http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_potential
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov-Bohm_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion
July 24-28 2005
IS WAVEFUNCTION AMPLITUDE A CONDITION OF MASS ?
It is within context of answering this question that I propose The QM - Classical boundary solution lies with the wavefunction(s) amplitude of a given construct.
Mass is explicitly linked to wavefunction such that the less mass an "object" has, the greater the wavefunction amplitude probability and thus the greater the uncertainty of position. When objects are bound together and gain a certain value of collective mass, the object as a whole ceases to have a wavefunction. Most all quantum particles are well known to have an intricate wavefunction, yet atoms themselves may exhibit a wavefunction and to which the magnitude of amplitude is known by total mass. Different elements have different masses according to how many nuetrons, protons, electrons and such particles they contain. Atoms in turn may combine together by way of covalent and ionic bonding to be known as compounds and molecules, in the process be known as a new object with a new total mass of which a new wavefunction is realized. It is most commonly at this size of molecules and compound atoms that the wavefunction amplitude of the whole decreases to a point where the molecules probability of location is almost certain. This principle typically only applies to objects that are bound together such that they stabilize thier position collectively and create a more massive, more stable object. It is not applicable when we are dealing with a construct of unbounded free particles that would define an object or substance.
Consider several free neutrons and thier respective wavefunctions. If those neutrons are then bounded together, their individual wavefunctions are reduced as a function of combining mass. We no longer will consider several bounded neutrons as we define the object. It is now a new single object with a new wavefunction. We do not add individual wavefunctions but instead divide or substract. Such that if a single neutron has a wavefunction L, 2 bounded neutrons will have a wavefunction L/2. Again this is only applicable when we are dealing with bounded objects, where their mass is effectively added together.
Could a neutron qualify for such large wavelengths attainable by photons based on its mass alone? I think not, and the reason being because its mass does not allow it such degree of freedom. It has as it is, a more well defined position because of its larger mass and any change in momentum is bounded by such mass. Mass is a stability factor.
A question is, at what point when mass equals near zero does the wavelength have almost unlimited wavelength potential? The photon of course, radio waves are extremely large and qualify as one of the least massive objects we know of. Going up several notches to gamma rays we see that its wavelength is far more focused - a more well defined position, reason being because it has more mass energy.
Now that Ive said that, when we talk about "measurements" on massive
objects we know that it has Already a well defined almost absolute position,
not quite so in the QM world as things are in a state of constant flux. There
is no such thing as a collapse of the wavefunction in the classical macro world,
because the wavefunction is already collapsed (reduced) to a point where it
effectively has none. Interference cant be considered either because interference
requires the interference of wavefunctions, and when an object doesnt have a
wavefunction ... you get the idea.
UPDATE: It seems that I have mistakenly used the term wavelength for amplitude,
So in the above when I speak of wavelength I do mean amplitude which is displacement.
There is a follow up to this below.
Speed of collapse
The speed of a photon moving forward - c, is not the same as the speed at which a photon oscillates. It very well could be, but I dont see where that is stated or proven. When we talk about collapse of the wavefunction it is always assumed that this occurs at the speed of light, my opinion differs in lieu of the fact that it is not the forward speed varible that collapses because that is not the componet of light which deals with the wavefunction. However I might agree for the time being that the collapse of the wavefunction is Limited by the speed of light.
The EM Spectrum is Incomplete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM_spectrum
Notice how the EM Spectrum says nothing about amplitude! Wow, How did I possibly miss that? Wavelength is distinctly different than amplitude. Amplitude is how we measure displacement. So when they give a wavelength of 1km for MF radio waves and say compare that to 1nm for Soft X-rays they are missing a crucial piece of information about the spatial displacement differences between them! As far as the EM Spectrum is concerned, they both could have the same exact amplitude and displace the same exact space. This is clearly not how I see things. I know intuitvely that radio waves have an amplitude far far greater than visible light. Even so, if by some strange principle amplitude is similar accross all bands (that would be quite amazing) WHAT IS THE VALUE? I just dont see myself saying that EM radiation has a fixed specific value of amplitude accross the spectrum. Unacceptable. The question is now, how do we calculate amplitude from the given information? YOU CANT. Frequency, wavelength and energy are all related to the same componet of the wavefunction. Amplitude as I said is distinctly different and cannot be derived from such information. It may be by coincidence that a symmetry exsists between such and amplitude but that is no more than speculation. I find this situation quite astonishing. Or am I losing my mind?
and then there is this
"...some low-energy gamma rays actually have a longer wavelength than some high-energy X-rays. This is possible because "gamma ray" is the name given to the photons generated from nuclear decay or other nuclear and subnuclear processes, whereas X-rays on the other hand are generated by electronic transitions involving highly energetic inner electrons. Therefore the distinction between gamma ray and X-ray is related to the radiation source rather than the radiation wavelength."
