A Matter of Waves

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby hyksos on December 10th, 2018, 2:14 pm 

bangstrom » December 10th, 2018, 11:00 am wrote:Hugo Tetrode characterized particles as having or lacking independence. Some particles act together as if side-by-side and others act independently and we consider independent particles to be separated by space. Everything we know of space is conjecture based on our observation of particles since space can’t be observed directly.

Entangled particles violate our understanding of spacetime because they appear to be separated by space but they act together as if side-by-side. We can speculate about how entanglement connects remote particles through space and ask if such connections are “real” or we can question whether spacetime exists between entangled particles. Spacetime may be a highly persistent but not an ever present illusion.

I prefer to think of entangled particles as particles that locally lack a spacetime separation but are close enough to share a common Schroedinger wavelike connection even though an outside observer may see them as widely separated.

Hey bangstrom , I was planning to shoot you a quick link on Complementarity.
complementarity.png

After some googling, youtubing, and wikipedia-ing, I realized I could not find anything that adequately describes Complementarity in the right way. The internet is a deep wide sea of misinformation.

The closest I could find was a few words of verbiage where the word "measurability" was synonymized with "know-abilty". (ironically this happens on wikipedia, of all places.)

Introductory cartoony videos on Complementarity will lead you astray, and attempt to point you back to Heisenberg uncertainty.. which is not 'wrong' per se , the more correct word here would be : misleading. Most ink spilled on this topic tries to describe complementarity as uncertainty in measurement. measurement is wrong. "know-ability" is really what is more like what happens in entanglement.

Anyways, there is a see-saw effect for non-commuting observables. If the precision of one increases, the other ones decreases. The universe conspires to disallow anyone to know both observables with perfect precision.

You can get reasonably far with the idea of "measurement", but when faced with some more exotic forms of entanglement, confusion will set in again. The one example I can imagine would be the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser. There is a way to explain it in terms of Complementarity. Without a clear distinction between know-ability and measure-ability , it is impossible to explain why DCQE happens.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby bangstrom on December 10th, 2018, 4:06 pm 

It is impossible to observe anything that transpires between the beginning and the end of an experiment involving Wheeler’s delayed choice or the quantum erasure so there is no “know-ability” but there is “measure-ability” with the detection of each photon.

My guess is that emission and absorption of light are simultaneous events so there is neither space nor time to make any changes in the experiment while the photons are “in transit” because the transit time is zero. The results will always be consistent the configuration of the experimental apparatus at the instant of the photon’s arrival.

There is no such thing as a photon going back in time to retrace its path. The changes made theoretically before the last photon arrived were made before the photons were emitted so the changes have no effect. I am not aware of any exceptions to this explanation.
This explanation requires a non-Newtonian understanding of time as Tetrode explained in 1922.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby hyksos on December 11th, 2018, 3:31 am 

bangstrom,

There is no such thing as a photon going back in time to retrace its path.

I wholly agree with this! The reason why we have an explanation for DCQE in terms of complementarity is precisely to avoid the sciencey-fictiony explanations in terms of "re-writing the past". Complementarity is the explanation that avoids retro-causality.

The changes made theoretically before the last photon arrived were made before the photons were emitted so the changes have no effect.

This is dangerous flirting with a hidden variable theory.

there is neither space nor time to make any changes in the experiment while the photons are “in transit” because the transit time is zero.

This is the not the first time on this forum you have been ramming the "photons don't exist" line. (I remember a recent post I made that was lots of juicy material about fringey physics ) Your response was slightly off-topic. But I'm not complaining. My response to "photons do not exist" is this vid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quoySiCVFfw
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby bangstrom on December 11th, 2018, 5:54 am 

hyksos » December 11th, 2018, 2:31 am wrote:
I wholly agree with this! The reason why we have an explanation for DCQE in terms of complementarity is precisely to avoid the sciencey-fictiony explanations in terms of "re-writing the past". Complementarity is the explanation that avoids retro-causality.

