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

[Pyrate Jim]

.......... 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/phys..._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.

Hey, now. Genius is as Genius does.
A high I.Q. is not limited to just scholars, nor is an inquisitive mind. Remember, Einstein was just a patent clerk, surprising ideas have come from surprising sources.

[Frizzle Fry]

Hey, now. Genius is as Genius does.
A high I.Q. is not limited to just scholars, nor is an inquisitive mind. Remember, Einstein was just a patent clerk, surprising ideas have come from surprising sources.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Gregor Mendel was a monk who kept an herb garden, and DaVinci was an artist with no formal training in physics or mathematics.

[SockMonkey]

Though I agree completely, those were also VASTLY different times were most 'science' was based on religious texts. You didn't have to have extremely vast knowledge in those fields to really change everything as they new it. There are 1000 times more people dedicating their entire lives in research like this, which you didn't have back then.

I am sure what we know about the physics of light and how it works and what it is, is MUCH MUCH more complex then what you learn in a basic college physics class or some googling.

Again, if anything this will be a huge learning experience for him about the duality of light and particle physics. And who knows, maybe someday our kids will be learning about stuff he comes up with, but I doubt it. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

[Pyrate Jim]

Granted, I'm 52 and it's literally been 3 decades since I've done serious study.
But I've made a career out of manipulating the frequency & speed of light. I do this by combining different natural & synthetic reflectors of specific frequency to achieve the desired wavelength and forcing quantum level chemical changes in long chain polymers which are hydropneumatically applied to the hacked up corpses of biological organisms which inherently exhibit more speciation, diversity and mutation than any other genus known.

Sounds fancy when you put it that way, don't it? I'm a wood finisher. Mixing pigments with solvents, vehicles and binders applied to different types of wood. Using finishes that need to have catalysts or reagents added. Color theory, additive & subtractive methods of changing interference patterns that determine what the color will be when the customer looks at it ~ that's my job.

Of course, all of that has been based on wave theory of light. It does not mean I discredit particle theory or the photoelectric effect. (which by the way, is the only proof of light as a particle and something halB does not bring to the defense of his point)

Let me put it this way, the duality of color can easily seen by the following experiment.
Combine the 3 primary colors and you get what is technically called "chromatic grey" but is effectively Black.
Yet if you put those same 3 primary colors on a disc and spin it, it turns white.

So the same 3 primary colors can produce both black OR white and demonstrate the dual nature of what we perceive as color.
That fact alone should indicate the limited scope of current theory.

[halB]

Granted, I'm 52 and it's literally been 3 decades since I've done serious study.
But I've made a career out of manipulating the frequency & speed of light. I do this by combining different natural & synthetic reflectors of specific frequency to achieve the desired wavelength and forcing quantum level chemical changes in long chain polymers which are hydropneumatically applied to the hacked up corpses of biological organisms which inherently exhibit more speciation, diversity and mutation than any other genus known.

Sounds fancy when you put it that way, don't it? I'm a wood finisher. Mixing pigments with solvents, vehicles and binders applied to different types of wood. Using finishes that need to have catalysts or reagents added. Color theory, additive & subtractive methods of changing interference patterns that determine what the color will be when the customer looks at it ~ that's my job.

Of course, all of that has been based on wave theory of light. It does not mean I discredit particle theory or the photoelectric effect. (which by the way, is the only proof of light as a particle and something halB does not bring to the defense of his point)

Let me put it this way, the duality of color can easily seen by the following experiment.
Combine the 3 primary colors and you get what is technically called "chromatic grey" but is effectively Black.
Yet if you put those same 3 primary colors on a disc and spin it, it turns white.

So the same 3 primary colors can produce both black OR white and demonstrate the dual nature of what we perceive as color.
That fact alone should indicate the limited scope of current theory.

Once again, the colors of light as perceived by an observer are macroscopic effects, and I do not pretend to deal with them.

However, you raised the ONE objection to my hypothesis I have thought of so far: Scientists have been able to slow down and even trap light. Then again, this is not in a vacuum - so I think. But this still seems like something that my hypothesis needs to account for.

[Pyrate Jim]

What? Is nobody else going to chime in?
Well, the squirells are getting hungry, and have been forced to quantum tunnelling through the snow in search of nuts.

However, you raised the ONE objection to my hypothesis I have thought of so far: Scientists have been able to slow down and even trap light. Then again, this is not in a vacuum - so I think. But this still seems like something that my hypothesis needs to account for.

It doesn't take a scientist to slow down light, a 7 year old can do it in his mothers' kitchen and demonstrate it with a glass of water and a pencil.

Once again, the colors of light as perceived by an observer are macroscopic effects, and I do not pretend to deal with them.