I have a problem with this. It is inconsistent and falls under the catagory of special knowledge. If you didnt know this special clause, you would definately be confused.
This all ties in with my theory of the wavefunction of mass, I thought that
the EM Spectrum would help me confirm or deny it, it does neither. The only
thing consistent is the energy level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie_hypothesis
Says that
"In 1923 Louis de Broglie claimed that all matter has a wave-like nature and related its wavelength and momentum by the equation:"
//equation
"where:
? is the particle's wavelength
h is Planck's constant
p is the particle's momentum
m is the particle's mass
v is the particle's velocity
The greater the energy, the larger the frequency and the shorter (smaller) the wavelength. Given the relationship between wavelength and frequency, it follows that short wavelengths are more energetic than long wavelengths."
Again nothing about amplitude. Nothing about how much space is displaced. Displacement is KEY in the principle of interference. Waves spread out do they not? Ok thats different, interference doesnt require waves to spread out. But the answer is Sometimes, but sometimes not! Laser light is waves, it does not spread out...
What are we missing?
The fact that laser light is not losing energy! Only when light loses or gains energy will its amplitude adjust accordingly!
So ok, this leads us to say that if radio waves displace a very large area of space, then they would Have to start out That large. This is more problematic than I thought. Technically theres nothing wrong with that, it just seem kinda strange. The old idea that waves spread out is not true. The diagrams were it is illustrated waves spreading out through say a 2-slit experiment is untrue of reality. Waves only 'spread out' in the forward direction. The only way to state an accurate representation of waves spreading out as normally imagined is if the light is constantly losing energy as it goes, therefore is will constantly displace more space as it goes. Which by the way is a behavior we dont want to rule out. For example, while a photon may not radiate and lose energy as it goes, another particle may. Such another particle could be an electron, as the electron is considered a moving charge which in specific theory radiates/loses energy in motion. So an electron could certainly qualify for such analagy as a wave spreading out. See my excerpt on the question of does an free electron decay?
found this stub
"The speed of light can have any value within the limits of the uncertainty principle as demonstrated in any Feynman diagram that draws a photon at any angle other than 45 degrees. To quote Richard Feynman, "...there is also an amplitude for light to go faster (or slower) than the conventional speed of light. You found out in the last lecture that light doesn't go only in straight lines; now, you find out that it doesn't go only at the speed of light! It may surprise you that there is an amplitude for a photon to go at speeds faster or slower than the conventional speed, c" (Chapter 3, page 89 of Feynman's book QED). However, this does not imply the possibility of superluminal information transmission, as no photon can have an average speed in excess of the speed of light."
Well then, the speed of oscillation is not limited by the speed of light. That is why I said "for the time being" ;) I see these things coming.
This next excerpt follows with what I said, waves do not spread out unless they
gain or lose energy.
"The principle of superposition of waves states that the resultant displacement at a point is equal to the sum of the displacements of different waves at that point. If a crest of a wave meets a crest of another wave at the same point then the crests interefere constructively and the resultant wave amplitude is greater. If a crest of a wave meets a trough then they interfere destructively, and the overall amplitude is decreased."
That excerpt is certainly true of classical mechanics, because we know water for example behaves as such.
But, this is backwards with the idea that as light gains energy its amplitude decreases. So clearly this is not a case of light actually gaining energy? And in fact it is not, light interference qualifies as unbounded free particles. Only when photons would couple or become 1st degree entangled would they add thier respective mass energy together and only in such an instance would NMWR or amplitude of the whole decrease. So there is a clear distiction between typical wave interference and mass coupling and a resulting distinction in wave mechanics. This explaination also helps us to understand why when the photons of the same spectrum interfere, whether constructively or destructively, it remains the same spectrum of light; that is, it neither gains nor loses energy. If for example in the principle of superposition of waves light actually gains energy, that would mean visible light for example could by constructive interference become x-rays - That is Not the case.
A priori, light should Always "destructively interfere". It gains energy, shortens wavelength and loses amplitude or nothing - That is consistent with the EM Spectrum. The other side of the coin is this, it loses energy, lengthens wavelength and lengthens amplitude or nothing. But again that is according to an actual gain or loss in energy where mass energy couples. Which by the way, may not even be possible for photons. It may be that Photons cannot ever couple. Certainly this goes along with the masslessness of the photon. If the photon is for all practicle purposes massless, there is no way by which 2 photons can come together to gain mass energy, thus decreasing NMWR by principle of "Wavefunction amplitude is a condition of mass"
If by now your not totally confused, there is an alternative solution. That is Im simply wrong, amplitude has nothing to do with energy or that amplitude increases with an increase in mass energy. This might lead us to say that gamma rays actually displace far more space then radio waves such that an increase in energy equals a shortening of wavelength equals an increase in amplitude. Then you could apply the principle of the superposition of waves straightforward without any knowledge of what I have previously said. But this cannot be, there is more to it.