I agree but what is your explanation for how complementary avoids retro-causality?

hyksos » December 11th, 2018, 2:31 am wrote:
My response to "photons do not exist" is this vid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quoySiCVFfw


I have long been familiar with the classical photon theory as found in the vid and for many years I was a solid adherent of the theory but as with every explanation of photon theory the vid sidesteps the central issue of how we know that light exists in the space between source and sink. This is taken as a given fact but it is a conjecture not based on direct observation. The existence of light in space occasionally fails to explain experimental results or leads to contradictory or implausible conclusions.

The quantum erasure experiment is one of several that I find inconsistent with the classical theory of light traveling through space so I would be interested in your understanding of how to reconcile the two.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby hyksos on December 12th, 2018, 4:21 am 

the theory but as with every explanation of photon theory the vid sidesteps the central issue of how we know that light exists in the space between source and sink. This is taken as a given fact but it is a conjecture not based on direct observation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quoySiCVFfw

There is a part of the video where he goes to the mirror and places the camera through one eye of the theater glasses. To see why photons would be moving around in the room, it comes down to explaining why the opposite eyepiece appears black in the camera. Without photons, you run into a problem of the temporal stages of when a certain "vibration" must have encountered one eyepiece and then at a later time swapped its polarization and then at a later time was absorbed. The position of the eye pieces are critical, because we can reliably represent light as perfectly straight rays in space. With photons you can make statements like "The photon's polarization was counter-clockwise here" or "It was clockwise there." Without photons you encounter a problem wherein you cannot identify which entity is selecting the polarization mode.

The quantum erasure experiment is one of several that I find inconsistent with the classical theory of light traveling through space so I would be interested in your understanding of how to reconcile the two.

I agree that DCQE is inconsistent with a particle taking a straight trajectory to a collection plate. But DCQE is less concerned with that obvious inconsistency per se. It is more like an experiment to see under which conditions does superposition manifest and how does it get turned "on" and turned "off".

{{ removed text here that describes DCQE photons and complementarity }}

I was being overly wordy. To be more direct to your question, I have not reconciled the problem you raise. Not even in my own mind. I don't see a reconciliation in putting one's foot down and declaring there are never photons under any circumstances. On more lucid days, this seems like re-hashing complementarity over and over again. Some have said that light will act like a quantum wave in some situations, and like a photon particle in others. "Complementarity" is defined (by those people) as the principle that both cannot happen in the same experiment. Other experts in QFT have said that they have dispensed with particles entirely (a reconciliation?). The virtual particles enter but only at the first stage of an integration. After virtual particles are integrated over, what you are really seeking at the bottom of the chalkboard is a description of a flux state of the fundamental field. I don't believe these procedures were done out of a desire to reconcile the non-existence of particles. You can still prepare experiments where the probability of an occurrence of something is 100% certain (I'm thinking about interferometers as an example). FOr time being, I can only conclude that there are some odd situations in which a particle model is really terrible at describing the phenomena.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby bangstrom on December 13th, 2018, 2:34 pm 

hyksos » December 12th, 2018, 3:21 am wrote:
There is a part of the video where he goes to the mirror and places the camera through one eye of the theater glasses. To see why photons would be moving around in the room, it comes down to explaining why the opposite eyepiece appears black in the camera. Without photons, you run into a problem of the temporal stages of when a certain "vibration" must have encountered one eyepiece and then at a later time swapped its polarization and then at a later time was absorbed. The position of the eye pieces are critical, because we can reliably represent light as perfectly straight rays in space. With photons you can make statements like "The photon's polarization was counter-clockwise here" or "It was clockwise there." Without photons you encounter a problem wherein you cannot identify which entity is selecting the polarization mode.


As with nearly all descriptions of light, this explanation begins with the assumption that light exists in and travels through space but this is an assumption not supported by direct observation and it sometimes fails when describing light related experiments.
Electrons also have polar and equatorial spin orientations and non-local resonant connections “entanglement“ so the electrons in the polarizing filters can select the polarization mode. We have direct evidence that electrons exist but photons are a conjecture made long ago on the basis of little experimental evidence.

hyksos » December 12th, 2018, 3:21 am wrote:
I agree that DCQE is inconsistent with a particle taking a straight trajectory to a collection plate. But DCQE is less concerned with that obvious inconsistency per se. It is more like an experiment to see under which conditions does superposition manifest and how does it get turned "on" and turned "off".