The entire point of the double-slit experiment is that it IS a macroscopic effect. You can test it and actually SEE what the result is.
Wave mechanics gives a useable description of that result and repeated verified results have given us a method of quantifying the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

Photons & Baryons, Hadrons & Leptons, Bosons & Fermions...Quantum theory is riddled with dualities and triads. I.E: Quarks are identified as "Top, Strange, & Bottom". Even the Periodic Table of Elements shows a fundamental link in the ferromagnetic triad of Iron-Nickel-Cobalt.
Get used to it.

And you don't want me to get into Epistimology vs Ontology vs Nomenclature.
We call it a fact that an electromagnetic wave vibrating at 445nm is called "Violet"; And that rate of vibration is called a "Wavelength". If that vibration is slower than about 10cm, we can use it to transmit radio and you can listen to "Radar Love" as you drive down the highway.

Like I said, I've made a career out of utilizing wave theory to manipulate light within the 400-700nm range of the entire spectrum. When someone comes along and says "No, it ain't ~ everything you've done is wrong" ---
Well, I gotta be a bit skeptical.

If I can point a few squirells in the right direction during their search for nuts at the same time, that's a good thing.

[Pyrate Jim]

Why is the rum gone?

Since the topic seems exhausted, let's divert a little with another of Quantums' Questions.

Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle states that you can never accurately measure both momentum and position of a particle. The more you know about one aspect, the less you can know about the other.

In his book "Stalking the Wild Pendulum", Itzhak Bentov pushes this to an extreme using a swinging pendulum analog:

"We know that at rest, when the pendulum is changing direction, it's velocity is zero. But the momentum, at low speeds at least, is equal to velocity multiplied by mass. However, if we multiply any quantity by zero, we get zero.
Thus we have established that the momentum of the pendulum at that point is zero, that is, we know it's value very precisely. It's zero. But if we have said that if we know know precisely the momentum of a particle, then it's position becomes diffuse and completely indefinite. That is, the pendulum can be just about anyplace, even at the end of the universe. But it has very little time to get there and back in zero time. The pendulum has to disappear in all directions at infinite velocity. It will have to expand very rapidly into space, like a balloon, and then collapse just as rapidly.
Having done this, it comes back, picks up speed, and goes about it's usual good-natured business as if nothing had happened. None of us would suspect the leisurely pendulum of doing such a wild thing when no one is looking! But then again, one cannot rely on appearences"

His words, not mine. And mathematically correct according to current theory.
Of course, the squirells are laughing. (I suspect them of drinking all the rum)

<edit to add>
Little buggers didn't drink it all, they just reformatted it axiomatically and now insist that the big bang & black holes are mutually exclusive because a singularity is space is a singularity in time and nothing infinite in time can have a beginning, so nothing can create a singularity that wasn't there for all time.
Now the rum really IS gone.

[Pyrate Jim]

More Squid!
I mean Rum, more rum!

Imagine a choo-choo train going from Los Angeles to New York. It could go through San Francisco or Houston or Chicago on it's way using any set of tracks as long as it gets there.
All those different tracks with their possble combinations are its virtual pathways and you want to find out which ones it actually travelled on, and where it is at that moment.
So you take a picture from the back of a flying squirell.
A short exposure will pinpoint the train and where it is, not the path it travelled.
A longer exposure will show the train as a blur. The longer the blur becomes, the more of the track is evident, showing which of the different possible tracks the train is using on its way but it's exact location is not fixed, it's part of the blur. The more you spread out the location, the more track is visible.
So the less of the track you see in the picture, the closer you pinpoint the trains location.

This is the "C-C" interpretation of the uncertainty principle.

Anyone have an opinion on magnetic monopoles?

[Pyrate Jim]

Ever wonder why Schrodingers' cat was in the box to begin with?
The answer is here:

http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=715

[Dark Side]

You, stop making sense.



Pirate Squirrel demands it.

[Pyrate Jim]

I love you.
"Long Ben Sciurus ~ the Scourge of the Seven Trees!"

And I thought this thread was about quantum theory, not about making sense (specifically wave/particle duality).
Someone mentioned polarization, which does not affect wavelength/frequency. Your sunglasses use a polarizing lens, yet you still see all the colors. Every wavelength still comes through, just not so much of it.
The difference is in the spin of the photon and it's angle of divergence from the filter.

And another of quantums little dualities: Why do fermions have a 1/2 integer spin & bosons only come with whole integer spin and why should fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle when bosons don't?

I did say it's been a while since I was in school, and I could be wrong.
I didn't start this topic, I'm just trying to keep it going in an attempt to amuse the squirells. They seem to find it hilarious, but I could be wrong about that as well.

[Pyrate Jim]

I failed to mention that the property called spin also has its dual sets of triads.
Particles that exhibit 1/2 integer spin only come at 1/2, 3/2, and 5/2.
Particles that use whole integer spin are measured as 0, 1, or 2.