Perhaps we have confused the difference between mass and energy? We have several options.
Gamma rays are less massive but more energetic, and radio wave are more massive
and less energetic.
OR
Gamma rays are more massive but less energetic, and radio waves are less massive
and more energetic.
OR
Gamma rays are more massive and more energetic, and radio waves are less massive
and less energetic.
However we could do this as well
Gamma rays are more energetic, and raido wave are less energetic.
We simply ignore the idea that either has a mass component or rather we shall treat them as if the masses are equal.
Which sounds OK BUT, That leads us to say that amplitude has nothing to do with mass. Which is... TRUE In the case of photons, and photons only! If and only if we consider photons in a unbounded interference relationship whereby MASSES NEVER COMBINE. Because afterall if masses did combine, it would not make sense to say that NMWR or amplitude increases.
And that, is that. We seemed to have covered the most difficult aspect of the theory, we dealt with photons and the interference of photons which consequently do not apply to the "wavefunction amplitude is a condition of mass" principle.
FYI the only way photons can gain or lose energy is by being absorbed then re-emmited as a new photon. So, again the principle of superposition of waves is not a case of the photons gaining or losing energy. I do not even think it is appropiate for such a principle to apply to light as Ive said it can only be a classical principle.
One more time. If the principle of superposition of waves is applicable to photons and is a case of the photons gaining mass energy it would lead to a new spectrum of light in addition to a new amplitude and that amplitude is backwards with the principle of NMWR of mass which states that the more massive an object is the less flux or amplitude it exhibits.
Consider now the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference
"When two waves superimpose, the resulting waveform depends on the frequency, (or wavelength) amplitude and relative phase of the two waves. If the two waves have the same amplitude A and wavelength the resultant waveform will have amplitude between 0 and 2A depending on whether the two waves are in phase or out of phase."
Now is it just me or what is the basis for the use of the word amplitude? That sentence completely baffles me. Wavelength is not amplitude. You cannot derive amplitude by wavelength! Unless there exsists some untold symmetry between them? I seem to have missed where that is said. This is not suppose to be classical mechanics people, light is not a spring, it is not water. If I had to guess, its another case of a mathmatical argument (based on classical principles) turned into a physical representation. It seems they are simply adding individual amplitudes to create a sum. While this may seem logical at first glance, what is the real truth behind it as it applies to QM?
Let us not also forget that adding waves together by simple principle of mathmatics is Entirely different than most if not all principles of superposition. When you superimpose something particularly waves, what you are doing is stacking them on top of each other, ie. they maintain thier individuality, they have a spatial difference.
This is illustrated quite nicely in the diagram of coherent light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_%28physics%29
I see nothing to immediately argue here, much to my surprise. And yes that is a true literal representation of superimposing something. Never do they add the waves. I cannot stress how important the distinction is between adding waves and superimposing waves.
All EMR should be a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave
Unless interference occurs or absorbed then re-emitted.
And again I see error with the concept of amplitude
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
As it is stated there amplitude is a measure of brightness or intensity. Whereas I would say that Brightness is known by the density of photons per arbitary unit of space, density being the degree of superposition. Such that the more photons you stack together per unit area the brighter the light is per unit area. Amplitude is Not brightness, we have already falsified the superposition of waves principle.
Which reminds me to formally argue the superposition of wave principle to be re-stated correctly.
So now when we read the definition of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensity
The correlation between amplitude is not stated, in fact it is dismissed!
"In physics, the word "intensity" is not synonymous with "strength", "amplitude", or "level",.."
And heres is something unexpected,
"brightness (or temperature)"
Now amplitude is temperature also..Which is.. oddly enough true if we apply our correction to brightness. An example of this principle is demonstrated by focusing the Suns light by means of a magnifying glass, the temperature dramatically increases as the density of photons per unit area increases.
More
The following is what I think I know.
Red light longer wavelength greater amplitude less bright less mass/energy
less density PUA*
Green light shorter wavelength less amplitude more bright more mass/energy greater
density PUA*
But according to others, brightness scales positively with amplitude. The truth is, If brightness is really the photon density per unit area as suggested by me, then greater amplitude and wavelength should equate to less brightness which in turn equates to less temperature, less kinetic energy, less mass which scales correctly according to my "wavefunction is a condition of mass" theory.
I dont know you tell me, is Red light brighter than Green or Purple? I dont think so, but thats not exactly scientific thats just going on my experience and intuition.
