "apparent" frequency. then how do you explain the fact that radation can change frequency? does it change the nature of the photo spontaiouly? constuctive/deconstructive interferienece patterns, not to mention, how do you justify changes in refractive index without wave theory? poeple have proven light is BOTH a particle and a wave (or more correctly, that it acts like both a particle and a wave).

sadly, your doing what many amateur scientists do, pick a side, and figure out how to make the data fit it. when in reality, what we need is a comprehensive theory, that explains why and how light is both a particle and a wave. this is a theory currently being worked on, which include such ideas as you and i having a frequency, even though we are most certianly made of particles.

here is a good summary of the dual slit experiment and its obvious conclusion that light behaves as a wave - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

I did not state color is a probability. I said a photon with certain characteristics will have different odds of interacting with a filter. Which, by the way, is how filters work. They block out all but a certain "wavelength" of light.

I cannot state why different colors appear to be different colors to us. Can you explain why light is a particle and a wave? No, you can only say that this is what our observations show. I was merely looking at the observations from a different point of view.

[halB]

I just wanted to add a very special part: a limitation of liability.

This hypothesis (I have not thought of a way to disprove it yet since it matches observations already, so this is not a theory) is limited to explaining the double slit experiment and the observations of light at a non-macro level. I cannot explain why we see different colors, but hey, that's a very deep question philosophically anyways.

I have been discussing this with other... let's say more educated people... and I think this is really right on the money. I was hoping some of those... more educated people... whom I have known and respected in my other threads can chime in.

Is there a way to disprove this? Assuming my hypothesis is true, what are some other implications of it? Implications are often a quick way to show something cannot work.

For those... less educated people... please read up on entanglement. It is actually becoming ubiquitous. It is no longer some special highly theoretical situation.

[Pyrate Jim]

And here I thought polarization was determined by the angle of the spin, not the frequency.

[SockMonkey]

.......... I doubt very much that the answer to why we see different colors has ANYTHING to do with philosophy..........

I am going to have to stick with the good old light spectrum.

http://www.windows2universe.org/physical_science/magnetism/images/visible_spectrum_waves_big.jpg

http://images.suite101.com/1028851_com_spectrumel.gif

^^ That is why we see different colors......

But good luck with hypothesis, maybe we'll see your name in text books someday. But I kinda doubt it. There are many people out there who spend their entire lives researching things like this. Their entire careers are based of certain information and their research. I'd be very surprised if some guy on a paintball forum had this huge break through that basically made all research in this field for the past XXX years obsolete.