I have never understood DCQE as an experiment to see how superposition is turned on and off. The inconsistency is where the attention should be if it isn't. DCQU is an experiment that attempts to alter an experimental apparatus while a photon is “in flight” to change its possible destination. The result is not consistent with light having a constant speed or with c being a limit and the conventional interpretation of the experiment is not consistent with logic. Or, the conclusion can be that photon theory is wrong. Take your pick of weirdness.

hyksos » December 12th, 2018, 3:21 am wrote:
I don't see a reconciliation in putting one's foot down and declaring there are never photons under any circumstances. On more lucid days, this seems like re-hashing complementarity over and over again. Some have said that light will act like a quantum wave in some situations, and like a photon particle in others.


It’s not a rehashing of complementary. It is deciding whether the complementarity we see exists among photons or if it exists among electrons between the light source and sink. If the complementarity is among electrons, then photons are redundant to the explanation and best forgotten.
There is an experiment called “Entanglement after the photons no longer exist" which should tell us how much we need photons. This experiment should suggest that entanglement among photons is really entanglement among electrons since electrons remain as part of the system while the photons don’t but, of course, those doing the experiment refuse to dispense with the photon theory and come to the conclusion found in the title.

hyksos » December 12th, 2018, 3:21 am wrote:
Other experts in QFT have said that they have dispensed with particles entirely (a reconciliation?).


Dispensing with the particle nature of light is dispensing with something that may only be an artifact of our detection methods. That is usually the reason why some dispense with it entirely.
We can only detect light energy by converting it to an electrical signal or by raising the energy level of an electron by a discrete amount which means that the discrete particle nature of light may be an artifact of our methods of detection. The wave and particle nature of light is not a matter of complementarity. It depends on our choice of detection methods.

“The optimum tactic to improve the paradigm for “light” is to hew as close as possible to directly experienced, empirical data, without introducing hypothetical constructions. Historically, it has been these hypothetical constructions that eventually led to both contradictions and constraints on imagination impeding progress. Such hypothetical notions in the course of time take on the folklore of ‘reality’ altogether undeserved but vivid, so that eventually it becomes the explicit goal of science to explain these constructions, in place of nature herself. ‘Fields’ and ‘photons’ are prime examples; both have led to the idea, now very widely spread, that radiation can detach from its source and exist independently, as if it were a kind of ethereal matter.” - A. F. Kracklauer
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
TheVat liked this post


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby hyksos on December 15th, 2018, 7:02 pm 

As with nearly all descriptions of light, this explanation begins with the assumption that light exists in and travels through space but this is an assumption not supported by direct observation and it sometimes fails when describing light related experiments.

For the record, you provided no scientific description of the particular events in the video.


Electrons also have polar and equatorial spin orientations and non-local resonant connections “entanglement“ so the electrons in the polarizing filters can select the polarization mode.

This is the second time in this thread you have referred to entanglement as "non-local resonant connections". This phrase is not part of physics, appears in no physics textbooks, and is literally a phrase you made up.


We have direct evidence that electrons exist but photons are a conjecture made long ago on the basis of little experimental evidence.

Electrons are fundamental particles, and so they exhibit quantum properties including a wave property, just like photons do. Electrons can tunnel, and are seen tunneling in labs. This behavior is predicted by the wave nature described by the quantum nature of those particles. Electrons are spontaneously in one energy orbital around a nucleus, and then immediately in another orbital (or "energy level"). No electron has ever been observed "going on its way" to the next orbital. They snap immediately into such states. Electrons can decay into other product particles and can even interact with protons in the nucleus, quantum mechanically. These particle "creation and annihilation" phenomena are described by Quantum Field Theory with extreme accuracy. Pilot Wave Theory cannot even begin to describe these processes in even a rudimentary way.

In this universe there is no segregation between quantum mechanical particles with entanglement, and nice neat classical particles.