Lets pretend we can see gamma rays and radio waves or whathave you, short and long wavelengths. (Gamma rays are closer to Green and Radio is closer to Red following the chart above) If we set up a standing wave for each type and we define that each area has exactly 1 million photons then If we measure any unit area of the gamma rays we will find that the photons are closer together, that is to say there is more photons per unit area than when if we measured radio waves both in a sense of wavelength and amplitude*/displacement. So the density is greater for gamma rays and less for radio waves. Now you tell me, what do you think will be brighter? Yes exactly, but there is a slight problem. When they say that amplitude is a measure of brightness, they dont really specify which way it goes! I can only assume that they mean a greater amplitude implies a greater brightness, but as we have seen this is backwards and not according to how I charted it. One way to know for sure is knowing what model they use so we know without them saying anything which way they think it scales. If we take the classical wave model approach, which is what conventional wave mechanics based on, in fact All of physics dealing with waves, then brightness or intensity is equal to a greater amplitude. Indeed there is no "Other" wave model for light waves*, except mine which I have yet to fully introduce.
Classical wave mechanics / Sound waves ect.
Large disturbance greater amplitude/intensity/decibels
Small disturbance less amplitude/intensity/decibels
We could* relate a large disturbance to Red light and smaller to Green light However a large disturbance doesnt necessitate a larger wavelength always, vice versa. Notice though that now a greater amplitude is a greater intensity, this is opposite of our light chart looking at brightness. Additionally when you try to decide which goes with more energy its not so clear. A small disturbance does not have More energy than a large one, yet it is more focused at the same time. Gamma rays have more energy than radio waves, but according to a sound model gamma rays would have less intensity and brightness and perhaps energy due to there less amplitude.
This leads us to say one of two things. If light is a vibrational disturbance in accordance with conventional wave mechanics, then gamma rays need to have greater amplitude then radio waves, which in turn demands a longer wavelength and less mass/energy and less density PUA. Basically completely backwards with what we know.
Granted I doubt anyone has tried to compare sound to light on a chart before as such, but its when you do that you start to see the problem. Its clear one way or the other that the EM Spectrum doesnt rely soley on classical wave mechanics.
Were not quite done yet because there is an argument to be made that a high pitch, high frequency sound ie. trebble is more intense then a low pitch, low frequency sound ie. bass. Which leads us to say that amplitude alone cannot be a measure of intensity in sound waves, it is more so frequency than anything, correction Hearing. Hearing is the vibration of your eardrum which is a harmonic oscillator. "sounds near 3,500 Hz are often perceived as louder than a sound with the same amplitude at a much lower or higher frequency" If 2 sound waves are incident on your eardrum, one of them high frequency and one low frequency but they both have the same amplitude, then the high frequency sound will be more intense because it gives a jolt compared to the other longer wavelength sound in which whose total energy is transfered to the eardrum over a longer time.
Were not really getting anywhere with this, so lets move on. But the point remains, the topic of amplitude as it relates to light has been conveniently forgotton and brightness or intensity is problematic to know which way it goes. I dont feel like it is something that can be absent from the EM Spectrum, and as for sound amplitude well its not so clear what it means either, there is always two or more ways to look at something.
Im sorry, Brightness can only be considered in the context of more than 1 photon.
IT iS THE DENSITY OF PHOTONS PUA THAT EQUATES TO BRIGHTNESS. So even if we could
see a single photon its brightness is the same as any other color of light,
which is to say that INDIVIDUAL PHOTON AMPLITUDES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH BRIGHTNESS.
Individual photon anything has nothing to do with brightness...
(You can try to figure out how that is analageous to sound if you want but I'll
leave it at that)
SOUND... Fits the profile and behavior of the principle of the superposition of waves, as it is stated. Yes, that also includes interference. Keeping in mind that Sound is a classical principle, with the exception of "Phonons". You make your own conclusion about phonons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_displacement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_intensity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation
Also it is important to note that EM waves are not analageous to how sound works
/ sound waves! If such were the case, what is the point in declaring the exsistence
of a photon particle? You dont need photons in such a case, or at the very least
we dramatically alter the definition of a "photon" as only being a
vibrational lattice disturbance, that perhaps by some means gives rise to a
photon particle at any given point when measured. Well that might might be,
but I just cannot agree to that so easily, its not That simple. Furthermore
we would have to suggest that gamma rays, being more energetic, would follow
the idea that amplitude is greater ie. the greater the vibrational disturbance.
Ok so maybe thats not a huge problem, but is that the case or is that not the
case? We dont know until we figure out how does displacement scale according
to the EM spectrum.. It can only go one way or the other, knowing which way
is a significant almost crucial piece of information to know which model is
correct. Again for example, if gamma rays have a greater amplitude and displacement
that would greatly conform to a model indicative of sound waves and as such
the principle of the superposition of waves is applicable and valid to such
a model. Im hear to say that I have a serious problem with this model. Laser
light has no analgy to how a simlilar sound wave would propagate. Sound does
not obey the almost linear bounded nature of light, you cannot create a sound
wave that travels linear. Light waves do not spread "out" unless they
lose or gain energy. Sound almost Always has to spread "out", it is
a classical wave with classical principles. Additionally if both EM waves and
sound waves, heck even gravity waves were all identical in definition of how
they work and propagate and they all work on the same space, why the difference
in speed? Ok so, Im sure we could come up with something to explain that but
it is a question. The real question is what would maintain the frequency of
light in a vaccum? Sound will eventually fall off to nothing in a vaccum, EMR
goes on forever it seems! Such a model is what I call an aether theory, light
has to have some medium to travel through, some medium to vibrationally disturb.