That's it. Those are all we have measured in all the measurements made since we began measuring of whatever the hell it is we're making a measurement of.
Why are there no particles measured that fall in between these values? Or outside these values? Is looking for them "in between" similar to trying to play notes that are in between the keys of a piano?

Of course, the integer of the spin has no relation to polarization, regardless of integer each particle spins according to its own internal "compass" and how close that compass is to the angle of the filter being used determines how many of the particles get through. The fun part starts when you start stacking lenses.

Now, I am using terms that were commonly used when I was in school as a tool helpful in visualizing something that is never actually percieved. "Spin" is a mathematical description of repeatable discrepencies in observed phenomena and does not mean rotating on an axis as the word suggests, but it's the closest analog to the behavior of these particles in practical purposes (think = RayBan). (or Choo-Choo trains)

[halB]

Why is the rum gone?

Since the topic seems exhausted, let's divert a little with another of Quantums' Questions.

Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle states that you can never accurately measure both momentum and position of a particle. The more you know about one aspect, the less you can know about the other.

In his book "Stalking the Wild Pendulum", Itzhak Bentov pushes this to an extreme using a swinging pendulum analog:


His words, not mine. And mathematically correct according to current theory.
Of course, the squirells are laughing. (I suspect them of drinking all the rum)

<edit to add>
Little buggers didn't drink it all, they just reformatted it axiomatically and now insist that the big bang & black holes are mutually exclusive because a singularity is space is a singularity in time and nothing infinite in time can have a beginning, so nothing can create a singularity that wasn't there for all time.
Now the rum really IS gone.

That's a layman's understanding of it, but that is not correct. I don't remember that much about this from class, but it is an implication of other quantum mechanical formulas. In otherwords, because of how we work out the problems, this must necessarily occur.

I believe the formula for it is something like Momentum + Velocity > h bar.

What is messed up about this is that this formula is derived from our other formulas. But, as we know in quantum mechanics, you just can't derive anything. So, the very fact that the formula was derived should give us pause.

Also, it does not have to be either momentum or velocity, there are a couple of other things that can be put in there. But the interesting thing is that neither time, nor x nor y are implicated nor involved.

[Pyrate Jim]

That's a layman's understanding of it, but that is not correct. I don't remember that much about this from class, but it is an implication of other quantum mechanical formulas. In otherwords, because of how we work out the problems, this must necessarily occur.

I believe the formula for it is something like Momentum + Velocity > h bar.

I assume by h bar you mean Plancks Constant.
You get a cookie for bringing that one up, but you do realize that Plancks Constant is precisely the barrier that prevents anything from achieving infinite velocity (because you cannot divide momentum by infinity and still be greater than the Constant), so you are essentially refuting your own theory of the KA.

What is messed up about this is that this formula is derived from our other formulas. But, as we know in quantum mechanics, you just can't derive anything. So, the very fact that the formula was derived should give us pause.

Why do think I keep using the caveat "according to current theory"?
Why do I keep misspelling Squirell?

Even formalized systems can derive "untruths" that are internally consistant. What Godel did with logic theory is analagous to what Bach did with music and Escher did with graphics. Recursive set theory is something I might bring up later in the discussion. (no point in bringing out the Big Guns...Yet)

Also, it does not have to be either momentum or velocity, there are a couple of other things that can be put in there. But the interesting thing is that neither time, nor x nor y are implicated nor involved.

No time? Anything that (actually) exists has duration while it remains in our reference of "spacetime" even if that duration is shorter than our calculated shortest time possible, which would be that h bar. Again.

I gotta go, the squirells just peed themselves laughing so hard and they won't clean it up so I have to.

[halB]

I assume by h bar you mean Plancks Constant.
You get a cookie for bringing that one up, but you do realize that Plancks Constant is precisely the barrier that prevents anything from achieving infinite velocity (because you cannot divide momentum by infinity and still be greater than the Constant), so you are essentially refuting your own theory of the KA.


Why do think I keep using the caveat "according to current theory"?
Why do I keep misspelling Squirell?

Even formalized systems can derive "untruths" that are internally consistant. What Godel did with logic theory is analagous to what Bach did with music and Escher did with graphics. Recursive set theory is something I might bring up later in the discussion. (no point in bringing out the Big Guns...Yet)



No time? Anything that (actually) exists has duration while it remains in our reference of "spacetime" even if that duration is shorter than our calculated shortest time possible, which would be that h bar. Again.

I gotta go, the squirells just peed themselves laughing so hard and they won't clean it up so I have to.

You mix paint, I actually learned this stuff. At a school Dirac taught at, no less. Time, x, and y do not apply to the uncertainty principle.