It’s not a rehashing of complementary. It is deciding whether the complementarity we see exists among photons or if it exists among electrons between the light source and sink. If the complementarity is among electrons, then photons are redundant to the explanation and best forgotten

Outside of the conversation we are having here, there is a "canonical" definition of Complementarity. I will repeat it briefly here as a neutral observer. (I am not a supporter of this definition, so there is no need to debate me on it.)

Complementarity is that two non-commuting observables cannot both be measured with perfect accuracy at the same time. One manifestation of this is that some experiments can be set up to make light act like a particle, and other experiments can be set up to make light act like a wave. Complementarity predicts that there cannot exist an experiment that sees both of these aspects at the same time.

I will try to place yellow flags to indicate to anyone that I am now adding my own personal spin to the idea. ( Earlier in this thread, I said that you can understand DCQE by replacing "accuracy of measurement" with "universe conspires to disallow you to know". So where measurability appears, replace with know-ability. )

Now that I have covered some ground material, let me directly respond to your words in quote box.

If the complementarity is among electrons
Complementarity is non-negotiable. All matter and energy in the universe is quantum mechanical. All properties of all particles, be they photons, electrons, kaons, hadrons, neutrinos, or quarks, are all subject to complementarity in their properties.

It’s not a rehashing of complementary.
What I meant to say was this entire conversation we are having is a re-hashing of complementarity. You could cover a desk full of papers describing where (what you call) "The Photon Theory" appears totally wrong. And I can cover a desk full of experiments where photons are the perfect description of the phenomena. Both of us will appear correct and factual, and we will come to loggerheads.


The wave and particle nature of light is not a matter of complementarity. It depends on our choice of detection methods.

Complementarity is not about light. It is a foundational principle of QM. It is a very abstract concept. Like you literally talk about it at conferences with titles like "Graduate Seminars on Quantum Foundations".

This issue with optics and photons is only one manifestation of the principle, but there are many others. One example would be the fact that entire heavy nuclei exhibit quantized spin. So we all know that the nucleus of an atom of silver is a composite object. No argument there. One would assume, being composite that a nucleus of a silver atom can rotate in any direction it wants in space. This is not observed. Silver nuclei have spin up, spin down, and never seen doing anything else.


The wave and particle nature of light is not a matter of complementarity. It depends on our choice of detection methods.

Complementarity neatly captures this concept of a choice of measurement. For example, in the DCQE, we know with 100% probability that we will destroy Bob's information. This is decided ahead of time because that's the definition of the experiment (!!). Consequently, the universe conspires to disallow us to know Alice's information. We expect her photons to cause interference. This is what is observed.


We can only detect light energy by converting it to an electrical signal or by raising the energy level of an electron by a discrete amount which means that the discrete particle nature of light may be an artifact of our methods of detection.

Well yes. What you have said here nearly sounds like decoherence. Decoherence is very popular on campus these days. You are not alone in this thinking.

“The optimum tactic to improve the paradigm for “light” is to hew as close as possible to directly experienced, empirical data, without introducing hypothetical constructions. Historically, it has been these hypothetical constructions that eventually led to both contradictions and constraints on imagination impeding progress. Such hypothetical notions in the course of time take on the folklore of ‘reality’ altogether undeserved but vivid, so that eventually it becomes the explicit goal of science to explain these constructions, in place of nature herself. ‘Fields’ and ‘photons’ are prime examples; both have led to the idea, now very widely spread, that radiation can detach from its source and exist independently, as if it were a kind of ethereal matter.” - A. F. Kracklauer

Kracklauer is some guy who wrote a few articles about Pilot Wave theory some time in the late 1990s. His understanding of DBPWT is tenuous, and he seems to think it needs remedied away from his own straw-man version of it. (He keeps saying the hard particles would collect at nodes, meaning he doesn't understand the theory.)

Modern physics does not have "solid matter" and "ethereal matter" anymore and it has not had it for 70 years. We don't even speak in these terms. We are not having these debates anymore. All matter and energy is described by quantum mechanics, including all the particles seen in the nuclei of stable atoms. QED is the modern description of electromagnetism. Out of all the theories of physics, QED is the best candidate for what we call a "completed" theory. Such "completed" theories are only so far seen in mathematics.