Sound is an aether theory, ask yourself of everything you know if you are comfortable
with the idea that light is similar? Does light propagate by means of a vibrational
disturbance, is light a classical wave? Doesnt matter how you apply it, whether
by means of 'stationary' harmonic oscillators or not, that is still a classical
wave. After all that, we still have to explain where and how entanglement of
photon particles comes about in such a model. Obviously I havent even scratched
the surface of what this models requires we answer and the problems to address.
If you believe that the MME
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
disproved the exsistence of an aether, or that by some other proof or logic that an aether does not exsist, you cannot charatorized EM waves as being similar in mechanics to the recognized defintion of a wave - that is a classical wave such as sound. In other words, a light wave has no analagy to anything classical or that we can readily identify with. This is where my theory comes in, we will describe a particle(s) that travels in a wavelike motion, so we know right away that it is not a disturbance or fluxuation of a (relatively) stationary medium, it in itself is the traversing medium for a lack of better way to say it. I dont know, theres just only so many ways to describe a wave, which goes to say again that I do in fact recognize the necessity of some type of wave nature for light, it just cannot be a classical wave though where essentially the photon particle has no identity ie. theres no purpose in declaring a photon because the wave exsists without it - what is "waving" is not the photon, or the photon is not what is waving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio
"Radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation, created whenever a charged object accelerates with a frequency that lies in the radio frequency (RF) portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is the range from a few tens of hertz to a few hundred gigahertz. Electromagnetic radiation travels (propagates) by means of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that pass through the air and the vacuum of space equally well, and DOES NOT REQUIRE A MEDIUM OF TRANSPORT."
Does not require a medium of transport is the same as saying it is not a classical wave.
Max Borns Probability Amplitude
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_amplitude
"In quantum mechanics, a probability amplitude is a complex number-valued function which describes an uncertain or unknown quantity. For example, each particle has a probability amplitude describing its position. This amplitude is then called wave function. This is a complex number-valued function of the position coordinates."
I do not know the math so I cannot see if he accounts for mass or rather what
relation he gives to such. Supposedly the terms m corispond to mass, obviously
one would have to account for mass one way or the other so I have no doubt its
in there.
In any case, my hypothesis deals with a unique concept that it doesnt appear
be stated within this.
Upon further research it seem that the probability amplitude is just an mathmatical plot and in my opinion again an erroneous usage of the word amplitude. Perhaps I should stop using the word and use displacement instead to avoid conflict of definitions.
And it seems that my definition of flux is quite different then others
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux
When I was using it to describe the degree of Oscillation - related to stability
and magnitude of displacement (amplitude).
Obviously that is my error.
More
Magnitude of wavefunction displacement for a fundemental quantum particle is
derived solely by the particles mass. We do not question or answer WHY wavefunction
exsists we simply know how to calculate it. The exact equation I do not claim
at this time.
Magnitude of wavefunction displacement for an construct of bounded fundemental particles is derived by the objects' total mass.
The key word here being bounded such that if they are not, they will maintain thier individuality and thus independent intricate wavefunction. We do not yet at this time consider whether an electron in atomic "orbit" is bounded to anything such as the nucleus, yet at the same time we know how to derive what the electrons magnitude of amplitude is outside the atom. By comparing discrepancies we should be able to derive to what degree the electron is bounded altering its wavefunction. Yet that leads us inevitably to the measurement problem. But by the same token, the wavefunction of an atom as a whole will account for the mass of any electrons... There is no question that the electron is bounded to the atom to some degree, but it is certainly not the ideal example of mass coupling that we would like to illustrate.
I would like to at some time explain another theory regarding the degree of
coupling or degree of entanglement characterized by the proximity of masses
and the respective forces between and amoung them.
You briefly seen me use the phrase "first degree entangled" above, this is extreme proximity of masses whereby they effectively combine masses. I imagine a "second degree entanglement" to describe particles whose proximity is the radius of a particular component of maxwells EM equations. And a third perhaps 4th degree of entanglement. One of them, deals with the distance between 2 like particles whose proximity is at the very edge of each individuals peak amplitude such that they just barely never interfere or "collide". While true that particles such as these may not be consider entangled at all, I have caught myself using the term unambiguously because it is a term whose meaning implies a correlation between 2 or more object.
Im also considering amoung several things the possibility a force between photons
themselves. I know how strange that sounds but, photons do not combine as the
offical superposition of wave principle would have you believe, and I want to
know why. If photons combined that would be a huge mess I have briefly covered
this in an earlier writing. An electrical force would do, which would by the
way give cause to the E field being derived from the photon which is what it
is suppose to be in the first place, however recall that I have disproved that
if the photon has no charge why did we assign an E field componet to IT? Arguing
that it is the Electron(s) then that IS the E field, if not the photon.
"...each photon interacts with only itself. Interference between different photons never occurs. -Dirac"
If interference (keeping in mind there is several definitions of interference) is related to the degree of proximity we could understand this statement to mean that there is something keeping photons from extreme proximity.
However we know that electrons create the equivelent of an "electron shell" around an atom, that is an effective surface. An effective surface is something where something can not easily penetrate, or perhaps even bounce off. But at the same time electrons have a charge associated with them, so in addition to an effective surface which they create they can repel by a charge "force". Ok. Photons are similar to electrons in that they also have a wavefunction, the rapid oscillation of the wavefunction is what creates the effective surface, so photons can clearly do this and we see they need not necessarily have a charge to "repel" other photons. So That is the force between photons if nothing else. Doesnt matter how small photons masses are, the point is they DO have a mass and if the only thing that is incident is another photon its easy to maintain the principle that interference between photons never occurs. It is at this point however that the distinction between superposition and interference becomes not so clear when we consider a photon going up to its peak meeting another photon at roughly the same momentum along its wavefunction. The proximity gap is decreased dramatically and it is as if the 2 photons were one, they are in phase. BUT individuality remains, each owns wavefunction remains, recall the diagram of coherent light, masses are not combined they can only be superimposed. The implications if photons were allowed to combined masses are rediculous and too numerous to list, but be confident in knowning that only electrons can absorb photons, photons cannot "absorb" other photons. A complete theory of quantum gravity will no doubt additionally help us refine our concepts and principles as they pertain to photon interaction or the lack there of.
I should point out also that when an electron jumps "orbitals" defined more generally by chemistry, that is a change in wavefunction amplitude because it is a change in mass energy. And we know why an electron jumps orbitals, because it gains or loses a photon.
Aug 06 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
Aug 10 2005
I have not found the amplitude of EMR yet but if I research under the idea of it being called "Magnitude" I get something along the lines of Poynting vectors
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/emwv.html#c2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting_vector
Where "The average of the magnitude over a long time T (longer than the period of the wave) is called the irradiance"
And on another topic I am researching or trying to refresh my memory of what I know about charge. I mean seriously, what is charge folks? The electron has a "charge", it is one of the 4 fundemental forces yet its exact physical identity eludes me. Typically I would relate charge to an exchange or field perhaps even flow of smaller, mediator particles between 2 or more particles that we identify as having charge. The exchange of electrons or the flow of electrons in a material is what I think can be defined as an electric current, but to try and explain what thing about electrons gives them a unique charge I'm lost. If you follow me, read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current
with the idea that you want a definition of what a charge is pertaining to fundemental particles themselves, such as the electron. How electrons repel in other words given the idea they have a charge to them. Quit problamatic is the fact that electrons only exchange photons which, in my mind cannot readily explain a repulsion action - add to that the properties of a photon.
Now a physical interaction of any sort, doesnt really matter how you work it out, should by all means be able to explain a repulsion force. Theres nothing magical about collision of masses, we know how that works and why. The wavefunction of an electron is sufficient motive to consider a physical interaction to describe charge, rather than some at a distance magical force. On the other hand if charge works by way of classical/quantum waves, ie. physical disturbances in some medium , then you have my attention, but you would have to explain then how a physical wave attracts or repels accordingly.
You can see the questions that are there but no one seems to have addressed or wants to answer. Ya I know exactly what charge and electricity is on the macro scale, but its not so simple when we try to quantify it to individual fundemental particles which theorectically on there own have this unique property that we call charge, I would say its more like mimicking charge. I think that charge for fundemental particles will ultimately reduce to quantum gravity.
If amplitude of light is the same thing as the electric field assuming light
really is an electromagnetic wave ITSELF (which I seriously doubt), looking
at Maxwells equations I fail to see one that deals with wavelengths of light.
In other words, what is the electric field strength or magnitude for say Red
light?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamics
"The force that the electromagnetic field exerts on electrically charged particles, called the electromagnetic force, is one of the four fundamental forces. The other fundamental forces are the strong nuclear force (which holds atomic nuclei together), the weak nuclear force (which causes certain forms of radioactive decay), and the gravitational force. All other forces are ultimately derived from these fundamental forces. However, it turns out that the electromagnetic force is the one responsible for practically all the phenomena one encounters in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Roughly speaking, all the forces involved in interactions between atoms can be traced to the electromagnetic force acting on the electrically charged protons and electrons inside the atoms."
Since when do photons, "the electromagnetic force", act on PROTONS??
"Furthermore, light and radio waves are actually travelling disturbances in the electromagnetic field (i.e. electromagnetic waves.) Therefore, all optical and radio-frequency phenomena are actually electromagnetic in nature."
This makes no sense, photons cannot disturb (act on) the EM field if they ARE the EM field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity
"Electric charge is a property of certain subatomic particles (e.g., electrons and protons) which couples to electromagnetic fields and causes attractive and repulsive forces between them."
Uh huh sure, That is basically saying they are attracted to photons, which makes NO SENSE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_fields
"Behaviour of the electromagnetic field
(A hydrodynamic interpretation)
The electric and magnetic vector fields can be thought of as being the velocities
of a pair of incompressible fluids which permeate space. In the absence of charges
these fluids would be at rest, so that their velocity fields would be zero.
Since both fluids are incompressible, their densities do not change: it is not
possible to compress magnetic or electric fluid into a smaller space.
Electric charges act either as sources or sinks of the electric fluid. An electron is constantly absorbing electric fluid around it at some rate, call it e. Protons are the reverse: they constantly pour electric "liquid" towards the surrounding space at rate e, so liquid moves away from the proton with speed..."
WOW! now photons are "electric fluid" and Whats this?? Protons "pour electric fluid"
All this crap is besides the point, the photon does not have an electric charge, it is not a moving charge! Ive said it before Ill say it again, why did we assign and E and B field componet to light if the PHOTON HAS NO CHARGE??? Forget it, I dont even know what charge is, I highly doubt anyone else does either, but supposedly its one the the 4 fundemental forces...like that explains it.
Aug 11 2005
Keeping with the previous discussion
We know that radio waves can be tuned to be directional, this should come as no surprise as it is EMR. Some might briefly confuse radio waves with sound waves, do not do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_%28radio%29
Do not confuse gain with amplification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplifier
Although If I had it my way, I would say that gain is the degree of amplification after amplification. In other words, the change in input signal vrs the output signal is a measure of overall gain. Where they define gain as the difference in the signal strength of an output signal at any defined point opposed to an amplification procedure.
Here is my formal argument below on wikipedia discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antenna_%28radio%29
------------------------------
Gain, what is it?
Under the definition of gain seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain
"In electronics, gain is usually taken to mean the ratio of the signal output of a system to the signal input of the system. A gain of 10 would imply that a property of the signal (usually voltage or power) had increased by a factor of 10."
Which sounds an awful lot like amplification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplifier
"An amplifier can be considered to be any device that uses a small amount of energy to control a larger amount, although the term today usually refers to an electronic amplifier. The relationship of the input to the output of an amplifier--usually expressed as a function of the input frequency--is called the transfer function of the amplifier, and the magnitude of the transfer function is termed the gain."
Which sound like what the term "gain" should be.
Now this page is saying something completely different.
"An antenna has gain if it radiates more strongly in one direction than in another. Gain is measured by comparing an antenna to a model antenna, typically the isotropic antenna which radiates equally in all directions."
Here we are defining gain as the difference in signal strength in one area vrs another area for an output signal only. It considers nothing to do with an amplification procedure.
------------------------------
Back to topic
I will argue that classical waves on the other hand always spread isotropicaly over an isotropic medium as demonstrated by ripples in water. You may recall at some time ever holding a speaker in front of you, when you move it around you notice a change in pitch and intensity, so why if sound is isotropic is there a difference? The answer is simple but not, it involves taking into account the position of the incoming sound waves to the position of your ears. Your head will shield or block or damp the sound waves according to your orientation to the source. It has nothing to do with the idea that the sound waves themselves are not isotropic. Keeping in mind also that sound waves bounce and reflect off surfaces in addition leads to interference, making it more difficult to understand the truth to this concept.
Sound waves are supposedly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_wave
EMR is supposedly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave
But to tell you the truth I havent the foggiest idea what a longitundinal wave is. Sound is most definatly a transverse wave, now you can rotate perspective on a transverse wave 90 degrees but that is not a longitundinal wave, its still a transverse wave. Perspective matters no question about it. Why in the heck would there be 2 types of waves? Unless they mean to say horizontal and vertical waves, but its still the same thing. I cannot even begin to picture what a longitudinal wave looks like! It would have to be something like a particle that move forwards and backwards while at the same time moving forwards...basically no amplitude according to straight on perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waves_in_plasmas
OK, here we go
http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html
Now we see that there is no difference between the 2, only a difference in perspective.
"The animations below demonstrate both types of wave and illustrate the difference between the motion of the wave and the motion of the particles in the medium through which the wave is travelling."
Correction, the animation shows the difference in PERSPECTIVE, not the difference in MOTION. Thats not exactly semantics either.
Also note how interesting Rayleigh surface waves are.
more
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/tralon.html
Lets consider more of the application of the superposition of waves principle to EMR. It is my belief that amplification of a optical signal involves more identical photons being produced rather than the application of the superposition of waves principle where the amplitude of any one signal increased as the sum of signals. ie. the intensity/density increases but not amplitude.
I believe that modulation or amplification of any signal involves the absorbtion and re-emission of (more) photons rather than applying the superposition of waves principle. Note that this involves electron stimulation to produce more consecutive photons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_resonator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maser
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/maser.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulated_emission
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/qualig.html#c5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_emission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabi_cycle
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/eincoef.html#c1
I continue to find no appropiate application of the superposition of waves principle to light. Bottom line is this, interference between photons never occurs, interference between sound waves does occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
"Maxwell showed that waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields travel through empty space at a speed that could be predicted from simple electrical experiments—using the data available at the time, Maxwell obtained a velocity of 310,740,000 m/s. Maxwell (1865) wrote:
This velocity is so nearly that of light, that it seems we have strong reason to conclude that light itself (including radiant heat, and other radiations if any) is an electromagnetic disturbance in the form of waves propagated through the electromagnetic field according to electromagnetic laws."
It is important to note that an electric or magnetic current is not always the
flow of electrons through a given material. Relatively stationary electrons
can impose an current flow in the sense of atomic state which changes by absorption
and emmission of photons which DO travel at the speed of light. So the effect
is we get is an example of a transverse wave where the electrons only move say
up or down, never forward. It is not photons that are the waves in this context,
it is electrons, but note that it is not electrons that are moving forward,
only oscillating up and down. However this matrix of electrons when considered
as a whole system or a single wave, can* (The speed of the current is according
to the density of material, ie. how many electrons comprise the total current
wave. Notice how Maxwell measured the speed of current through a vacuum, where
there is almost no electrons between emission and destination/measurement) move
forward from point A to B at near the speed of light (in a vacuum). In other
words, if we study a single wavelength of a much larger wave system we can change
our perspective to see that it actually moves forward, while the individual
electrons may not. The electrons exhibit no significant forward flux. By contrast,
electrons which themselves flow through a material to describe an electric or
magnetic charge or field will not do so at the speed of light; this concept
of the flow of electrons falls under the catagory of conductivity and superconductivity
of conduction electrons which are not found in an atomic state/nucleus. They
are for a lack of a better definition free ionized atomic electrons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
What we have just said in a nutshell is that if we are to define an electromagnetic wave as soley the oscillation of relatively stationary electrons, this wave or current can propagate at the speed of light as measured by Maxwell (in a vacuum ie. Usually involves only 1 emmision electron and 1 detection electron depending on the purity of the vacuum). We will not ever say that photons themselves have any electromagnetic properties, photons only dictate the change in electrons, and this change is according to the speed of light. This solution is so well hidden it is almost no wonder nobody has reasoned it before. As a consequence what we will say is that the oscillation of an matrix of electrons in a material can be considered a "quantum classical wave". The reason it is not purely a classical wave is namely one we are dealing with quantum particles and two the wave does not spread isotropically, rather mostly linear for a mostly uniform material of a given atomic element. The linear propagation is where we primarily arrive at the neccesity to identify the quantum term. In this case, a quantum wave defined as a matrix of electrons that undergo succesive quantum leaps over time can be linear because they involve the exchange of photons in a prefered direction and one at a time T per electron. In other words, only if an electron would emit several photons simultaneously in all directions and simultaneous absorption sometime thereafter by neghboring electrons would the electron matrix wave be condsidered a truely classical wave such as a ripple effect on a pond.
The only thing that remains is to know why light is also a wave, and I believe the solution is knowing that the electron imparts its wave momentum to the photon upon release. However that does not explain the perpetual or sustained wave mechanics of a photon in a vaccum if indeed such a behavior is recognized. That will be a mystery for awhile longer, why a photon travels in a wavelike motion (between electrons) on its own. Light could for all practical purposes travel in a straight lines, it is afterall only the imposed momentum imparted to it by electrons that gives reasonable cause for wavelike behavior as it is understood to do so. However recall that we previously theorized that wavefunction and magnitude of such is a condition of mass/energy by some strange principle as yet undiscovered, Following that we will say photons do inherently have a wavefunction on thier own.
On the other hand if we want to describe an electromagnetic wave as soley the oscillation of a relatively stationary luminiferous aether, that being aside from electrons role, then the same principles of classical wave function apply to it also. There is perhaps a more strong argument to be made that this would be the case, however the difference between this and a particle that travels in a wavelike motion becomes blurred to the point where it could be either or, only time will tell if such an aether medium is identifiable. Yet at the same time the 2 concepts are completely different with different consequences.
continued....