We likely understand electromagnetism better than we understand friction.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Faradave liked this post


Re: Decay you say?

Postby Faradave on December 15th, 2018, 7:58 pm 

hyksos wrote:Electrons are fundamental particles, … Electrons can decay into other product particles....


Though I prefer a direct-interval-contact model, I appreciate the huge legacy and continued utility of the photon model for the particle aspects of light. Allowing that a "photon" might be considered a "decay product" of an electron, is that what you were referring to?

Standard Model notwithstanding, I consider truly fundamental particles as being extremely stable because they can't decay. So, I wouldn't consider a muon to be fundamental but I would an electron.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1852
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby hyksos on December 16th, 2018, 1:34 am 

Woops sorry about that. I should have written that electrons can combine with protons (electron capture) or with positrons (`annihilation`?)
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby bangstrom on December 16th, 2018, 4:00 pm 

hyksos » December 15th, 2018, 6:02 pm wrote:
For the record, you provided no scientific description of the particular events in the video.

Any scientific description I could provide would be a repetition of my same old, same old previous statements about how light events occur at the electron to electron level. The observable events in the video were limited to electrons in the eye, the mirror and the polarizing filters.

The video omitted any scientific description the unobservables such as how photons pick up a bundle of radial energy at one electron and instantly accelerate it to c carrying the energy through space to deposit it with another electron. All this at speed c relative to a vacuum and to all other observers despite their individual motions. I find these assumptions hard to accept.

hyksos » December 15th, 2018, 6:02 pm wrote:
This is the second time in this thread you have referred to entanglement as "non-local resonant connections". This phrase is not part of physics, appears in no physics textbooks, and is literally a phrase you made up.


I have frequently seen entanglement referred to as “non-local” in technical books and articles and even more frequently as “spooky action at a distance”. I have often seen entanglement described as a “resonant connection” and I think the term “non-local, resonant connection” may have been coined by Milo Wolff but I find it appropriate no matter what the source
.
If entanglement is not a non-local, resonant connected, spooky action at a distance, then what is it?

hyksos » December 15th, 2018, 6:02 pm wrote: Complementarity is not about light.

Complementarity better serves as a mechanism for describing light than does photon theory.

John Cramer’s TIQM theory, to name one, includes an electron’s higher or lower energy as a part of its quantum identity that can be exchanged with other electrons just as electron’s exchange other quantum identity states such as spin. Entangled electrons can superimpose energy levels the same way they superimpose spin states.

When two electrons are entangled, their locations are said to be indeterminate. We can’t say which electron is spin-up or which is spin-down. Likewise, we can’t say which is high-energy and which is low-energy. The first observation of an energy state fixes the energy states and locations for both electrons. When entanglement is lost, we can then identify the location of which electron has the higher of the two energy states and it may not be the same as it was prior to entanglement.

Complementarity explains how light “travels” as if prescient of its destination because a non-local connection (entanglement) must be established between two electrons in the signal and receiver before they can exchange a quantum of energy. The wavelike connection comes first and then the energy exchange.

The orbitals in electrons describe the probability of where we might find an electron but electrons do not have stable orbits about a nucleus. An electron can immediately “snap into” a higher or lower energy level within an atom. When entanglement is lost, we can identify the location of the electron with the high energy and the electron with the low energy. If the energy levels are the same as before entanglement, there is no change to observe, but if the previously low energy electron has snapped to a high energy level and simultaneously the high energy electron has snapped to a low energy level, then we have an exchange of light energy.

Entanglement enables two electrons to share a common Schroedinger wavefunction as if side-by-side, even though they may be widely separated. When superimposed by entanglement, the two energy levels in the electrons merge, possibly by see-sawing back in forth, as a part of their common Schroedinger wavefunction. Neither electron can be said to be high energy or low energy, until they are observed.

If entanglement is broken by an observation where the previously low energy electron is now observed to be the high energy electron, then we have "light." In this model for light, there is no need for energy to travel through space because the only motion is within the atoms rather than travel through the space between the atoms. The gain in energy for one electron is simultaneously a drop in energy for the other.

hyksos » December 15th, 2018, 6:02 pm wrote:
Kracklauer is some guy who wrote a few articles about Pilot Wave theory some time in the late 1990s. His understanding of DBPWT is tenuous, and he seems to think it needs remedied away from his own straw-man version of it. (He keeps saying the hard particles would collect at nodes, meaning he doesn't understand the theory.)


Kracklauer wrote a whole lot more than that. See his website “Non-Loco Physics”. Warning: it takes a long time to load.
The point Kracklauer was making about energy is that he doesn’t think energy can exist without matter. If it did that would make energy a sort of “ethereal” matter. He also advised basing light theory as much as possible on what we observe and don’t let our conjectures about what we can’t observe (fields and photons) turn into a hard-fast reality.

hyksos » December 15th, 2018, 6:02 pm wrote:
Complementarity neatly captures this concept of a choice of measurement. For example, in the DCQE, we know with 100% probability that we will destroy Bob's information.

We may choose what we intend to measure and where but the result of our first observation of an entangled pair is unpredictable and random. No information is destroyed by the first observation but it “fixes” the observation of the second particle as anti-correlated to that of the first observed.

hyksos » December 15th, 2018, 6:02 pm wrote:
This is decided ahead of time because that's the definition of the experiment (!!).

If you are saying we choose what to measure, that is obvious.

hyksos » December 15th, 2018, 6:02 pm wrote: Consequently, the universe conspires to disallow us to know Alice's information.

There is nothing baring us from knowing the information for both Alice and Bob by gathering information from both. It is necessary to know what happened at both ends of an entanglement otherwise we would have no way of knowing that entanglement has happened. We would only see one normal looking observation never knowing that something happened elsewhere.

hyksos » December 15th, 2018, 6:02 pm wrote: We expect her photons to cause interference. This is what is observed.

Interference is what we observe. We don’t observe photon particles in action so their participation is conjecture.

hyksos » December 15th, 2018, 6:02 pm wrote:
Kracklauer is some guy who wrote a few articles about Pilot Wave theory some time in the late 1990s.

Kracklauer wrote a whole lot more than that. See his website “Non-Loco Physics”. Warning: it takes a long time to load.
The point Kracklauer was making about energy is that he doesn’t think energy can exist without matter. If it did that would make energy a sort of “ethereal” matter. He also advised describing light based as much as possible on what we observe and not take too seriously our speculation about what we can't observe.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby hyksos on December 20th, 2018, 1:37 am 

If entanglement is not a non-local, resonant connected, spooky action at a distance, then what is it?

Entanglement has absolutely nothing to do with the natural phenomenon called resonance. Resonance is a property of classical objects that vibrate at certain frequencies. Although the topic appears in undergraduate (introductory) physics textbooks, it is a very difficult subject for engineers. Suspension bridges have to be built to avoid it. Helicopters have to be built in a certain way so that the hum of the engine does not set the entire helicopter into its 'resonant frequency'. Two violins or guitars in a room will have their strings engage in sympathetic vibration due to resonance.

Entanglement in quantum mechanics is an entirely different thing. There is no good "explanation" for it because QM is often short on "explanations". Long story short, resonance is a mechanical phenomenon. Two entangled electrons are absolutely not engaging in sympathetic resonance.

Entanglement is likely related to the fact that while not observed, quantum systems will go into so-called unitary evolution of their wave function. When observed they snap into a so-called "eigenstate" or ("stationary state" if you prefer) of their wave function. Now what I just said is not an "explanation" of entanglement or why it happens. It is the mathematical description that predicts it. But in modern physics, and especially quantum mechanics, that is all we have.

Complementarity explains how light “travels” as if prescient of its destination because a non-local connection (entanglement) must be established between two electrons in the signal and receiver before they can exchange a quantum of energy. The wavelike connection comes first and then the energy exchange.

That is not what complementarity means, at all.


Kracklauer wrote a whole lot more than that. See his website “Non-Loco Physics”. Warning: it takes a long time to load.

No thank you.


The point Kracklauer was making about energy is that he doesn’t think energy can exist without matter. If it did that would make energy a sort of “ethereal” matter. He also advised basing light theory as much as possible on what we observe and don’t let our conjectures about what we can’t observe (fields and photons) turn into a hard-fast reality.

Allow me to set the record straight for Mr. Kracklauer. Photons are not equal to energy. There is a specific energy associated with a photon that scales with its frequency. Because photons move at speed c, they are relativistic entities, and so the actually carry momentum, despite the fact that they have zero mass. There is no differentation in modern physics between "ethereal" and "particulate/solid" matter. Photons are first class entities as much as electrons , hadrons, and quarks are.

(As covered briefly earlier in this thread) photons can contain a various panoply of information regarding the plane in which they are polarized. They can carry information with them about the polarizer they passed through earlier in spacetime. They can even be made to carry a corkscrew-like polarization called circular polarization. The polarization of a photon can be "tilted" back to the horizontal by taking it through a series of slightly-tipped polarizers. This means that a given photon "remembers" what it had passed through at earlier times.

The video linked above demonstrates theater glasses shown to a mirror in a restroom. The observed blacked-out eye piece shows that when reflected from a mirror, the polarization of a photon is reversed. The forum user here by the name of bangstrom, has for the second time, refused to type up any explanation for the events in the video.

His attempts at an explanation looked instead far worse. Lets look at those now.

The video omitted any scientific description the unobservables such as how photons pick up a bundle of radial energy at one electron and instantly accelerate it to c carrying the energy through space to deposit it with another electron.

QED is Quantum Electrodynamics. It is the complete modern theory of how electrons and photons interact, how and when they are absorbed and emitted and under what conditions. It is the most successful scientific theory ever created by human beings in all history. It is factually correct that the youtube video did not describe QED. But there are many books on it, some of them are very good.

All this at speed c relative to a vacuum and to all other observers despite their individual motions. I find these assumptions hard to accept.

These were "assumptions" in 1905. You live in 2018. No longer assumptions, the predictions of special relativity have been verified experimentally.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: A Matter of Waves

Postby bangstrom on December 21st, 2018, 4:38 am 

hyksos » December 20th, 2018, 12:37 am wrote:
Entanglement has absolutely nothing to do with the natural phenomenon called resonance. Resonance is a property of classical objects that vibrate at certain frequencies.

Entanglement in quantum mechanics is an entirely different thing. There is no good "explanation" for it because QM is often short on "explanations". Long story short, resonance is a mechanical phenomenon. Two entangled electrons are absolutely not engaging in sympathetic resonance.

Entanglement is likely related to the fact that while not observed, quantum systems will go into so-called unitary evolution of their wave function. When observed they snap into a so-called "eigenstate" or ("stationary state" if you prefer) of their wave function. Now what I just said is not an "explanation" of entanglement or why it happens. It is the mathematical description that predicts it. But in modern physics, and especially quantum mechanics, that is all we have.


A wavefunction connecting two particles is a resonant connection and the wavefunction in entanglement is generally considered to conform to the Schroedinger equation.

The wavefunction connecting two entangled electrons exists before the transfer of light energy takes place from one electron to the next and it enables the electron in one atom to rise to a higher energy level simultaneously as an electron in the other atom drops to a lower energy level. When electrons “snap into” energy levels opposite that of their original conditions, there is no need to imagine that photon particles traveling through space are responsible for the exchange of energy.

QM does not require a direct physical contact between entangled particles for one particle to remotely affect the condition of another. In this case, the mathematical description of entanglement may represent the reality of light.

hyksos » December 20th, 2018, 12:37 am wrote:
Complementarity explains how light “travels” as if prescient of its destination because a non-local connection (entanglement) must be established between two electrons in the signal and receiver before they can exchange a quantum of energy. The wavelike connection comes first and then the energy exchange.

That is not what complementarity means, at all.


I was not defining complementarity but explaining how light appears to be prescient of its destination. The wavefunction establishes a non-local connection from electron to electron before the transfer of light energy which is how light appears to “travel” as if prescient of its destination. The wavelike connection comes first and then the direct electron to electron exchange of energy.

Sand dunes on a desert or ripples at the bottom of a stream are not formed by the sand itself waving. They are formed by the one-by-one deposition of sand grains. I see light waves as similar in that their wavelike nature is passively determined by the wavelike nature of their environment that determines which pairs of electrons can emit and adsorb energy in a wavelike fashion that we attribute to light waves.

hyksos » December 20th, 2018, 12:37 am wrote:
There is a specific energy associated with a photon that scales with its frequency. Because photons move at speed c, they are relativistic entities, and so the actually carry momentuThere is no differentation in modern physics between "ethereal" and "particulate/solid" matter. Photons are first class entities as much as electrons , hadrons, and quarks are.


Electrons and hadrons are physically demonstrable "particulate/solid" matter. Photons and quarks are speculation but the evidence for quarks is quite compelling. Photons are much less convincing especially in a number of quantum experiments (the quantum eraser experiment for one) where classical photon theory fails.

hyksos » December 20th, 2018, 12:37 am wrote:
The forum user here by the name of bangstrom, has for the second time, refused to type up any explanation for the events in the video.

I will repeat my explanation in a more complete form since you missed it. I explained that electrons have the same circular and equatorial spins that classical photon theory attributes to photons so the properties of polarization can be explained by the motions of entangled electrons. Photons are redundant to this explanation of polarity.

I didn’t mention the timing of the events in my explanation since I have explained it so many times elsewhere. The timing of light related events comes straight from special relativity where any two events separated by space are also separated by time at the constant rate of one second for every 300,000 km of distance. In this explanation, c is a spacetime dimensional constant rather than the speed of a photon so c represents the length of time we observe between light related electron to electron events. Light happens only at the electron to electron level.

The notion of c as a dimensional constant can be compared to the speed of a computer where nothing is speeding rather it is the read-out speed of our observation. Some call it the "speed of creation." For light, emission and adsorption are simultaneous events but we always see otherwise simultaneous events separated by time if we also see them separated by space.

hyksos » December 20th, 2018, 12:37 am wrote:
His attempts at an explanation looked instead far worse. Lets look at those now.

The video omitted any scientific description the unobservables such as how photons pick up a bundle of radial energy at one electron and instantly accelerate it to c carrying the energy through space to deposit it with another electron.

hyksos » December 20th, 2018, 12:37 am wrote:
QED is Quantum Electrodynamics. It is the complete modern theory of how electrons and photons interact, how and when they are absorbed and emitted and under what conditions. It is the most successful scientific theory ever created by human beings in all history. It is factually correct that the youtube video did not describe QED. But there are many books on it, some of them are very good.


My explanation preceded this comment. The comment above is a frequently omitted part of classical photon theory that I find to be illogical but it forms the basis upon which the classical photon model is based so my comment was in reference to the illogical nature of photon theory and not an explanation of anything of my own.

hyksos » December 20th, 2018, 12:37 am wrote:
These were "assumptions" in 1905. You live in 2018. No longer assumptions, the predictions of special relativity have been verified experimentally.

Light is energy is only observed at the electron to electron level. Photon particles were invented to explain how light energy gets from one point to another. Their existence is based on conjecture rather than direct observation so their reality is speculative.

SR predicts that events separated by space are also observed to be separated by time at the constant rate of a one second delay for every 300,000 km of distance. This is the part of SR that has been verified- not the existence of photons.

Every theory must stand or fall under its own under its own merits. I am familiar with the classical photon theory so there is no need to explain it as if I have never heard of it. Non-photon theories are not in any way in conflict with the predictions of special relativity. The only difference is that they consider c to be a dimensional constant rather than the speed of light. The value of c behaves exactly like a dimensional constant but nothing like a speed. For example, velocities add but c is a constant ratio and ratios do not add to velocities so you can never have c +/- v any more than you can travel faster than 1.6 kilometers per mile.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Previous

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests