Discussion:
The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified
Add Reply
Ed Lake
2021-09-13 14:58:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper. It's titled "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" and this is the abstract:

"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.” This paper will explain the Double-Slit experiment in a very logical and simple way that anyone should be able to understand."

The link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2109.0117v1.pdf
All my papers: https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake

How can something be considered a "mystery" for hundreds of years
when there doesn't seem to be any mystery about it at all?

Ed
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-09-13 15:13:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper.
So we're in for another Ed Lake bashing thread.
"It's a way of life. You'll love it!" - F.Z.

Dirk Vdm
Dono.
2021-09-13 15:20:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In case anyone is interested, I just finished another crank paper.
Yep
Townes Olson
2021-09-13 18:01:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No one ever said anything about "following a definite path." The photons
emitted by the light in the double slit experiment SPREAD OUT.
But each of your individuals "photons" does not spread out. You admit this when you say "Each travels it OWN path away from the emitter". You see? Each of your "photons" follows some specific path. When you say "the photons spread out" you mean some photons follow slightly different paths from the others, you don't mean that any individual "photon" spreads out... and this is why your beliefs cannot explain the observed interference pattern. To explain the interference pattern with individual photons you need some kind of "spreading out" of individual photons, because the behavior of the individual photons that go through (say) the Left slit depends on whether or not the Right slit is open. Quantum electrodynamics explains this by the "sum over paths" (as described in detail in the previous message), whereas your concept of a "photon" cannot explain it at all.
Now, close one of the slits. We find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons can land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open.
No, it is affected by the fact that it has only one route to the screen.
Then you cannot explain the interference pattern when both slits are open. This was the whole point of the experiment, going all the way back to 1800, and this is why your concept of a "photon", a la Newton's "oscillating" particles ("fits and starts") had to be abandoned, because it couldn't explain interference effects. The particle theory of light was only resurrected when quantum effects were discovered, leading to the "sum over paths" approach. That's why a photon is not a classical particle, whereas your conception of a "photon" is a classical particle, because each of your "photons" has an individual singular path.
If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light
and blue light?
Each photon of blue light has more energy than those of red light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path doesn't change in flight, but a sequence of photons have different phases, corresponding to the phase of the source at emission. Also, when multiple paths are available for a single photon, with different path lengths, the probability is given by the magnitude of the sum of the phased amplitudes, which is why the interference effects occur for individual photons, dependent on the frequency of the light.
When photons can go through two slits, they can divide into two patterns. When photons can
only go through one slit, they do not divide and form just one pattern.
That's the classical image, which can't account for the interference pattern. You see, with your concept of a "photon", each going through just one slit or the other, you would get a smooth (not striped) pattern with just the Left slit open, and you would get the same smooth pattern but shifted slightly to the right if just the Right slit is open, and if both slits are open you would get the sum of those two smooth patterns. You would not get any interference effects. That's why Young's experiment killed the Newton/Lake model of the "photon" 200 years ago.

Remember, when both slits are open, a sequence of individual photons (possibly hours apart) reach the screen, and each one lands in a specific place (not smeared out), but if we keep track of where each one lands, and make a histogram plot, we find the "striped" interference pattern of dark and light stripes, no photons ever land in the dark stripes. If we close one of the slits, we find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons *can* land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open. That is why the Newton/Lake model of the photon is invalidated by experiment.
What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
photons get POLARIZED.
Polarization (with or without caps) does not account for the interference pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons (or electrons) with both slits open, and the disappearance of that pattern when only one is open (or when we detect which slit an electron passed through). Also, please note that the same experiment with electrons (massive particles) gives the same interference results, so the answer is not unique to photons.

Any viable theory must be able to explain the following basic fact: There are locations on the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open.

This applies not just to photons, but also to any massive particles (e.g., electrons) as well, since all particles exhibit wave-like behavior with interference.
Working on the paper seems a much more productive way to find
answers to questions...
But you've already been provided with the answers to all your questions - and more. If there was something in those answers that you think is wrong or unclear, you could ask follow-up questions. That's the most productive approach. You're not going to re-discover quantum electrodynamics on your own - apparently not even after having read fairly detailed descriptions of it.
How can something be considered a "mystery" for hundreds of years
when there doesn't seem to be any mystery about it at all?
It can't. Also, the mystery is not hundreds of years, it's less than 100. When Young first performed his experiment it wasn't mysterious, it simply led to the recognition of the wavelike behavior of light, which is perfectly classical, and hence refuted the Newton/Lake classical particle idea for light. The modern mystery arose only in the 20th century when the photo-electric effect and other phenomena eventually led to the modern concept of the photon (completely unlike your toy concept), which requires the "sum-over-paths" approach (or something equivalent), which is non-classical.
Ed Lake
2021-09-13 19:43:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Townes Olson
No one ever said anything about "following a definite path." The photons
emitted by the light in the double slit experiment SPREAD OUT.
But each of your individuals "photons" does not spread out. You admit this when you say "Each travels it OWN path away from the emitter". You see? Each of your "photons" follows some specific path. When you say "the photons spread out" you mean some photons follow slightly different paths from the others, you don't mean that any individual "photon" spreads out... and this is why your beliefs cannot explain the observed interference pattern. To explain the interference pattern with individual photons you need some kind of "spreading out" of individual photons, because the behavior of the individual photons that go through (say) the Left slit depends on whether or not the Right slit is open. Quantum electrodynamics explains this by the "sum over paths" (as described in detail in the previous message), whereas your concept of a "photon" cannot explain it at all.
Now, close one of the slits. We find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons can land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open.
No, it is affected by the fact that it has only one route to the screen.
Then you cannot explain the interference pattern when both slits are open. This was the whole point of the experiment, going all the way back to 1800, and this is why your concept of a "photon", a la Newton's "oscillating" particles ("fits and starts") had to be abandoned, because it couldn't explain interference effects. The particle theory of light was only resurrected when quantum effects were discovered, leading to the "sum over paths" approach. That's why a photon is not a classical particle, whereas your conception of a "photon" is a classical particle, because each of your "photons" has an individual singular path.
If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light
and blue light?
Each photon of blue light has more energy than those of red light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path doesn't change in flight, but a sequence of photons have different phases, corresponding to the phase of the source at emission. Also, when multiple paths are available for a single photon, with different path lengths, the probability is given by the magnitude of the sum of the phased amplitudes, which is why the interference effects occur for individual photons, dependent on the frequency of the light.
When photons can go through two slits, they can divide into two patterns. When photons can
only go through one slit, they do not divide and form just one pattern.
That's the classical image, which can't account for the interference pattern. You see, with your concept of a "photon", each going through just one slit or the other, you would get a smooth (not striped) pattern with just the Left slit open, and you would get the same smooth pattern but shifted slightly to the right if just the Right slit is open, and if both slits are open you would get the sum of those two smooth patterns. You would not get any interference effects. That's why Young's experiment killed the Newton/Lake model of the "photon" 200 years ago.
Remember, when both slits are open, a sequence of individual photons (possibly hours apart) reach the screen, and each one lands in a specific place (not smeared out), but if we keep track of where each one lands, and make a histogram plot, we find the "striped" interference pattern of dark and light stripes, no photons ever land in the dark stripes. If we close one of the slits, we find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons *can* land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open. That is why the Newton/Lake model of the photon is invalidated by experiment.
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
Post by Townes Olson
What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
photons get POLARIZED.
Polarization (with or without caps) does not account for the interference pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons (or electrons) with both slits open, and the disappearance of that pattern when only one is open (or when we detect which slit an electron passed through). Also, please note that the same experiment with electrons (massive particles) gives the same interference results, so the answer is not unique to photons.
Evidently that just means that electrons can be polarized, too.
Post by Townes Olson
Any viable theory must be able to explain the following basic fact: There are locations on the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open.
Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating photons.
There is NO POSSIBILITY that light consists of waves similar to sound waves.
When a photon goes through a slit and gets polarized, that probably has
some effect on the atoms that form the slit.

What is needed is more experiments which will help define the exact
properties of a photon. And what happens to all the photons that do
NOT make it through the slits? Do they have any effect on the ones that
DO make it through the slits?

I don't have all the answers, but it is UNDENIABLE that light consists of
oscillating photons, NOT waves similar to sound waves.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-13 20:47:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The same is true with any point of the barrier wall.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
photons get POLARIZED.
Polarization (with or without caps) does not account for the interference pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons (or electrons) with both slits open, and the disappearance of that pattern when only one is open (or when we detect which slit an electron passed through). Also, please note that the same experiment with electrons (massive particles) gives the same interference results, so the answer is not unique to photons.
Evidently that just means that electrons can be polarized, too.
That's a non-sequitur because, as noted, polarization does not account for the interference pattern. That was the whole point of my comment, applicable to all kinds of particles. Also, please note that the spin states of spin-1/2 fermions (like electrons) are well understood, and they are distinct from the polarization modes of spin-1 bosons (like photons) or spin-2 bosons (like hypothetical gravitons), so this is not a matter of speculation.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
Any viable theory must be able to explain the following basic fact: There are locations on
the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot
be hit when both slits are open.
Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating photons.
No, the answer is the sum-over-paths of quantum electrodynamics, and there is no such thing as oscillating photons, for the reasons already explained to you several times. And, again, the concept of "oscillating photons" does not provide any account of the interference pattern.
Post by Ed Lake
There is NO POSSIBILITY that light consists of waves similar to sound waves.
No one says it does, so your statement is pointless (unless you define "similar" broadly enough). Again, the explanation is that the probability of a photon landing at a certain time and place is equal to the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for each of the available paths from the source to that time and place. This results in the wave-like interference, even though the photons also exhibit particle-like attributes as well.
Post by Ed Lake
When a photon goes through a slit and gets polarized, that probably has
some effect on the atoms that form the slit.
You're not addressing the issue at all. Again: There are locations on the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open. This behavior is irreconcilable with your beliefs, but it is accurately explained by quantum electrodynamics. When you say it is "probably" due to polarization, you might just as well say it is probably due to blamange. It is equally senseless and devoid of rational content.
Post by Ed Lake
What is needed is more experiments which will help define the exact
properties of a photon.
The properties of photons have been exhaustively studied experimentally, and they conform precisely to quantum electrodynamics to incredible levels of precision. In contrast, your beliefs are grossly inconsistent with all experimental results, and make no rational sense.
Post by Ed Lake
And what happens to all the photons that do NOT make it through the slits?
They get absorbed by whatever they hit.
Post by Ed Lake
Do they have any effect on the ones that DO make it through the slits?
No, and remember, we can send individual photons, one per year, through the device, so there is no interaction between different photons. The inference effect is due to the sum of the amplitudes for all available paths between source and screen, in a precise what that allows us to predict the exact distribution of landing points on the screen, for any given configuration of slits. You do not need to be speculating aimlessly about this. It is all well understood, and in perfect agreement with all experimental results.
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 14:14:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The same is true with any point of the barrier wall.
If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
the case with most materials? If it gets absorbed but doesn't get
re-emitted, then its energy must somehow change the atom that absorbed it.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
photons get POLARIZED.
Polarization (with or without caps) does not account for the interference pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons (or electrons) with both slits open, and the disappearance of that pattern when only one is open (or when we detect which slit an electron passed through). Also, please note that the same experiment with electrons (massive particles) gives the same interference results, so the answer is not unique to photons.
Evidently that just means that electrons can be polarized, too.
That's a non-sequitur because, as noted, polarization does not account for the interference pattern. That was the whole point of my comment, applicable to all kinds of particles. Also, please note that the spin states of spin-1/2 fermions (like electrons) are well understood, and they are distinct from the polarization modes of spin-1 bosons (like photons) or spin-2 bosons (like hypothetical gravitons), so this is not a matter of speculation.
The paper says that you can turn OFF the interference pattern by
polarizing the photons going through one slit so that their electric
fields are at right angles to the electric fields of photons going
through the other slit.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
Any viable theory must be able to explain the following basic fact: There are locations on
the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot
be hit when both slits are open.
Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating photons.
No, the answer is the sum-over-paths of quantum electrodynamics, and there is no such thing as oscillating photons, for the reasons already explained to you several times. And, again, the concept of "oscillating photons" does not provide any account of the interference pattern.
But the interference pattern can be TURNED OFF by polarizing the photons
so that the ones going through one slit are polarized at right angles to the
photons going through the other slit.
Post by Ed Lake
There is NO POSSIBILITY that light consists of waves similar to sound waves.
No one says it does, so your statement is pointless (unless you define "similar" broadly enough). Again, the explanation is that the probability of a photon landing at a certain time and place is equal to the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for each of the available paths from the source to that time and place. This results in the wave-like interference, even though the photons also exhibit particle-like attributes as well.
Young's Double Slit experiment says light consists of waves similar to
sound waves. That is what Young claimed.
Post by Ed Lake
When a photon goes through a slit and gets polarized, that probably has
some effect on the atoms that form the slit.
You're not addressing the issue at all. Again: There are locations on the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open. This behavior is irreconcilable with your beliefs, but it is accurately explained by quantum electrodynamics. When you say it is "probably" due to polarization, you might just as well say it is probably due to blamange. It is equally senseless and devoid of rational content.
Post by Ed Lake
What is needed is more experiments which will help define the exact
properties of a photon.
The properties of photons have been exhaustively studied experimentally, and they conform precisely to quantum electrodynamics to incredible levels of precision. In contrast, your beliefs are grossly inconsistent with all experimental results, and make no rational sense.
They just make no sense to YOU.
Post by Ed Lake
And what happens to all the photons that do NOT make it through the slits?
They get absorbed by whatever they hit.
Post by Ed Lake
Do they have any effect on the ones that DO make it through the slits?
No, and remember, we can send individual photons, one per year, through the device, so there is no interaction between different photons. The inference effect is due to the sum of the amplitudes for all available paths between source and screen, in a precise what that allows us to predict the exact distribution of landing points on the screen, for any given configuration of slits. You do not need to be speculating aimlessly about this. It is all well understood, and in perfect agreement with all experimental results.
Okay. My paper neglected to mention the experiments where one photon at
a time is sent through the slits and they still form the striped pattern on the screen.
I probably should have titled it "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" instead
of "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified." Demystifying the experiment
means it must be EXPLAINED LOGICALLY, not just mathematically. And that
means we need to know what happens to EACH photon as it goes into the
experiment. Since the paper doesn't explain what happens to each individual
photon (including the ones that hit parts of the interior of the experiment),
there are still things that are a mystery.

If I can figure out how to delete the paper, I may do that.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-14 15:07:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
the case with most materials?
It may or may not be re-emitted, depending on what is blocking the slit (e.g., a detector that absorbs the energy and makes a click, or a mirror that reflects the energy, etc.), but the point is that whatever is blocking the slit is blocking the slit, the light does not proceed to hit the screen. When one slit is blocked, there is no interference pattern.
Post by Ed Lake
The paper says that you can turn OFF the interference pattern by
polarizing the photons going through one slit so that their electric
fields are at right angles to the electric fields of photons going
through the other slit.
Right, that's effectively just blocking one slit, so there is no interference pattern. What you were trying to claim is that polarization of an individual photon causes interference, which is wrong. Remember, a single photon is going through the device per year, so there is no interaction between different photons. Polarizing the photon does not produce any interference. It's very important not to be confused by this. Putting a polarized filter over a slit and using light that is polarized so it can't go through that slit is just the same as blocking that slit.
Post by Ed Lake
Young's Double Slit experiment says light consists of waves similar to
sound waves. That is what Young claimed.
To be accurate, the results of the double-slit experiment show that light and massive particles too (e.g., electrons) exhibit wavelike behavior, which Young (and everyone else at the time) assumed meant that light was a classical wave, since it proves that it can't be a classical oscillating particle with a definite trajectory such as you (Ed) imagine. Young did not know that the same effect occurs even with massive particles (like electrons). What was discovered much later is that light can't be a classical wave either, so it can't be a classical anything, it has to be a quantum phenomenon, which is described by the wave function to determine the probabilities for a photon or electron to land at a given place.
Post by Ed Lake
The properties of photons have been exhaustively studied experimentally, and they conform precisely to quantum electrodynamics to incredible levels of precision. In contrast, your beliefs are grossly inconsistent with all experimental results, and make no rational sense.
They just make no sense to YOU.
The word "just" should be deleted, because it isn't "just" me that thinks your beliefs make no sense. In fact, in the very next sentence (below) you agree that your paper doesn't really even address the issue at all, and you're going to try to retract your paper (which is good).
Post by Ed Lake
Okay. My paper neglected to mention the experiments where one photon at
a time is sent through the slits and they still form the striped pattern on the screen.
Right, and that is not just a little detail, that is the entire point, i.e., that's what makes the two-slit experiment results impossible to explain with classical oscillating particles of the kind you claim. That's why your beliefs are not logical, because they don't even address the issue at hand.
Post by Ed Lake
Since the paper doesn't explain what happens to each individual
photon (including the ones that hit parts of the interior of the experiment),
there are still things that are a mystery.
To be precise, your beliefs are completely irreconcilable with the actual phenomena, which you haven't even really considered yet, so, in that sense, yes, the subject is still mysterious to you. Now, the phenomena are perfectly well described by quantum electrodynamics, so the subject is not mysterious to scientists in that sense, although there is still (as everyone knows) arguably some mystery about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, due to the non-classical aspects. Yes, there is still mystery in this subject, but you must be aware that the mystery can only be perceived by people who actually understand the subject. The first step toward that understanding is recognizing that the phenomena are not consistent with your (tacitly classical) concept of photons as oscillating particles.
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 15:18:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
the case with most materials?
It may or may not be re-emitted, depending on what is blocking the slit (e.g., a detector that absorbs the energy and makes a click, or a mirror that reflects the energy, etc.), but the point is that whatever is blocking the slit is blocking the slit, the light does not proceed to hit the screen. When one slit is blocked, there is no interference pattern.
Post by Ed Lake
The paper says that you can turn OFF the interference pattern by
polarizing the photons going through one slit so that their electric
fields are at right angles to the electric fields of photons going
through the other slit.
Right, that's effectively just blocking one slit, so there is no interference pattern.
NOT SO! What they did was put a horizontal filter in front of one
slit and a vertical filter in front of the other slit. So, there was plenty
of light going through both slits. The light just could not form the
stripe pattern on the screen.
What you were trying to claim is that polarization of an individual photon causes interference, which is wrong. Remember, a single photon is going through the device per year, so there is no interaction between different photons. Polarizing the photon does not produce any interference. It's very important not to be confused by this. Putting a polarized filter over a slit and using light that is polarized so it can't go through that slit is just the same as blocking that slit.
Post by Ed Lake
Young's Double Slit experiment says light consists of waves similar to
sound waves. That is what Young claimed.
To be accurate, the results of the double-slit experiment show that light and massive particles too (e.g., electrons) exhibit wavelike behavior, which Young (and everyone else at the time) assumed meant that light was a classical wave, since it proves that it can't be a classical oscillating particle with a definite trajectory such as you (Ed) imagine. Young did not know that the same effect occurs even with massive particles (like electrons). What was discovered much later is that light can't be a classical wave either, so it can't be a classical anything, it has to be a quantum phenomenon, which is described by the wave function to determine the probabilities for a photon or electron to land at a given place.
Post by Ed Lake
The properties of photons have been exhaustively studied experimentally, and they conform precisely to quantum electrodynamics to incredible levels of precision. In contrast, your beliefs are grossly inconsistent with all experimental results, and make no rational sense.
They just make no sense to YOU.
The word "just" should be deleted, because it isn't "just" me that thinks your beliefs make no sense. In fact, in the very next sentence (below) you agree that your paper doesn't really even address the issue at all, and you're going to try to retract your paper (which is good).
Post by Ed Lake
Okay. My paper neglected to mention the experiments where one photon at
a time is sent through the slits and they still form the striped pattern on the screen.
Right, and that is not just a little detail, that is the entire point, i.e., that's what makes the two-slit experiment results impossible to explain with classical oscillating particles of the kind you claim. That's why your beliefs are not logical, because they don't even address the issue at hand.
Post by Ed Lake
Since the paper doesn't explain what happens to each individual
photon (including the ones that hit parts of the interior of the experiment),
there are still things that are a mystery.
To be precise, your beliefs are completely irreconcilable with the actual phenomena, which you haven't even really considered yet, so, in that sense, yes, the subject is still mysterious to you. Now, the phenomena are perfectly well described by quantum electrodynamics, so the subject is not mysterious to scientists in that sense, although there is still (as everyone knows) arguably some mystery about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, due to the non-classical aspects. Yes, there is still mystery in this subject, but you must be aware that the mystery can only be perceived by people who actually understand the subject. The first step toward that understanding is recognizing that the phenomena are not consistent with your (tacitly classical) concept of photons as oscillating particles.
“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html

There are only people who BELIEVE they understand it because
they understand the math.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-14 15:32:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Townes Olson
Right, that's effectively just blocking one slit, so there is no interference pattern.
NOT SO! What they did was put a horizontal filter in front of one
slit and a vertical filter in front of the other slit. So, there was plenty
of light going through both slits. The light just could not form the
stripe pattern on the screen.
No, what they did is exactly consistent with what I said, i.e., by placing filters with a certain orientation in front of the slits, photons with the contrary polarization angle are blocked for that slit, so each photon (with its specific polarization) has only one "open" slit available, and hence no interference. That's exactly what I told you, and, again, this refutes your beliefs.
“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed
the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman.
Again, that's exactly what I told you, Ed. I carefully explained, first, that your ideas are completely bonkers because they don't address the actual facts, and, second, I pointed out that quantum electrodynamics very precisely predicts all the known facts, so the subject is not mysterious in that sense, and then, third, I noted that the interpretation of quantum mechanics - for people who understand quantum mechanics (which does not include you) - there is indeed an element of mystery. As I said, this mystery can only be perceived by people who actually understand quantum mechanics.
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 16:05:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Townes Olson
Right, that's effectively just blocking one slit, so there is no interference pattern.
NOT SO! What they did was put a horizontal filter in front of one
slit and a vertical filter in front of the other slit. So, there was plenty
of light going through both slits. The light just could not form the
stripe pattern on the screen.
No, what they did is exactly consistent with what I said, i.e., by placing filters with a certain orientation in front of the slits, photons with the contrary polarization angle are blocked for that slit, so each photon (with its specific polarization) has only one "open" slit available, and hence no interference. That's exactly what I told you, and, again, this refutes your beliefs.
Okay, so we AGREE that light that is polarized in two different
ways will NOT show an "interference pattern." So POLARITY
has an effect on the experiment. My understanding is confirmed.
“I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics,” observed
the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman.
Again, that's exactly what I told you, Ed. I carefully explained, first, that your ideas are completely bonkers because they don't address the actual facts, and, second, I pointed out that quantum electrodynamics very precisely predicts all the known facts, so the subject is not mysterious in that sense, and then, third, I noted that the interpretation of quantum mechanics - for people who understand quantum mechanics (which does not include you) - there is indeed an element of mystery. As I said, this mystery can only be perceived by people who actually understand quantum mechanics.
Okay, you claim to understand quantum mechanics, and Richard Feynman
said that "NOBODY really understands quantum mechanics."

I tend to agree with Feynman, which means that you merely BELIEVE
that you understand quantum mechanics.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-14 16:44:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Okay, so we AGREE that light that is polarized in two different
ways will NOT show an "interference pattern." So POLARITY
has an effect on the experiment. My understanding is confirmed.
No, your understanding is utterly refuted. Again, your claim was that you can account for the striped pattern even for individual photons (fired one per year) by an effect of polarization, and I've explained to you that your claim is illogical nonsense. All the filters are doing in the referenced discussion is blocking off slits for various photons. We can block the slits in any way we like, and in every circumstance the distribution of landing sites agrees with the explanation I've given, i.e., sum-of-paths for the available paths, and this conclusively debunks your beliefs.
Post by Ed Lake
Okay, you claim to understand quantum mechanics, and Richard Feynman
said that "NOBODY really understands quantum mechanics."
You misread. Again, what we've shown is that, first, your ideas are completely bonkers because they don't address the actual facts (interference for individual photons), and, second, that quantum electrodynamics very precisely predicts all the known facts, so the subject is well understood in that sense (which is why Feynman won the Nobel prize, not for failing to understand the subject), and third, that the interpretation of quantum mechanics - for people who understand quantum mechanics (which does not include you) - there is indeed an element of mystery.

As I said, this mystery can only be perceived by people who actually understand quantum mechanics. It is this interpretational aspect that leads to ideas like the Copenhagen interpretation, and the many worlds interpretation, and Bohmian mechanics, and ontological collapse interpretations, quantum logic interpretations, and so on. There is a vast literature on the subject of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and this is what Feynman was alluding to when he said "nobody really understands quantum mechanics", meaning it is not classical. But you (Ed) are still at the stage of thinking quantum mechanics can be explained in classical terms, so you aren't even up to the level where you can perceive the mystery that Feynman was referring to.
Michael Moroney
2021-09-15 21:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
Right, that's effectively just blocking one slit, so there is no interference pattern.
NOT SO! What they did was put a horizontal filter in front of one
slit and a vertical filter in front of the other slit. So, there was plenty
of light going through both slits. The light just could not form the
stripe pattern on the screen.
No, what they did is exactly consistent with what I said, i.e., by placing filters with a certain orientation in front of the slits, photons with the contrary polarization angle are blocked for that slit, so each photon (with its specific polarization) has only one "open" slit available, and hence no interference. That's exactly what I told you, and, again, this refutes your beliefs.
Okay, so we AGREE that light that is polarized in two different
ways will NOT show an "interference pattern." So POLARITY
has an effect on the experiment. My understanding is confirmed.
Um, no. For each photon, ONE of the slits is blocked. Which one
depends on polarization. Say the left side polarization is passing
horizontal and the right passes vertical polarization. If the light
polarization is vertical the left slit, for example is blocked. If the
polarization is horizontal the right slit is blocked. So for each
photon to come along, ONE slit is blocked, even if it's not the same
slit for each photon. It doesn't matter WHY the slit is blocked, just
that it is blocked.
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-14 21:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place
a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The
same is true with any point of the barrier wall.
If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
the case with most materials?
It might. The most likely result is then reflection, not transmission in
the original direction beyond the absorber.
Post by Ed Lake
If it gets absorbed but doesn't get
re-emitted, then its energy must somehow change the atom that absorbed it.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
What appears to happen with the Double Slit experiment is that the
photons get POLARIZED.
Polarization (with or without caps) does not account for the
interference pattern that emerges for a sequence of individual photons
(or electrons) with both slits open, and the disappearance of that
pattern when only one is open (or when we detect which slit an
electron passed through). Also, please note that the same experiment
with electrons (massive particles) gives the same interference
results, so the answer is not unique to photons.
Evidently that just means that electrons can be polarized, too.
That's a non-sequitur because, as noted, polarization does not account
for the interference pattern. That was the whole point of my comment,
applicable to all kinds of particles. Also, please note that the spin
states of spin-1/2 fermions (like electrons) are well understood, and
they are distinct from the polarization modes of spin-1 bosons (like
photons) or spin-2 bosons (like hypothetical gravitons), so this is not
a matter of speculation.
The paper says that you can turn OFF the interference pattern by
polarizing the photons going through one slit so that their electric
fields are at right angles to the electric fields of photons going
through the other slit.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
There are locations on
the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is
closed, but that cannot
be hit when both slits are open.
Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating photons.
No, the answer is the sum-over-paths of quantum electrodynamics, and
there is no such thing as oscillating photons, for the reasons already
explained to you several times. And, again, the concept of "oscillating
photons" does not provide any account of the interference pattern.
But the interference pattern can be TURNED OFF by polarizing the photons
so that the ones going through one slit are polarized at right angles to the
photons going through the other slit.
Post by Ed Lake
There is NO POSSIBILITY that light consists of waves similar to sound waves.
No one says it does, so your statement is pointless (unless you define
"similar" broadly enough). Again, the explanation is that the
probability of a photon landing at a certain time and place is equal to
the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for each of the available
paths from the source to that time and place. This results in the
wave-like interference, even though the photons also exhibit
particle-like attributes as well.
Young's Double Slit experiment says light consists of waves similar to
sound waves. That is what Young claimed.
Young had no idea about the difference between transverse waves and
longitudinal waves.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
When a photon goes through a slit and gets polarized, that probably has
some effect on the atoms that form the slit.
You're not addressing the issue at all. Again: There are locations on
the screen that can be hit when just one slit is open and the other is
closed, but that cannot be hit when both slits are open. This behavior
is irreconcilable with your beliefs, but it is accurately explained by
quantum electrodynamics. When you say it is "probably" due to
polarization, you might just as well say it is probably due to blamange.
It is equally senseless and devoid of rational content.
Post by Ed Lake
What is needed is more experiments which will help define the exact
properties of a photon.
The properties of photons have been exhaustively studied experimentally,
and they conform precisely to quantum electrodynamics to incredible
levels of precision. In contrast, your beliefs are grossly inconsistent
with all experimental results, and make no rational sense.
They just make no sense to YOU.
Post by Ed Lake
And what happens to all the photons that do NOT make it through the slits?
They get absorbed by whatever they hit.
Post by Ed Lake
Do they have any effect on the ones that DO make it through the slits?
No, and remember, we can send individual photons, one per year, through
the device, so there is no interaction between different photons. The
inference effect is due to the sum of the amplitudes for all available
paths between source and screen, in a precise what that allows us to
predict the exact distribution of landing points on the screen, for any
given configuration of slits. You do not need to be speculating
aimlessly about this. It is all well understood, and in perfect
agreement with all experimental results.
Okay. My paper neglected to mention the experiments where one photon at
a time is sent through the slits and they still form the striped pattern on the screen.
I probably should have titled it "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" instead
of "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified." Demystifying the experiment
means it must be EXPLAINED LOGICALLY, not just mathematically.
Ed, just because mathematics of any kind is a mystery to you does not mean
that it needs demystification.
Post by Ed Lake
And that
means we need to know what happens to EACH photon as it goes into the
experiment. Since the paper doesn't explain what happens to each individual
photon (including the ones that hit parts of the interior of the experiment),
there are still things that are a mystery.
If I can figure out how to delete the paper, I may do that.
That would be smart.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-09-15 15:00:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place
a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The
same is true with any point of the barrier wall.
If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
the case with most materials?
It might. The most likely result is then reflection, not transmission in
the original direction beyond the absorber.
"Reflection" is not the right word. If the double slit device was made of
silver or aluminum, then the photon might "reflect" back through the
single slit. But almost any other kind of material will cause the NEW
photon to go in some random direction. My point is that the NEW photon
has to go somewhere. And it will hit another part of the double-slit device.
And then it will be absorbed and re-emitted again. That suggests that
the space between the first slit and the double slits has photons traveling
in all directions UNTIL they escape through one of the slits. And when
they escape, how to they affect the pattern on the screen?

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-15 15:29:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place
a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The
same is true with any point of the barrier wall.
If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
the case with most materials?
It might. The most likely result is then reflection, not transmission in
the original direction beyond the absorber.
"Reflection" is not the right word. If the double slit device was made of
silver or aluminum, then the photon might "reflect" back through the
single slit.
No. You see a green leaf because of light reflected off the leaf. Same for
a lump of charcoal. Do not confuse reflection with *specular* reflection
like off a mirrored or metallic surface.
Post by Ed Lake
But almost any other kind of material will cause the NEW
photon to go in some random direction. My point is that the NEW photon
has to go somewhere. And it will hit another part of the double-slit device.
And then it will be absorbed and re-emitted again. That suggests that
the space between the first slit and the double slits has photons traveling
in all directions UNTIL they escape through one of the slits. And when
they escape, how to they affect the pattern on the screen?
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-09-15 21:51:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
They get absorbed by whatever material is covering the slit. If we place
a detector over the slit, it will click each time a photon hits it. The
same is true with any point of the barrier wall.
If the photon gets absorbed, why doesn't it get re-emitted as would be
the case with most materials?
It might. The most likely result is then reflection, not transmission in
the original direction beyond the absorber.
"Reflection" is not the right word. If the double slit device was made of
silver or aluminum, then the photon might "reflect" back through the
single slit. But almost any other kind of material will cause the NEW
photon to go in some random direction.
If absorbed by the material, or non-specular reflection (think of white
paint).
Post by Ed Lake
My point is that the NEW photon
has to go somewhere. And it will hit another part of the double-slit device.
And then it will be absorbed and re-emitted again.
When absorbed it most likely becomes heat. When "re-emitted" it will be
some sort of thermal photon. The energy of the photons wasn't specified
but generally they are of much higher energy than thermal photons. And
there will be more of them, but not at the original frequency of the light.
Post by Ed Lake
That suggests that
the space between the first slit and the double slits has photons traveling
in all directions UNTIL they escape through one of the slits.
Are you saying the two slits are in clear glass or something???
Post by Ed Lake
they escape, how to they affect the pattern on the screen?
As long as the experiment doesn't use light at the energy of the
blackbody thermal peak of whatever temperature the slits are at, none.
Tom Roberts
2021-09-13 20:53:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.

In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!

There are photons that hit the closed slit and terminate there. But they
are irrelevant for the double-slit experiment, because they do not
contribute to the pattern on the screen.

In QED, a photon has a single creation event, and a single destruction
event. One computes the probability of detecting a photon at a detector
by summing the (complex) amplitudes over all possible paths from the
source to the detector, then squaring the amplitude. For a source of
many photons, one multiplies that probability by the intensity of the
source to obtain the rate in the detector. In the double slit
experiment, the detector is the entire screen, and one must perform that
calculation for each point on the screen.

In the double slit experiment, there are two paths to any given point on
the screen, and with one slit closed there is just one path [#] -- the
closed slit simply does not contribute to the pattern on the screen.

[#] I am speaking loosely and have omitted details for
clarity of presentation.
Post by Ed Lake
Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating photons.
No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.

You REALLY should learn something about the subject before attempting to
write about it. Due to your colossal ignorance, essentially everything
you write is pure nonsense.

Tom Roberts
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-13 21:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.
In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
There are photons that hit the closed slit and terminate there. But they
are irrelevant for the double-slit experiment, because they do not
contribute to the pattern on the screen.
In QED, a photon has a single creation event, and a single destruction
event. One computes the probability of detecting a photon at a detector
by summing the (complex) amplitudes over all possible paths from the
source to the detector, then squaring the amplitude. For a source of
many photons, one multiplies that probability by the intensity of the
source to obtain the rate in the detector. In the double slit
experiment, the detector is the entire screen, and one must perform that
calculation for each point on the screen.
In the double slit experiment, there are two paths to any given point on
the screen, and with one slit closed there is just one path [#] -- the
closed slit simply does not contribute to the pattern on the screen.
Considering the constant speed - when these 2 paths have
different length - there must be 2 destruction events.
Volney
2021-09-13 23:41:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
by summing the (complex) amplitudes over all possible paths
Complex? I can see an amplitude of 0.5 meaning half power and 0.0
meaning no amplitude, but what would an amplitude of 0.5i mean? An
amplitude of 0.2-0.3i means what?
Tom Roberts
2021-09-14 16:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Volney
Post by Tom Roberts
by summing the (complex) amplitudes over all possible paths
Complex? I can see an amplitude of 0.5 meaning half power and 0.0
meaning no amplitude, but what would an amplitude of 0.5i mean? An
amplitude of 0.2-0.3i means what?
Yes, the amplitudes in QM are complex numbers. But remember this is
Quantum Mechanics, and one can only have sensible discussions about what
one MEASURES. One cannot measure such amplitudes, only the corresponding
probabilities (with are related to the amplitude's norm squared, which
is necessarily a real number).

So there is no sensible answer to your question.

Tom Roberts
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 14:26:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.
The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."

If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate. If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
Post by Tom Roberts
In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
in some random direction. Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
that hits the closed slit?
Post by Tom Roberts
There are photons that hit the closed slit and terminate there. But they
are irrelevant for the double-slit experiment, because they do not
contribute to the pattern on the screen.
IF they "terminate there", what happens to the photon's energy?
Post by Tom Roberts
In QED, a photon has a single creation event, and a single destruction
event. One computes the probability of detecting a photon at a detector
by summing the (complex) amplitudes over all possible paths from the
source to the detector, then squaring the amplitude. For a source of
many photons, one multiplies that probability by the intensity of the
source to obtain the rate in the detector. In the double slit
experiment, the detector is the entire screen, and one must perform that
calculation for each point on the screen.
In the double slit experiment, there are two paths to any given point on
the screen, and with one slit closed there is just one path [#] -- the
closed slit simply does not contribute to the pattern on the screen.
[#] I am speaking loosely and have omitted details for
clarity of presentation.
Post by Ed Lake
Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating photons.
No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
"wavelength" if they do not oscillate.

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-14 21:10:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.
The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
That’s simply not true.
Post by Ed Lake
If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
Post by Tom Roberts
In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
in some random direction.
Right. Generally NOT onward beyond the barrier. Reflection is more likely.
Post by Ed Lake
Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
Which is just the jiggling of atoms in the barrier.
Post by Ed Lake
So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
that hits the closed slit?
You just said it. It can be absorbed by the atom, or result in barrier atom
jiggling (heat), or it can be radiated in the back direction (reflected),
or it can be re-radiated by the atom toward the interior of the material
where it will be likely absorbed again by another atom in the material.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
There are photons that hit the closed slit and terminate there. But they
are irrelevant for the double-slit experiment, because they do not
contribute to the pattern on the screen.
IF they "terminate there", what happens to the photon's energy?
Post by Tom Roberts
In QED, a photon has a single creation event, and a single destruction
event. One computes the probability of detecting a photon at a detector
by summing the (complex) amplitudes over all possible paths from the
source to the detector, then squaring the amplitude. For a source of
many photons, one multiplies that probability by the intensity of the
source to obtain the rate in the detector. In the double slit
experiment, the detector is the entire screen, and one must perform that
calculation for each point on the screen.
In the double slit experiment, there are two paths to any given point on
the screen, and with one slit closed there is just one path [#] -- the
closed slit simply does not contribute to the pattern on the screen.
[#] I am speaking loosely and have omitted details for
clarity of presentation.
Post by Ed Lake
Whatever the answer is, it must be explainable using oscillating photons.
No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
"wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-09-15 15:08:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.
The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
That’s simply not true.
WHY is it "not true"?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
Post by Tom Roberts
In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
in some random direction.
Right. Generally NOT onward beyond the barrier. Reflection is more likely.
But the "reflected" photon is going to hit something and get "reflected" AGAIN.
And again and again ..... until it escapes?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
Which is just the jiggling of atoms in the barrier.
Post by Ed Lake
So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
that hits the closed slit?
You just said it. It can be absorbed by the atom, or result in barrier atom
jiggling (heat), or it can be radiated in the back direction (reflected),
or it can be re-radiated by the atom toward the interior of the material
where it will be likely absorbed again by another atom in the material.
But my point is: Won't some of those photons get through the double-slits
EVENTUALLY? And what effect do they have on the photons that manage
to go through the slits on the first try?

[snip]
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
"wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-15 15:29:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.
The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
That’s simply not true.
WHY is it "not true"?
Because there are other physics contexts to which “frequency” applies other
than a back-and-forth oscillation. This is an example of where physics
jargon has subtle meanings that are not easily parseable by laypeople,
which is no doubt frustrating to laypeople.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
Post by Tom Roberts
In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
in some random direction.
Right. Generally NOT onward beyond the barrier. Reflection is more likely.
But the "reflected" photon is going to hit something
Or escapes.
Post by Ed Lake
and get "reflected" AGAIN.
And again and again ..... until it escapes?
Well, sure. Just like most sunlight escapes.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
Which is just the jiggling of atoms in the barrier.
Post by Ed Lake
So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
that hits the closed slit?
You just said it. It can be absorbed by the atom, or result in barrier atom
jiggling (heat), or it can be radiated in the back direction (reflected),
or it can be re-radiated by the atom toward the interior of the material
where it will be likely absorbed again by another atom in the material.
But my point is: Won't some of those photons get through the double-slits
EVENTUALLY?
Sure. No here is where quantitative calculation helps. You don’t know
without that whether it is one in a hundred or one in a hundred trillion.
Post by Ed Lake
And what effect do they have on the photons that manage
to go through the slits on the first try?
Virtually nothing. See the comment about the calculation just above.
Post by Ed Lake
[snip]
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
"wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-09-15 16:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.
The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
That’s simply not true.
WHY is it "not true"?
Because there are other physics contexts to which “frequency” applies other
than a back-and-forth oscillation. This is an example of where physics
jargon has subtle meanings that are not easily parseable by laypeople,
which is no doubt frustrating to laypeople.
So, what you are saying is that YOU cannot comprehend the idea
that a photon oscillates because YOU have different meanings for the
word "frequency" and you do not know which meaning applies here?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
Post by Tom Roberts
In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
in some random direction.
Right. Generally NOT onward beyond the barrier. Reflection is more likely.
But the "reflected" photon is going to hit something
Or escapes.
Post by Ed Lake
and get "reflected" AGAIN.
And again and again ..... until it escapes?
Well, sure. Just like most sunlight escapes.
But that means what comes out of the Double-Slits is a lot of photons
that made it through on the first try AND even more photons that took
multiple tries to get through. Wouldn't that mean that there is a lot
of "interference" going on BEFORE photons exit the two slits?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
Which is just the jiggling of atoms in the barrier.
Post by Ed Lake
So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
that hits the closed slit?
You just said it. It can be absorbed by the atom, or result in barrier atom
jiggling (heat), or it can be radiated in the back direction (reflected),
or it can be re-radiated by the atom toward the interior of the material
where it will be likely absorbed again by another atom in the material.
But my point is: Won't some of those photons get through the double-slits
EVENTUALLY?
Sure. No here is where quantitative calculation helps. You don’t know
without that whether it is one in a hundred or one in a hundred trillion.
Post by Ed Lake
And what effect do they have on the photons that manage
to go through the slits on the first try?
Virtually nothing. See the comment about the calculation just above.
If the comment is relevant, it should be explainable in plain English.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
[snip]
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
"wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Or Frequency is not what you think.

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-15 17:45:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.
The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
That’s simply not true.
WHY is it "not true"?
Because there are other physics contexts to which “frequency” applies other
than a back-and-forth oscillation. This is an example of where physics
jargon has subtle meanings that are not easily parseable by laypeople,
which is no doubt frustrating to laypeople.
So, what you are saying is that YOU cannot comprehend the idea
that a photon oscillates because YOU have different meanings for the
word "frequency" and you do not know which meaning applies here?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that you have a fixed
idea of what “frequency” means, which is different than what physicists
mean. You use your constraint to then insist that photons MUST oscillate,
because that’s what “frequency” means to you, without regard to any
observational measurements about whether photons oscillate. I on the other
hand know what physicists mean by the word frequency (because I have read
and understood), and I’m aware that there is no supportive evidence that
photons oscillate and significant evidence that they don’t. It has nothing
to do with “not understanding” your idea. It has to do with understanding
your idea and knowing it doesn’t work.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
Post by Tom Roberts
In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
in some random direction.
Right. Generally NOT onward beyond the barrier. Reflection is more likely.
But the "reflected" photon is going to hit something
Or escapes.
Post by Ed Lake
and get "reflected" AGAIN.
And again and again ..... until it escapes?
Well, sure. Just like most sunlight escapes.
But that means what comes out of the Double-Slits is a lot of photons
that made it through on the first try AND even more photons that took
multiple tries to get through.
No, again, this is where calculations are needed. The “even more” turns out
to be flat wrong and is instead “a teeny contribution from”.
Post by Ed Lake
Wouldn't that mean that there is a lot
of "interference" going on BEFORE photons exit the two slits?
No. Again, calculations.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
Which is just the jiggling of atoms in the barrier.
Post by Ed Lake
So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
that hits the closed slit?
You just said it. It can be absorbed by the atom, or result in barrier atom
jiggling (heat), or it can be radiated in the back direction (reflected),
or it can be re-radiated by the atom toward the interior of the material
where it will be likely absorbed again by another atom in the material.
But my point is: Won't some of those photons get through the double-slits
EVENTUALLY?
Sure. No here is where quantitative calculation helps. You don’t know
without that whether it is one in a hundred or one in a hundred trillion.
Post by Ed Lake
And what effect do they have on the photons that manage
to go through the slits on the first try?
Virtually nothing. See the comment about the calculation just above.
If the comment is relevant, it should be explainable in plain English.
No, I’m sorry, it can’t be shown to be true without actually calculating
the numbers.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
[snip]
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
"wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Or Frequency is not what you think.
I really would not recommend presuming that you are the one that knows what
frequency means, and that all physicists do not know what it means in this
context and are just spouting memorized things they don’t understand.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-09-15 20:26:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Or Frequency is not what you think.
I really would not recommend presuming that you are the one that knows what
frequency means, and that all physicists do not know what it means in this
context and are just spouting memorized things they don’t understand.
What I know about frequencies of light is what I read in textbooks and on-line,
and what I read seems to come from physicists.

Here's a link to calculate energy OR frequency OR wavelength by just entering
ONE of those numbers: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/photon-energy

Other sources:

"A photon is a tiny particle that comprises waves of electromagnetic radiation.
As shown by Maxwell, photons are just electric fields traveling through space.
Photons have no charge, no resting mass, and travel at the speed of light. Photons
are emitted by the action of charged particles, although they can be emitted by
other methods including radioactive decay. Since they are extremely small particles,
the contribution of wavelike characteristics to the behavior of photons is significant.
In diagrams, individual photons are represented by a squiggly arrow.

"Description

"Photons are often described as energy packets. This is a very fitting analogy, as
a photon contains energy that cannot be divided. This energy is stored as an
oscillating electric field. These fields may oscillate at almost any frequency."

Source: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Quantum_Mechanics/02._Fundamental_Concepts_of_Quantum_Mechanics/Photons

"A photon is a particle of light which essentially is a packet of electromagnetic radiation.
The energy of the photon depends on its frequency (how fast the electric field and
magnetic field wiggle). The higher the frequency, the more energy the photon has. Of
course, a beam of light has many photons. This means that really intense red light
(lots of photons, with slightly lower energy) can carry more power to a given area than
less intense blue light (fewer photons with higher energy).

"The speed of light (c) in a vacuum is constant. This means more energetic (high frequency)
photons like X-rays and gamma rays travel at exactly the same speed as lower energy
(low frequency) photons, like those in the infrared. As the frequency of a photon goes up,
the wavelength () goes down, and as the frequency goes down, the wavelength increases."

Source: https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Photon

"Photon energy is the energy carried by a single photon. The amount of energy is
directly proportional to the photon's electromagnetic frequency and thus, equivalently,
is inversely proportional to the wavelength. The higher the photon's frequency, the
higher its energy. Equivalently, the longer the photon's wavelength, the lower its energy.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy

Some other links without any short quotes:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/29-3-photon-energies-and-the-electromagnetic-spectrum/
http://light.physics.auth.gr/enc/wavelength_en.html
https://spark.iop.org/frequency-and-energy#gref

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-15 21:21:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
What I know about frequencies of light is what I read in textbooks and on-line,
and what I read seems to come from physicists.
Those web pages are obviously not written by theoretical physicists who understand quantum electrodynamics. They contain ridiculously wacky statements, such as "photons are just electric fields traveling through space", and "the energy of a photon is stored as an oscillating electric field". Those are completely idiotic statements that make any actual physicist roll his eyes. Descriptions of photons by non-experts generally conflate the classical electromagnetic field description with the quantum mechanical photon description. Look, you have Feynman's popularization, QED, which gives an accurate account of the subject, aimed at amateurs, but you disregard it. Likewise you run away from every attempt here to explain things to you clearly and simply.
Ed Lake
2021-09-16 14:12:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
What I know about frequencies of light is what I read in textbooks and on-line,
and what I read seems to come from physicists.
Those web pages are obviously not written by theoretical physicists who understand quantum electrodynamics. They contain ridiculously wacky statements, such as "photons are just electric fields traveling through space", and "the energy of a photon is stored as an oscillating electric field". Those are completely idiotic statements that make any actual physicist roll his eyes. Descriptions of photons by non-experts generally conflate the classical electromagnetic field description with the quantum mechanical photon description. Look, you have Feynman's popularization, QED, which gives an accurate account of the subject, aimed at amateurs, but you disregard it. Likewise you run away from every attempt here to explain things to you clearly and simply.
What you are saying is a variation on what I call the #2 DUMBEST idea in physics:
http://oldguynewissues.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-10-dumbest-ideas-in-physics.html

You claim those physics websites are run by idiots. The typical claim on this forum
is that normal people are too DUMB to understand physics, so physicists DUMB DOWN
the truth and feed CRAP to them, because CRAP is all normal people understand.

As I've said many times before, it seems to me that you only know memorized dogma.
You cannot explain anything except by reciting memorized dogma because you only
know memorized dogma.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-16 15:52:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
You cannot explain anything except by reciting memorized dogma because you only
know memorized dogma.
Here an un-memorized and undogmatic riddle for you: Adolph Hitler is sitting inside a bunker that has two windows, and a sniper is sitting at some location outside the bunker with one bullet in his gun. If either one of the windows is open and the other is closed, the sniper can shoot Hitler, but if both windows are open, he can't. What is the explanation?

Answer: In practice it would be difficult to demonstrate this quantum effect with an actual bullet because a bullet is a large macroscopic object with correspondingly extremely small wavelike behavior, but in principle this scenario is the same as the two-slit experiment that can be (and has been) performed with photons and electrons, etc.

Consider a light source with a certain frequency and such low intensity that only a single photon (on average) is emitted per hour. Now, quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic, and we can't predict precisely when the photon will be emitted, nor where it will land. We can only predict the probability distribution for when it will be emitted and where it will land. The probability distribution depends on the available paths for the photon, and also on the frequency of the source, as follows.

The source of the photon (which may be an oscillating charge, or an atom changing energy levels, etc.) has a certain "phase", which can be characterized by a little arrow with a certain length and direction, at any given time. The phase of the source is changing with a certain frequency (think of the arrow "spinning" like the hand of a clock), and any photon that is emitted from the source carries the phase that the source had at the moment of emission. The phase carried by a photon "in flight" does not change, but it depends on the precise time when it was emitted from the source.

Now, since we don't (and can't) know the precise time of emission, nor the precise trajectory, the probability of the photon landing at a particular time and place inside the bunker is given by adding up the little "arrows" for each possible path, and then the length of the resulting sum is the probability. From this you can understand why the interference pattern depends on the frequency of the source, even though the phase of an individual photon along an individual path is constant. At certain locations inside the bunker, the path lengths via the two windows are different, so the photon would need to have been emitted at different times, with different phases, and those phases may be pointing in opposite directions, so they cancel out (destructive interference), so the probability of a photon landing there is zero, even though it is non-zero if just one of the windows is open.

This simplified explanation is not memorized, and it is not dogma, it is (with appropriate caveats) the correct account of the two-slit experiment given by quantum electrodynamics. The reason you don't understand this is just your pre-conceived belief that the phenomena of nature must consist of entities moving with definite trajectories. In fact, the fundamental processes involve superpositions and interference, as explained above.

If there is something about this that you think is unclear, just ask for clarification.
Ed Lake
2021-09-16 16:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
You cannot explain anything except by reciting memorized dogma because you only
know memorized dogma.
Here an un-memorized and undogmatic riddle for you: Adolph Hitler is sitting inside a bunker that has two windows, and a sniper is sitting at some location outside the bunker with one bullet in his gun. If either one of the windows is open and the other is closed, the sniper can shoot Hitler, but if both windows are open, he can't. What is the explanation?
Answer: In practice it would be difficult to demonstrate this quantum effect with an actual bullet because a bullet is a large macroscopic object with correspondingly extremely small wavelike behavior, but in principle this scenario is the same as the two-slit experiment that can be (and has been) performed with photons and electrons, etc.
Consider a light source with a certain frequency and such low intensity that only a single photon (on average) is emitted per hour. Now, quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic, and we can't predict precisely when the photon will be emitted, nor where it will land. We can only predict the probability distribution for when it will be emitted and where it will land. The probability distribution depends on the available paths for the photon, and also on the frequency of the source, as follows.
The source of the photon (which may be an oscillating charge, or an atom changing energy levels, etc.) has a certain "phase", which can be characterized by a little arrow with a certain length and direction, at any given time. The phase of the source is changing with a certain frequency (think of the arrow "spinning" like the hand of a clock), and any photon that is emitted from the source carries the phase that the source had at the moment of emission. The phase carried by a photon "in flight" does not change, but it depends on the precise time when it was emitted from the source.
Now, since we don't (and can't) know the precise time of emission, nor the precise trajectory, the probability of the photon landing at a particular time and place inside the bunker is given by adding up the little "arrows" for each possible path, and then the length of the resulting sum is the probability. From this you can understand why the interference pattern depends on the frequency of the source, even though the phase of an individual photon along an individual path is constant. At certain locations inside the bunker, the path lengths via the two windows are different, so the photon would need to have been emitted at different times, with different phases, and those phases may be pointing in opposite directions, so they cancel out (destructive interference), so the probability of a photon landing there is zero, even though it is non-zero if just one of the windows is open.
This simplified explanation is not memorized, and it is not dogma, it is (with appropriate caveats) the correct account of the two-slit experiment given by quantum electrodynamics. The reason you don't understand this is just your pre-conceived belief that the phenomena of nature must consist of entities moving with definite trajectories. In fact, the fundamental processes involve superpositions and interference, as explained above.
If there is something about this that you think is unclear, just ask for clarification.
No, you've made it perfectly clear that arguing with you is a waste of time.
You create a STUPID riddle where bullets cannot do something that bullets
CAN do, and you then recite dogma as if it somehow explains something.

If reciting dogma is all you can do, I'm not going to respond to any more
such messages.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-16 16:52:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You create a STUPID riddle where bullets cannot do something that bullets CAN do...
Not true, the example of the bullets and windows is perfectly valid, it's just that the sizes of the windows and the distance between them would have to be extremely small to show the interference effect, and the effect is much easier to see with (say) electrons or photons. And of course the difficulty of seeing the interference effects with bullets is part of the point that I'm making, which is that your pre-conceived notions of how photons behave is based on how bullets and other macroscopic objects behave, and the quantum effects for macroscopic objects are so small that you've never noticed them. But they are impossible to ignore when dealing with photons and electrons and any entities where quantum effects are large. Still, the quantum mechanical effects apply to bullets as they do to photons and electrons.
If reciting dogma is all you can do...
What part of that message do you regard as "dogma"? And, more importantly, what part of the explanation do you regard as unclear or incorrect? I'm making an honest effort to communicate with you, and you seem determined to evade, and to attribute to me some kind of evil or bad intent.
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-09-16 17:46:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Townes Olson
You create a STUPID riddle where bullets cannot do something that bullets CAN do...
Not true, the example of the bullets and windows is perfectly valid, it's just that the sizes of the windows and the distance between them would have to be extremely small to show the interference effect, and the effect is much easier to see with (say) electrons or photons. And of course the difficulty of seeing the interference effects with bullets is part of the point that I'm making, which is that your pre-conceived notions of how photons behave is based on how bullets and other macroscopic objects behave, and the quantum effects for macroscopic objects are so small that you've never noticed them. But they are impossible to ignore when dealing with photons and electrons and any entities where quantum effects are large. Still, the quantum mechanical effects apply to bullets as they do to photons and electrons.
If reciting dogma is all you can do...
What part of that message do you regard as "dogma"? And, more importantly, what part of the explanation do you regard as unclear or incorrect? I'm making an honest effort to communicate with you, and you seem determined to evade, and to attribute to me some kind of evil or bad intent.
That is what trolls do, even when they disguise themselves
as ANALYSTS.
Their only motivation is to make you waste your time, even
while *you* think you can either help them, or, if not,
hopefully someone else who happens to read what you write.

Dirk Vdm
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 18:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What part of that message do you regard as "dogma"? And, more importantly, what part of the explanation do you regard as unclear or incorrect? I'm making an honest effort to communicate with you, and you seem determined to evade, and to attribute to me some kind of evil or bad intent.
You're wasting your time; you can't communicate with an
insane fanatic cultist.
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-09-16 16:48:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Townes Olson
Post by Ed Lake
You cannot explain anything except by reciting memorized dogma because you only
know memorized dogma.
Here an un-memorized and undogmatic riddle for you: Adolph Hitler is sitting inside a bunker that has two windows, and a sniper is sitting at some location outside the bunker with one bullet in his gun. If either one of the windows is open and the other is closed, the sniper can shoot Hitler, but if both windows are open, he can't. What is the explanation?
Answer: In practice it would be difficult to demonstrate this quantum effect with an actual bullet because a bullet is a large macroscopic object with correspondingly extremely small wavelike behavior, but in principle this scenario is the same as the two-slit experiment that can be (and has been) performed with photons and electrons, etc.
Consider a light source with a certain frequency and such low intensity that only a single photon (on average) is emitted per hour. Now, quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic, and we can't predict precisely when the photon will be emitted, nor where it will land. We can only predict the probability distribution for when it will be emitted and where it will land. The probability distribution depends on the available paths for the photon, and also on the frequency of the source, as follows.
The source of the photon (which may be an oscillating charge, or an atom changing energy levels, etc.) has a certain "phase", which can be characterized by a little arrow with a certain length and direction, at any given time. The phase of the source is changing with a certain frequency (think of the arrow "spinning" like the hand of a clock), and any photon that is emitted from the source carries the phase that the source had at the moment of emission. The phase carried by a photon "in flight" does not change, but it depends on the precise time when it was emitted from the source.
Now, since we don't (and can't) know the precise time of emission, nor the precise trajectory, the probability of the photon landing at a particular time and place inside the bunker is given by adding up the little "arrows" for each possible path, and then the length of the resulting sum is the probability. From this you can understand why the interference pattern depends on the frequency of the source, even though the phase of an individual photon along an individual path is constant. At certain locations inside the bunker, the path lengths via the two windows are different, so the photon would need to have been emitted at different times, with different phases, and those phases may be pointing in opposite directions, so they cancel out (destructive interference), so the probability of a photon landing there is zero, even though it is non-zero if just one of the windows is open.
This simplified explanation is not memorized, and it is not dogma, it is (with appropriate caveats) the correct account of the two-slit experiment given by quantum electrodynamics. The reason you don't understand this is just your pre-conceived belief that the phenomena of nature must consist of entities moving with definite trajectories. In fact, the fundamental processes involve superpositions and interference, as explained above.
If there is something about this that you think is unclear, just ask for clarification.
A brilliant waste of time.

Dirk Vdm
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-15 21:34:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Or Frequency is not what you think.
I really would not recommend presuming that you are the one that knows what
frequency means, and that all physicists do not know what it means in this
context and are just spouting memorized things they don’t understand.
What I know about frequencies of light is what I read in textbooks and on-line,
and what I read seems to come from physicists.
Looking at what you’ve extracted below, it’s clear they were not written by
professional physicists.
This is part of the problem with relying on the internet for research:
vetting the quality of the web source materials.

By and large, the internet is a swirling morass of floating garbage,
intermixed with decent answers. For someone doing web research, this
usually means one of two strategies to sort gold from dross:

- You can limit yourself to a small set of known and reliable web URLs that
have the blessing of quality by experts. This will improve signal:noise
from 10,000:1 to maybe 10:1.

- You can learn enough from sources other than the web to become
semi-competent in the subject, and then use that modicum of competence to
do the sorting. This does not change the signal:noise ratio, but it gives
you the ability to filter out the noise yourself.
Post by Ed Lake
Here's a link to calculate energy OR frequency OR wavelength by just entering
ONE of those numbers: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/photon-energy
"A photon is a tiny particle that comprises waves of electromagnetic radiation.
As shown by Maxwell, photons are just electric fields traveling through space.
Photons have no charge, no resting mass, and travel at the speed of light. Photons
are emitted by the action of charged particles, although they can be emitted by
other methods including radioactive decay. Since they are extremely small particles,
the contribution of wavelike characteristics to the behavior of photons is significant.
In diagrams, individual photons are represented by a squiggly arrow.
"Description
"Photons are often described as energy packets. This is a very fitting analogy, as
a photon contains energy that cannot be divided. This energy is stored as an
oscillating electric field. These fields may oscillate at almost any frequency."
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Quantum_Mechanics/02._Fundamental_Concepts_of_Quantum_Mechanics/Photons
"A photon is a particle of light which essentially is a packet of
electromagnetic radiation.
The energy of the photon depends on its frequency (how fast the electric field and
magnetic field wiggle). The higher the frequency, the more energy the photon has. Of
course, a beam of light has many photons. This means that really intense red light
(lots of photons, with slightly lower energy) can carry more power to a given area than
less intense blue light (fewer photons with higher energy).
"The speed of light (c) in a vacuum is constant. This means more energetic (high frequency)
photons like X-rays and gamma rays travel
at exactly the same speed as lower energy
(low frequency) photons, like those in the infrared. As the frequency of a photon goes up,
the wavelength () goes down, and as the frequency goes down, the wavelength increases."
Source: https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Photon
"Photon energy is the energy carried by a single photon. The amount of energy is
directly proportional to the photon's electromagnetic frequency and thus, equivalently,
is inversely proportional to the wavelength. The higher the photon's frequency, the
higher its energy. Equivalently, the longer the photon's wavelength, the lower its energy.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/29-3-photon-energies-and-the-electromagnetic-spectrum/
http://light.physics.auth.gr/enc/wavelength_en.html
https://spark.iop.org/frequency-and-energy#gref
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-09-16 14:33:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Or Frequency is not what you think.
I really would not recommend presuming that you are the one that knows what
frequency means, and that all physicists do not know what it means in this
context and are just spouting memorized things they don’t understand.
What I know about frequencies of light is what I read in textbooks and on-line,
and what I read seems to come from physicists.
Looking at what you’ve extracted below, it’s clear they were not written by
professional physicists.
Look again. The first link is a just a calculator for calculating one property
of a photon into another. Is this something non-physicists need?

The second link is a site run by UC Davis. "The LibreTexts libraries are
Powered by MindTouch® and are supported by the Department of Education
Open Textbook Pilot Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the
UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions
Program, and Merlot."

The third link is to a site run by the University of Calgary, Ontario.
The fifth link is run by the University of Colorado in Boulder.
The sixth link provides a list of its sources.
The last link is to the Institute of Physics. The Institute of Physics is a UK-based
learned society and professional body that works to advance physics education,
research and application. It was founded in 1874 and has a worldwide membership
of over 20,000.

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-16 16:28:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Or Frequency is not what you think.
I really would not recommend presuming that you are the one that knows what
frequency means, and that all physicists do not know what it means in this
context and are just spouting memorized things they don’t understand.
What I know about frequencies of light is what I read in textbooks and on-line,
and what I read seems to come from physicists.
Looking at what you’ve extracted below, it’s clear they were not written by
professional physicists.
Look again. The first link is a just a calculator for calculating one property
of a photon into another. Is this something non-physicists need?
It’s something that beginning students interested in physics need. It is
not something that physicists need, because they can do that calculation
themselves (often without a calculator) without the need of a website.
Post by Ed Lake
The second link is a site run by UC Davis. "The LibreTexts libraries are
Powered by MindTouch® and are supported by the Department of Education
Open Textbook Pilot Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the
UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions
Program, and Merlot."
And again, I want to reiterate that just because it is an academic
institution hosting the website does NOT mean that the content is written
by a professional physicist.

This is part of learning how to vet web content, which is a skill you have
not mastered yet. You’re doing a little better these days because you rely
less on popsci magazine sites and K-12 education sites that water things
down to the point of being factually wrong. But you still aren’t finding
the content that is not problematic.

This is why it’s been suggested to you that you acquire and READ from end
to end textbooks on physics that will give you carefully prepared and
accurate information, rather than the loose and unchecked content that
you’ve been drinking from. I know you find that tedious and difficult.
There’s no shortcut.
Post by Ed Lake
The third link is to a site run by the University of Calgary, Ontario.
The fifth link is run by the University of Colorado in Boulder.
The sixth link provides a list of its sources.
The last link is to the Institute of Physics. The Institute of Physics is a UK-based
learned society and professional body that works to advance physics education,
research and application. It was founded in 1874 and has a worldwide membership
of over 20,000.
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-09-16 20:16:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Or Frequency is not what you think.
I really would not recommend presuming that you are the one that knows what
frequency means, and that all physicists do not know what it means in this
context and are just spouting memorized things they don’t understand.
What I know about frequencies of light is what I read in textbooks and on-line,
and what I read seems to come from physicists.
Looking at what you’ve extracted below, it’s clear they were not written by
professional physicists.
Look again. The first link is a just a calculator for calculating one property
of a photon into another. Is this something non-physicists need?
It’s something that beginning students interested in physics need. It is
not something that physicists need, because they can do that calculation
themselves (often without a calculator) without the need of a website.
The second link is a site run by UC Davis. "The LibreTexts libraries are
Powered by MindTouch® and are supported by the Department of Education
Open Textbook Pilot Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the
UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions
Program, and Merlot."
And again, I want to reiterate that just because it is an academic
institution hosting the website does NOT mean that the content is written
by a professional physicist.
The third link is to a site run by the University of Calgary, Ontario.
The fifth link is run by the University of Colorado in Boulder.
The sixth link provides a list of its sources.
The last link is to the Institute of Physics. The Institute of Physics is a UK-based
learned society and professional body that works to advance physics education,
research and application. It was founded in 1874 and has a worldwide membership
of over 20,000.
Hmm. Do you think it is a CONSPIRACY when so many colleges and
universities have web sites which tell people things which go against
YOUR BELIEFS?

Do you think I am part of some conspiracy to show you are wrong?

I only showed 4 of them. I could probably find thirty or forty or more.
Maybe you should start a petition to shut down all the college and universities
which tell the public things that you disagree with.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-16 20:37:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I only showed 4 of them. I could probably find thirty or forty or more.
It isn't valid to lump them all together. I took a look at some of them, and they give perfectly valid statements, albeit somewhat lacking in detail. Among your references you will find those that carefully distinguish between the frequency of the light and the energy of the photon, and they do not make the mistake of conflating those things, and they correctly state that photons are "the carriers of the electromagnetic field", and they say "the energy of the photon depends on the radiation frequency", and so on. You see, the decent references are entirely consistent with what I've been telling you. Yes, some of your references are idiotic web trash, but certainly not all. You have a biased sample because you are looking for reinforcement of the most common misconceptions, and you actively run away from actual careful explanations of the subject, such as:

Consider a light source with a certain frequency and such low intensity that only a single photon (on average) is emitted per hour. Now, quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic, and we can't predict precisely when the photon will be emitted, nor where it will land. We can only predict the probability distribution for when it will be emitted and where it will land. The probability distribution depends on the available paths for the photon, and also on the frequency of the source, as follows.

The source of the photon (which may be an oscillating charge, or an atom changing energy levels, etc.) has a certain "phase", which can be characterized by a little arrow with a certain length and direction, at any given time. The phase of the source is changing with a certain frequency (think of the arrow "spinning" like the hand of a clock), and any photon that is emitted from the source carries the phase that the source had at the moment of emission. The phase carried by a photon "in flight" does not change, but it depends on the precise time when it was emitted from the source.

Now, since we don't (and can't) know the precise time of emission, nor the precise trajectory, the probability of the photon landing at a particular time and place inside the bunker is given by adding up the little "arrows" for each possible path, and then the length of the resulting sum is the probability. From this you can understand why the interference pattern depends on the frequency of the source, even though the phase of an individual photon along an individual path is constant. At certain locations inside the bunker, the path lengths via the two windows are different, so the photon would need to have been emitted at different times, with different phases, and those phases may be pointing in opposite directions, so they cancel out (destructive interference), so the probability of a photon landing there is zero, even though it is non-zero if just one of the windows is open.

If there is something about this that you think is unclear, just ask for clarification.
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-16 21:58:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Or Frequency is not what you think.
I really would not recommend presuming that you are the one that knows what
frequency means, and that all physicists do not know what it means in this
context and are just spouting memorized things they don’t understand.
What I know about frequencies of light is what I read in textbooks and on-line,
and what I read seems to come from physicists.
Looking at what you’ve extracted below, it’s clear they were not written by
professional physicists.
Look again. The first link is a just a calculator for calculating one property
of a photon into another. Is this something non-physicists need?
It’s something that beginning students interested in physics need. It is
not something that physicists need, because they can do that calculation
themselves (often without a calculator) without the need of a website.
The second link is a site run by UC Davis. "The LibreTexts libraries are
Powered by MindTouch® and are supported by the Department of Education
Open Textbook Pilot Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the
UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions
Program, and Merlot."
And again, I want to reiterate that just because it is an academic
institution hosting the website does NOT mean that the content is written
by a professional physicist.
The third link is to a site run by the University of Calgary, Ontario.
The fifth link is run by the University of Colorado in Boulder.
The sixth link provides a list of its sources.
The last link is to the Institute of Physics. The Institute of Physics is a UK-based
learned society and professional body that works to advance physics education,
research and application. It was founded in 1874 and has a worldwide membership
of over 20,000.
Hmm. Do you think it is a CONSPIRACY when so many colleges and
universities have web sites which tell people things which go against
YOUR BELIEFS?
No, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s an acknowledged fact about the quality of
information available on the web. 80% or more of the information available
on the web is false, misleading, and/or extremely poorly written. Learning
how to separate quality from crap is a pervasive problem and necessary
skill. Look at this newsgroup; it’s an internet resource. Well over 95% of
the posts on this group are crap, full of misinformation, deliberate lies,
and bad guesses borne of sheer ignorance.

The fact that a sewer contains sewage is not a conspiracy.
Post by Ed Lake
Do you think I am part of some conspiracy to show you are wrong?
I only showed 4 of them. I could probably find thirty or forty or more.
Maybe you should start a petition to shut down all the college and universities
which tell the public things that you disagree with.
I’m sorry, but you’re not guaranteed any quality of information when you go
on the web, and that includes university sites.

It’s a common complaint by hacks and wannabes here that “someone” ought to
go an ensure that the quality of the information available on the web is
cleaned up. It ain’t gonna happen. You get what you pay for.

The fact remains that anyone operating from a position of ignorance and
RELYING on the web to gain information is going to swallow more sewage than
nutrition, because you have NO FILTER to assess which is swill and which is
good. What’s needed to develop that sensor is base education using
carefully vetted materials, such as textbooks (not popularizations) on the
subject. You have to do that base education FIRST, before you’ll have any
quality meter for what you find on the web.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-09-17 14:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Or Frequency is not what you think.
I really would not recommend presuming that you are the one that knows what
frequency means, and that all physicists do not know what it means in this
context and are just spouting memorized things they don’t understand.
What I know about frequencies of light is what I read in textbooks and on-line,
and what I read seems to come from physicists.
Looking at what you’ve extracted below, it’s clear they were not written by
professional physicists.
Look again. The first link is a just a calculator for calculating one property
of a photon into another. Is this something non-physicists need?
It’s something that beginning students interested in physics need. It is
not something that physicists need, because they can do that calculation
themselves (often without a calculator) without the need of a website.
The second link is a site run by UC Davis. "The LibreTexts libraries are
Powered by MindTouch® and are supported by the Department of Education
Open Textbook Pilot Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the
UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions
Program, and Merlot."
And again, I want to reiterate that just because it is an academic
institution hosting the website does NOT mean that the content is written
by a professional physicist.
The third link is to a site run by the University of Calgary, Ontario.
The fifth link is run by the University of Colorado in Boulder.
The sixth link provides a list of its sources.
The last link is to the Institute of Physics. The Institute of Physics is a UK-based
learned society and professional body that works to advance physics education,
research and application. It was founded in 1874 and has a worldwide membership
of over 20,000.
Hmm. Do you think it is a CONSPIRACY when so many colleges and
universities have web sites which tell people things which go against
YOUR BELIEFS?
No, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s an acknowledged fact about the quality of
information available on the web. 80% or more of the information available
on the web is false, misleading, and/or extremely poorly written.
The problem with the web is SOCIAL MEDIA, not the reliability of the facts on
web sites. This forum is categorized as "social media." I'd say that about
80% of the information on INFORMATION SITES is correct. I gave my set of
encyclopedias to Goodwill because it is easier to use the encyclopedias and
dictionaries on the Internet. And they are more up-to-date. People complain
about the accuracy of Wikipedia, but one great feature of Wikipedia is that it
provides links to sources that can be checked and studied.

The reason I joined this forum was because I discovered that MOST college
physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
And VERY FEW college textbooks have the SAME version of Einstein's Second
Postulate. The authors tend to make up their own versions. I had to try to
figure out how that could possibly happen. The answer is: It is rare from two
college textbook AUTHORS to have the same understanding of Einstein's
theories of Relativity.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Learning
how to separate quality from crap is a pervasive problem and necessary
skill. Look at this newsgroup; it’s an internet resource. Well over 95% of
the posts on this group are crap, full of misinformation, deliberate lies,
and bad guesses borne of sheer ignorance.
Yes, but it is fascinating how everyone here seems to have a DIFFERENT
understanding of Relativity and other key science topics.

Yet, somehow we are able to go to the moon, land spacecraft on comets,
send robots to prowl around Mars, and use nuclear power to light our
homes. So, we're not all idiots.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-17 16:14:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
People complain about the accuracy of Wikipedia...
The main article on "photon" is Wikipedia is not too bad, but you chose to ignore that, and instead you seek out and reference the sub-tier article on "photon energy", which contains misleading statements. That's what I mean by your selection bias: You seem to be repelled by accurate scientific explanations, and you gravitate toward lower-quality presentations that contain erroneous and misleading statements. So, even though the web contains a fair amount of good information, your selection bias leads you to fill your mind with misinformation and misunderstanding. Likewise in this forum you studiously avoid responding to actual substantive replies that give careful explanations of things like the two-slit experiment, and instead spend your time replying to posts talking about sociological issues. That seems to be your real area of interest.
The reason I joined this forum was because I discovered that MOST college
physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
But the well-known difference between Einstein's original 1905 exposition and later expositions (including of Einstein himself) has been explained to you repeatedly, and you simply disregard the facts. Again, Einstein's 1905 paper asserts, essentially by fiat, that the combination of the relativity principle and the light speed principle for a single ("stationary") reference system immediately implies that light speed (in vacuum) has the speed c in terms of *every* inertial reference system, and this is the proposition that he then uses in the rest of the paper to derive special relativity. He doesn't really give any explicit rationale or argument for this extension, he just asserts it (based on several tacit assumptions about empty space, etc.), so it is basically just another "postulate", which immediately renders the previous "postulate" superfluous. So, subsequent authors (including Einstein himself) simply made the presentation more direct by adopting this latter proposition as the second principle. This is purely an expositional choice, it does not change anything about the derivation of the theory, because Einstein's derivation always made use of the extended principle, he just arrived at it (in 1905) separately with an extra step, basically to create a rhetorical bridge between Lorentz's theory and special relativity.
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-17 17:12:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
No. See above. Frequency has a more subtle meaning than you think.
Or Frequency is not what you think.
I really would not recommend presuming that you are the one that knows what
frequency means, and that all physicists do not know what it means in this
context and are just spouting memorized things they don’t understand.
What I know about frequencies of light is what I read in textbooks and on-line,
and what I read seems to come from physicists.
Looking at what you’ve extracted below, it’s clear they were not written by
professional physicists.
Look again. The first link is a just a calculator for calculating one property
of a photon into another. Is this something non-physicists need?
It’s something that beginning students interested in physics need. It is
not something that physicists need, because they can do that calculation
themselves (often without a calculator) without the need of a website.
The second link is a site run by UC Davis. "The LibreTexts libraries are
Powered by MindTouch® and are supported by the Department of Education
Open Textbook Pilot Project, the UC Davis Office of the Provost, the
UC Davis Library, the California State University Affordable Learning Solutions
Program, and Merlot."
And again, I want to reiterate that just because it is an academic
institution hosting the website does NOT mean that the content is written
by a professional physicist.
The third link is to a site run by the University of Calgary, Ontario.
The fifth link is run by the University of Colorado in Boulder.
The sixth link provides a list of its sources.
The last link is to the Institute of Physics. The Institute of Physics is a UK-based
learned society and professional body that works to advance physics education,
research and application. It was founded in 1874 and has a worldwide membership
of over 20,000.
Hmm. Do you think it is a CONSPIRACY when so many colleges and
universities have web sites which tell people things which go against
YOUR BELIEFS?
No, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s an acknowledged fact about the quality of
information available on the web. 80% or more of the information available
on the web is false, misleading, and/or extremely poorly written.
The problem with the web is SOCIAL MEDIA, not the reliability of the facts on
web sites.
No, I’m sorry, it’s broader than that.
Post by Ed Lake
This forum is categorized as "social media."
I agree with that, which is why only 5% of the information here is accurate
and useful, compared to only 20% of the information on non-social-media
websites being accurate and useful.
Post by Ed Lake
I'd say that about
80% of the information on INFORMATION SITES is correct.
You are dreaming. Moreover, you do not have enough background in the
subject to apply ANY quality filter on what you read, and so what you find
on the web is essentially a polluted crapshoot.
Post by Ed Lake
I gave my set of
encyclopedias to Goodwill because it is easier to use the encyclopedias and
dictionaries on the Internet. And they are more up-to-date. People complain
about the accuracy of Wikipedia, but one great feature of Wikipedia is that it
provides links to sources that can be checked and studied.
I’m not talking about encyclopedias. I’m talking about physics textbooks. I
know you find them impossibly impenetrable TO YOU, and you have no patience
to work through the necessarily prerequisite material. You’re looking for
shortcuts; there are no shortcuts.
Post by Ed Lake
The reason I joined this forum was because I discovered that MOST college
physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
And VERY FEW college textbooks have the SAME version of Einstein's Second
Postulate. The authors tend to make up their own versions. I had to try to
figure out how that could possibly happen. The answer is: It is rare from two
college textbook AUTHORS to have the same understanding of Einstein's
theories of Relativity.
No, I’m sorry but that’s factually incorrect. The fact that they do not use
IDENTICAL WORDS does not mean that they have different understandings.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Learning
how to separate quality from crap is a pervasive problem and necessary
skill. Look at this newsgroup; it’s an internet resource. Well over 95% of
the posts on this group are crap, full of misinformation, deliberate lies,
and bad guesses borne of sheer ignorance.
Yes, but it is fascinating how everyone here seems to have a DIFFERENT
understanding of Relativity and other key science topics.
Yes, of course, this is a social media site, remember? 95% of the content
here is misleading, error-filled, and outright lying, remember? This
newsgroup is NOT a place to get a consistent and educational explanation of
relativity, and it never has been. Your choice to try to use it that way is
foolish. Your complaint that there seems to be great controversy about
relativity here is also foolish.

It’s like hanging out in a barbershop listening to people discuss
economics. You’re not going to get useful information about economics in
the barbershop because 19 out of 20 people in the barbershop don’t know
what they’re talking about. So why would it be a surprise that there is
“different understanding” of economics in the barbershop?
Post by Ed Lake
Yet, somehow we are able to go to the moon, land spacecraft on comets,
send robots to prowl around Mars, and use nuclear power to light our
homes. So, we're not all idiots.
No, of course not. The people who went to the moon, designed spacecraft,
and built nuclear power plants spent 10,000 hours (at least!) to become
competent in their areas, studying from textbooks and learning from
instructors, the ONE COMMON ACTIVITY that you have decided not to do.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-17 18:36:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
The reason I joined this forum was because I discovered that MOST college
physics textbooks have a WRONG version of Einstein's Second Postulate.
And VERY FEW college textbooks have the SAME version of Einstein's Second
Postulate. The authors tend to make up their own versions. I had to try to
figure out how that could possibly happen. The answer is: It is rare from two
college textbook AUTHORS to have the same understanding of Einstein's
theories of Relativity.
No, I’m sorry but that’s factually incorrect. The fact that they do not use
IDENTICAL WORDS does not mean that they have different understandings.
And the fact idiot woodworking is asserting does not mean - ANYTHING.
Michael Moroney
2021-09-15 22:00:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.
The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
That’s simply not true.
WHY is it "not true"?
Because the frequency the light is received at depends on the Doppler
effect between source and receiver. Do you claim the photons can sense
the speed of the object which they will eventually be received at and
adjust their frequency to match? Silly.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
If you BELIEVE it doesn't oscillate,
how does its frequency and wavelength operate?
Post by Tom Roberts
In your fantasy world, in which photons behave like "little bullets",
this question makes sense. In the real world, in which photons are
modeled by QED, this question makes no sense at all -- no photons that
reach the screen to display a pattern will hit the closed slit --
BECAUSE IT IS CLOSED. DUH!
But YOU CANNOT DESTROY ENERGY. And photons are little packets
of energy going from one atom to another. Typically, photons hitting the
closed slit will be absorbed by an atom in the barrier and then RE-EMITTED
in some random direction.
Right. Generally NOT onward beyond the barrier. Reflection is more likely.
But the "reflected" photon is going to hit something and get "reflected" AGAIN.
And again and again ..... until it escapes?
As heat, normally a much lower frequency than we're talking about.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Or the photon can be converted to HEAT.
Which is just the jiggling of atoms in the barrier.
Post by Ed Lake
So the question really is: What happens to the ENERGY of the photon
that hits the closed slit?
You just said it. It can be absorbed by the atom, or result in barrier atom
jiggling (heat), or it can be radiated in the back direction (reflected),
or it can be re-radiated by the atom toward the interior of the material
where it will be likely absorbed again by another atom in the material.
But my point is: Won't some of those photons get through the double-slits
EVENTUALLY?
I ask again, are you suggesting the experiment should be performed with
two slits in clear or translucent glass? That's the only way the light
will bounce around in the material and re-emerge at the original frequency.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
No, that is your fantasy world again. In the real world, in which
photons are modeled by QED, the results are explainable using photons.
Not "oscillating photons", because photons do not oscillate.
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
"wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
But the received frequency depends on the relative motion of the target
(Doppler effect). Also, photons move at c, meaning their time dilation
is infinite, they don't even experience time (zero time experienced from
source to target) so they simply CAN'T oscillate!
Ed Lake
2021-09-16 15:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.
The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
That’s simply not true.
WHY is it "not true"?
Because the frequency the light is received at depends on the Doppler
effect between source and receiver. Do you claim the photons can sense
the speed of the object which they will eventually be received at and
adjust their frequency to match? Silly.
No, I'm saying that photons oscillate at a specific frequency that defines
the type of photon. Police radar guns emit photons that oscillate in the
radio frequency range, typically about 35 GigaHertz. When such a photon
hits an oncoming vehicle traveling at 70 mph, the photon hits at 35 GHz
PLUS the 70 mph Doppler effect caused by the oncoming vehicle. An atom
in the vehicle absorbs the photon AS IF it had its original energy PLUS the
Doppler Effect energy, i.e., as if it oscillated at 35 GHz PLUS 7,292 Hertz.
The atom in the vehicle then sends a photon back to the radar gun that
oscillates at 35,000,007,292 Hz. The gun compares the frequency of the
photons it transmits to the frequency of the photons it gets back, and it
computes a difference of 7,292 Hz. That frequency converts to 70 mph.

Photons oscillate. That is what allows radar guns to work.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
"wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
But the received frequency depends on the relative motion of the target
(Doppler effect). Also, photons move at c, meaning their time dilation
is infinite, they don't even experience time (zero time experienced from
source to target) so they simply CAN'T oscillate!
They MUST oscillate or radar guns wouldn't be able to compare the
oscillation rates for the photons the gun emits to the oscillation rates
for the photons that return from the target.

See my paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf
And: https://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v9.pdf

Ed
Ed Lake
2021-09-16 15:52:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
Post by Ed Lake
What happens to all the photons that hit the CLOSED slit?
This shows how completely wrong your notions are. You are living in a
fantasy world and making up a meaning for "photon" that is not what the
word actually means.
The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum of light
or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional
to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
If it has a "frequency" it must oscillate.
That’s simply not true.
WHY is it "not true"?
Because the frequency the light is received at depends on the Doppler
effect between source and receiver. Do you claim the photons can sense
the speed of the object which they will eventually be received at and
adjust their frequency to match? Silly.
No, I'm saying that photons oscillate at a specific frequency that defines
the type of photon. Police radar guns emit photons that oscillate in the
radio frequency range, typically about 35 GigaHertz. When such a photon
hits an oncoming vehicle traveling at 70 mph, the photon hits at 35 GHz
PLUS the 70 mph Doppler effect caused by the oncoming vehicle. An atom
in the vehicle absorbs the photon AS IF it had its original energy PLUS the
Doppler Effect energy, i.e., as if it oscillated at 35 GHz PLUS 7,292 Hertz.
The atom in the vehicle then sends a photon back to the radar gun that
oscillates at 35,000,007,292 Hz. The gun compares the frequency of the
photons it transmits to the frequency of the photons it gets back, and it
computes a difference of 7,292 Hz. That frequency converts to 70 mph.
Photons oscillate. That is what allows radar guns to work.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a
"wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
That’s not true. Do not tie those words so closely.
Why not? Photons MUST oscillate BECAUSE they cannot have a
"frequency" or a "wavelength" if they do not oscillate.
But the received frequency depends on the relative motion of the target
(Doppler effect). Also, photons move at c, meaning their time dilation
is infinite, they don't even experience time (zero time experienced from
source to target) so they simply CAN'T oscillate!
They MUST oscillate or radar guns wouldn't be able to compare the
oscillation rates for the photons the gun emits to the oscillation rates
for the photons that return from the target.
See my paper: https://vixra.org/pdf/2010.0141v3.pdf
And: https://vixra.org/pdf/1806.0027v9.pdf
Ed
I neglected to respond to this argument:

"Also, photons move at c, meaning their time dilation is infinite, they don't
even experience time (zero time experienced from source to target) so
they simply CAN'T oscillate!"

Hmm. That's an interesting belief. Obviously it is not true, since radar
guns demonstrate that photons DO oscillate.

The belief seems to be that photons cannot oscillate because time
stops when traveling at the speed of light, therefore nothing can CHANGE
while traveling at the speed of light. CHANGES INVOLVE TIME.

A photon's fields oscillate up and down while moving. They cannot
oscillate forward and back, since going forward would mean going
faster than the speed of light. Going up and down, however, has
no effect on the speed of the photon or the speed of light.

A photon travels at the speed of light. It cannot travel slower or faster.
It experiences no "time" and can travel forever. The up and down
motion of its fields have no effect on its speed.

A photon does NOT EXPERIENCE TIME, therefore its oscillations
DO NOT INVOLVE TIME. All photons travel at c regardless of their
oscillation rates. ONLY photons can travel at c. Therefore, the
rules that apply to ordinary matter do not apply to photons.

There might be some better way to explain it, but I'll have to see
what the arguments are first.

Ed
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 14:52:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I don't have all the answers...
Ed, you can sure say THAT again... but I must remind you that in reality, you don't have ANY of the answers...
but it is UNDENIABLE that light consists of oscillating photons, NOT waves similar to sound waves.
Sorry, Ed, but there is no evidence that photons oscillate (move up-and-down or side-to-side) at all, once again you are just making this up as you go along...
The FACT that photons have a FREQUENCY and a WAVELENGTH says
that they OSCILLATE. Experiments show that light consists of individual
particles. Physicist Richard Feynman once said and wrote,

“We know that light is made of particles because we can take a very sensitive
instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it, and if the light gets dimmer,
the clicks remain just as loud—there are just fewer of them. Thus light is
something like raindrops—each little lump of light is called a photon—and if the
light is all one color, all the ‘raindrops’ are the same size.”

Professor Feynman then added:
“I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important
to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have
gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving
like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles.

“You might say that it’s just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but
no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak
light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles.”

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-14 15:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
“I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important
to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have
gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving
like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles.
But Ed, every time you post that quote, someone responds by posting the follow-up quote from the very same book in which Feynman says that, actually, light is neither a wave nor a particle, it has attributes of both, so we should probably call it a wavicle, but for convenience, he calls it a particle, with the understanding that it is not a classical particle. You (Ed) believe that light consists of little classical particles, so you are not agreeing with Feynman or QED. Each time you are given the follow-up quote, that demolishes your beliefs, you just ignore it.
Post by Ed Lake
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a "wavelength"
if they do not oscillate.
If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light and blue light?
Each photon of red light has less energy than those of blue light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path doesn't change in flight, but a sequence of photons have different phases, corresponding to the phase of the source at emission. Also, when multiple paths are available for a single photon, with different path lengths, the probability is given by the magnitude of the sum of the phased amplitudes, which is why the interference effects occur for individual photons, dependent on the frequency of the source.
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 15:50:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
“I want to emphasize that light comes in this form—particles. It is very important
to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have
gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving
like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave—like particles.
But Ed, every time you post that quote, someone responds by posting the follow-up quote from the very same book in which Feynman says that, actually, light is neither a wave nor a particle, it has attributes of both, so we should probably call it a wavicle, but for convenience, he calls it a particle, with the understanding that it is not a classical particle. You (Ed) believe that light consists of little classical particles, so you are not agreeing with Feynman or QED. Each time you are given the follow-up quote, that demolishes your beliefs, you just ignore it.
NO!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE LIGHT CONSISTS OF CLASSICAL PARTICLES!
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle. So, I agree with Feynman in that light behaves
like particles in that they hit one tiny dot at a time on a photomultiplier.
Waves spread out and hit the entire wall. Your BELIEF is that one wave
interferes with another to cause the stripes on the wall.
Post by Ed Lake
Photons MUST oscillate. They cannot have a "frequency" or a "wavelength"
if they do not oscillate.
If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light and blue light?
Each photon of red light has less energy than those of blue light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path doesn't change in flight, but a sequence of photons have different phases, corresponding to the phase of the source at emission. Also, when multiple paths are available for a single photon, with different path lengths, the probability is given by the magnitude of the sum of the phased amplitudes, which is why the interference effects occur for individual photons, dependent on the frequency of the source.
That's just gibberish to me. Each photon of red light has less energy than
a blue light photon because blue photons have electric and magnetic fields
which oscillate faster than the fields in a red light photon. There are no
multiple paths for a photon. It cannot make decisions. It travels a single
path until it hits an atom, and then it transfers its energy to that atom.
A photon CAN interfere with the trajectory of another photon if they are
polarized and the magnetic field of one photon bumps into the magnetic
field of another photon (the same with electric fields). The fields repel
each other, but that can only happen if the two photons are traveling in
the same general direction side by side.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-14 16:31:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
NO!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE LIGHT CONSISTS OF CLASSICAL PARTICLES!
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields. That would be like saying electrons are made of gold. Second, the term "classical particle" means an entity with a definite trajectory, i.e., it follows a single definite path from one place to another. This is what you have in your mind when you think about your "oscillating photons". But classical entities cannot account for quantum phenomena, as I've been patiently explaining to you.
Your BELIEF is that one wave interferes with another to cause the stripes on the wall.
No, I agree with Feynman and quantum electrodynamics that the interference pattern is due to the sum-over-paths for the available paths that a photon could take from source to reception event. The probability for a single photon to land at a particular time and place is the magnitude of the sum of the complex amplitudes for each available path. This describes neither a classical wave nor a classical particle... as Feynman explained.
Post by Townes Olson
Post by Ed Lake
If a photon does not oscillate, what is the difference between red light and blue light?
Each photon of red light has less energy than those of blue light, and the phases of the sequence of photons (along a single path) comprising blue light advance more rapidly than for red light. The phase of an individual photon for an individual path doesn't change in flight, but a sequence of photons have different phases, corresponding to the phase of the source at emission. Also, when multiple paths are available for a single photon, with different path lengths, the probability is given by the magnitude of the sum of the phased amplitudes, which is why the interference effects occur for individual photons, dependent on the frequency of the source.
That's just gibberish to me.
photons have electric and magnetic fields which oscillate...
No, photons have no charge, and hence they have no electric or magnetic fields. As explained above, electromagnetic fields are comprised of the actions of photons, so it is illogical nonsense to imagine that photons are comprised of electromagnetic fields. It's like a child saying that electrons are made of gold.
A photon CAN interfere with the trajectory of another photon...
Again, the photons are fired once per year, and we still get the interference distribution. At no time is there more than one photon in flight, so your ideas about photons interfering with each other are wrong. We covered that before.
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 16:54:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Townes Olson
NO!!!! I DO NOT BELIEVE LIGHT CONSISTS OF CLASSICAL PARTICLES!
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
You make no sense. It seems to be just memorized phrases.
"the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"???
What does that mean?

Photons are the transfer of energy from one atom to another.
That energy is in the form of oscillating electromagnetic fields.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-14 18:21:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
Post by Ed Lake
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
"the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles. If you throw a baseball to someone, the recoil pushes you back, and when they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you understand what the word "mediate" means.

The last time I explained this to you (two weeks ago), you complained that it was too difficult for you to understand. I answered that quantum electrodynamics is not entirely simple, and although I'm trying to focus on aspects that can be explained in simple terms, you keep adding complications by asking about things like how electromagnetic interactions are mediated by photons, which necessarily involves virtual photons, which is obviously not something that you are equipped to understand. We got off on this tangent only because you expressed the mistaken belief that photons are made of electromagnetic fields, and I corrected you by pointing out that, to the contrary, electromagnetic fields are made of photons (crudely speaking). If you really wanted to understand this in depth, you would need to actually learn quantum electrodynamics (which you obviously have no intention of doing). It is not simple, but fortunately you don't need to understand that to understand the simple things you are talking about.
Post by Ed Lake
Photons are the transfer of energy from one atom to another.
Well, they convey force and/or energy, and more generally, they convey it from one charged particle to another... it doesn't have to be atoms. Individual electrons interact with each other electromagnetically, meaning they exchange photons.
Post by Ed Lake
That energy is in the form of oscillating electromagnetic fields.
Again (same as two weeks ago), when you talk about electromagnetic fields you implicitly have in mind the aggregate classical description of electric and magnetic fields (neglecting the fact that they are mediated by photons), and you need to realize that even static electric fields exert force, so you can't confuse electromagnetic radiation (e.g., light) with electromagnetic forces. The two are related, but are not conceptually identical. To understand the difference, you would need to understand virtual photons, and so on, which you simply are not equipped to do. For purposes of this discussion, it suffices to say that photons comprising electromagnetic radiation are obviously not comprised of electromagnetic radiation. That would be like saying bricks are made of houses.... No, houses are made of bricks, not the other way around. Electromagnetic fields (in the classical aggregate) comprising light oscillate, but the photons comprising the electromagnetic fields do not oscillate.
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 19:36:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Townes Olson
Post by Ed Lake
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
"the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles.
You just spout memorized slogans. You explain NOTHING.
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
You just recite memorized dogma and argue that I need to learn the
dogma so that I will understand you. I've got better things to do.
If you throw a baseball to someone, the recoil pushes you back, and when they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you understand what the word "mediate" means.
I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
"cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?

I've found out how to delete "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" from
vixra.org. I'm going to do that now. Whether or not I'll replace it someday
with a paper titled "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" is unknown.
It looks like I may not be able to totally "demystify" how single photons can
go through the double slits and gradually created the "interference pattern."

Ed
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-09-14 19:45:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
Post by Ed Lake
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
"the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles.
You just spout memorized slogans. You explain NOTHING.
NOTHING *can* be explained to a telephone pole, Ed.
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
You just recite memorized dogma and argue that I need to learn the
dogma so that I will understand you. I've got better things to do.
No, there isn't.
And you know it.
Post by Ed Lake
If you throw a baseball to someone, the recoil pushes you back, and when they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you understand what the word "mediate" means.
I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
"cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?
I've found out how to delete "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" from
vixra.org. I'm going to do that now. Whether or not I'll replace it someday
with a paper titled "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" is unknown.
Whether someday you'll be able to wipe your own bottom is also unknown.
Post by Ed Lake
It looks like I may not be able to totally "demystify" how single photons can
go through the double slits and gradually created the "interference pattern."
Don't lose any sleep over it.
Be back soon. There'll always be someone here who thinks they
can educate a telephone pole.

Dirk Vdm
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-14 21:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
Post by Townes Olson
Post by Ed Lake
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is
mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist
of electromagnetic fields.
"the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the
same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again,
the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by
virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy
and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles.
You just spout memorized slogans. You explain NOTHING.
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
And Feynman said, “He’ll, if I could explain it simply, it wouldn’t be
worth a Nobel Prize.”

I know you WANT physics to be understandable by laypeople. But your wants
do not correspond to reality.
Post by Ed Lake
You just recite memorized dogma and argue that I need to learn the
dogma so that I will understand you. I've got better things to do.
Post by Townes Olson
If you throw a baseball to someone, the recoil pushes you back, and when
they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and
exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This
is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball
is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you
understand what the word "mediate" means.
I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
"cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?
I've found out how to delete "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" from
vixra.org. I'm going to do that now. Whether or not I'll replace it someday
with a paper titled "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" is unknown.
It looks like I may not be able to totally "demystify" how single photons can
go through the double slits and gradually created the "interference pattern."
It will help if you learn first what a photon really is, rather than just
guessing at that.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Townes Olson
2021-09-14 21:19:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him, while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.
Post by Ed Lake
You just recite memorized dogma...
That insulting allegation is both false and pointless. I'm explaining to you, in quite simple terms, and with no mathematics at all, quantum electrodynamics. (You're welcome.) My explanations to you are neither dogma nor memorized. I agree with the two better (and genuine) quotes of Feynman, that were written on his blackboard at the time of his death: "What I cannot create I don't understand", and "Know how to solve every problem that has been solved". You should contemplate both of those quotes.
Post by Ed Lake
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
Again, when describing light in terms of classical electromagnetism (e.g., oscillating electric and magnetic fields), you are not giving the lower-level quantum description in terms of photons. The classical fields are a conceptualization of the electromagnetic interaction that is actually, at the quantum level, mediated by photons. The classical electromagnetic field oscillates, but the underlying individual quanta (photons) that actually effectuate the fields do not oscillate. The phase of the source of a photon advances, and each photon carries the phase of the source at emission, and this phase does not advance between emission and absorption. If there is only one available path, the phase really doesn't matter, since all that matters is the magnitude, but if there are multiple paths of different path length the phases matter, because they can interfere.

When you talk about a tiny particle centered in the fields... well, that is pure nonsense, and you yourself have admitted that your belief cannot account for the interference pattern in the two-slit experiment, so it's unclear why you continue to espouse that thoroughly debunked belief.
Post by Ed Lake
I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
"cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?
No, I'd say the optimum word in English is mediate, especially considering the space-like virtual photon interactions that are bi-directional. Yes, this is standard terminology, but there's a reason it is standard - it most accurately conveys the meaning. It does not mean "bring about a result", and it does not mean "cause", it means mediate. If this simple English word is unfamiliar to you, then that may explain part of your difficulty. But after I have patiently described the meaning in even simpler English words, I'm not sure what your point is in continuing to complain about lacuna in your own vocabulary. Don't blame me, blame your grade school. And, again, this whole digression was solely for the purpose of debunking your belief that photons are made of electromagnetic waves, when in fact it is the other way around, i.e., electromagnetic waves are made of photons (very crudely speaking). A child could understand this.
Ed Lake
2021-09-15 15:34:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him, while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.
I can probably find a couple dozen quotes that CAN be traced back
to Einstein which basically say the same thing as the grandmother quote.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

"Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex.”

"Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of
difficulty lies opportunity.”

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-15 15:38:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate
among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it
should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the
closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to
Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him,
while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all
physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend
themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could
understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.
I can probably find a couple dozen quotes that CAN be traced back
to Einstein which basically say the same thing as the grandmother quote.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
"Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex.”
"Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of
difficulty lies opportunity.”
Ed
Quotes aren’t going to help your cause.

Expertise in a subject requires 10,000 hours of concentrated effort at the
hands of those better than you in the endeavor. This applies to everything
from chess to woodworking. There is no shortcut.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-09-15 16:21:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate
among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it
should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the
closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to
Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him,
while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all
physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend
themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could
understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.
I can probably find a couple dozen quotes that CAN be traced back
to Einstein which basically say the same thing as the grandmother quote.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
"Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex.”
"Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of
difficulty lies opportunity.”
Ed
Quotes aren’t going to help your cause.
Expertise in a subject requires 10,000 hours of concentrated effort at the
hands of those better than you in the endeavor. This applies to everything
from chess to woodworking. There is no shortcut.
I have no interest in becoming a physicist or an "expert" in physics. All I am
doing is discussing one specific subject: the Double-Slit experiment.

If you are arguing that the Double-Slit experiment cannot be explained to
someone who hasn't done 10,000 hours of concentrated effort to learn it,
then I'm saying that is just plain RIDICULOUS. NOTHING is that complicated.

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-15 17:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate
among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it
should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the
closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to
Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him,
while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all
physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend
themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could
understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.
I can probably find a couple dozen quotes that CAN be traced back
to Einstein which basically say the same thing as the grandmother quote.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
"Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex.”
"Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of
difficulty lies opportunity.”
Ed
Quotes aren’t going to help your cause.
Expertise in a subject requires 10,000 hours of concentrated effort at the
hands of those better than you in the endeavor. This applies to everything
from chess to woodworking. There is no shortcut.
I have no interest in becoming a physicist or an "expert" in physics. All I am
doing is discussing one specific subject: the Double-Slit experiment.
Which takes way more preparation than what you think. It’s like saying you
just want to discuss is “end game” in chess but not anything else in chess.
Or you just want to discuss CRISPR, but you don’t want to learn
biochemistry as a whole. So it might not take 10,000 hours. It will still
take you 2,000 hours.
Post by Ed Lake
If you are arguing that the Double-Slit experiment cannot be explained to
someone who hasn't done 10,000 hours of concentrated effort to learn it,
then I'm saying that is just plain RIDICULOUS. NOTHING is that complicated.
Bullshit, Ed. There are LOTS of things that are that complicated.
I know you do not wish this to be so, but this is a simple reality.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Townes Olson
2021-09-15 16:09:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him, while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.
I can probably find a couple dozen quotes that CAN be traced back
to Einstein which basically say the same thing as the grandmother quote.
As usual, you mis-read. I pointed out that your "quote" was bogus, and then I gave you the actual origin of that quote, which was Rutherford's "barmaid" comment, and then I gave you the closest thing to that quote that can indirectly (via de Broglie) be related to Einstein. You ignore this information, and reply with three more bogus pseudo-quotes, i.e., three more memes that circulate among nitwits. Einstein did not write Hallmark greeting card slogans. I agree with the two better (and genuine) quotes of Feynman, that were written on his blackboard at the time of his death: "What I cannot create I don't understand", and "Know how to solve every problem that has been solved". You should contemplate both of those quotes.
Post by Ed Lake
You just recite memorized dogma...
That childish allegation is both false and pointless. I'm explaining to you, in quite simple terms, and with no mathematics at all, quantum electrodynamics. (You're welcome.) My explanations to you are neither dogma nor memorized. The people you are responding to here are telling you that the subject can't be explained simply, but I have explained it to you simply, and indeed you realized from my explanation that you needed to withdraw your "paper". You could actually gain some understanding of the subject if you would stop being distracted and focus on the subject, and ask questions about what you don't understand, and pay attention to the answers.
Post by Ed Lake
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
Again, when describing light in terms of classical electromagnetism (e.g., oscillating electric and magnetic fields), you're not giving the lower-level quantum description in terms of photons. The classical fields are a conceptualization of the electromagnetic interaction that is actually, at the quantum level, mediated by photons. The classical electromagnetic field oscillates, but the underlying individual quanta (photons) that actually effectuate the fields do not oscillate. The phase of the source of a photon advances, and each photon carries the phase of the source at emission, and this phase does not advance between emission and absorption. If there is only one available path, the phase really doesn't matter, since all that matters is the magnitude, but if there are multiple paths of different path length the phases matter, because they can interfere.

When you talk about a tiny particle centered in the fields... well, that's pure nonsense, and you yourself have admitted that your belief cannot account for the interference pattern in the two-slit experiment, so it's unclear why you continue to espouse that thoroughly debunked belief.
Post by Ed Lake
I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
"cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?
No, I'd say the optimum word in English is mediate, especially considering the space-like virtual photon interactions that are bi-directional. Yes, this is standard terminology, but there is a reason it is standard - it most accurately conveys the meaning. It does not mean "bring about a result", and it does not mean "cause", it means mediate. If this simple English word is unfamiliar to you, then that may explain part of your difficulty. But after I have patiently described the meaning in even simpler English words, I'm not sure what your point is in continuing to complain about this lacuna in your own vocabulary. Don't blame me, blame your grade school. And, again, this whole digression was solely for the purpose of debunking your belief that photons are made of electromagnetic waves, when in fact it is the other way around, i.e., electromagnetic waves are made of photons (very crudely speaking). Bricks are not made of houses, but houses are made of bricks. A child could understand this.

Also, I've explained to you, in very simple terms, the sense in which a photon has a frequency, even though a photon does not oscillate. You always ignore the explanation. It is not complicated. A barmaid could understand it.
Ed Lake
2021-09-15 16:25:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him, while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.
I can probably find a couple dozen quotes that CAN be traced back
to Einstein which basically say the same thing as the grandmother quote.
As usual, you mis-read. I pointed out that your "quote" was bogus, and then I gave you the actual origin of that quote, which was Rutherford's "barmaid" comment, and then I gave you the closest thing to that quote that can indirectly (via de Broglie) be related to Einstein. You ignore this information, and reply with three more bogus pseudo-quotes, i.e., three more memes that circulate among nitwits. Einstein did not write Hallmark greeting card slogans. I agree with the two better (and genuine) quotes of Feynman, that were written on his blackboard at the time of his death: "What I cannot create I don't understand", and "Know how to solve every problem that has been solved". You should contemplate both of those quotes.
Post by Ed Lake
You just recite memorized dogma...
That childish allegation is both false and pointless. I'm explaining to you, in quite simple terms, and with no mathematics at all, quantum electrodynamics. (You're welcome.) My explanations to you are neither dogma nor memorized. The people you are responding to here are telling you that the subject can't be explained simply, but I have explained it to you simply, and indeed you realized from my explanation that you needed to withdraw your "paper". You could actually gain some understanding of the subject if you would stop being distracted and focus on the subject, and ask questions about what you don't understand, and pay attention to the answers.
Post by Ed Lake
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
Again, when describing light in terms of classical electromagnetism (e.g., oscillating electric and magnetic fields), you're not giving the lower-level quantum description in terms of photons. The classical fields are a conceptualization of the electromagnetic interaction that is actually, at the quantum level, mediated by photons. The classical electromagnetic field oscillates, but the underlying individual quanta (photons) that actually effectuate the fields do not oscillate. The phase of the source of a photon advances, and each photon carries the phase of the source at emission, and this phase does not advance between emission and absorption. If there is only one available path, the phase really doesn't matter, since all that matters is the magnitude, but if there are multiple paths of different path length the phases matter, because they can interfere.
When you talk about a tiny particle centered in the fields... well, that's pure nonsense, and you yourself have admitted that your belief cannot account for the interference pattern in the two-slit experiment, so it's unclear why you continue to espouse that thoroughly debunked belief.
Post by Ed Lake
I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
"cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?
No, I'd say the optimum word in English is mediate, especially considering the space-like virtual photon interactions that are bi-directional. Yes, this is standard terminology, but there is a reason it is standard - it most accurately conveys the meaning. It does not mean "bring about a result", and it does not mean "cause", it means mediate. If this simple English word is unfamiliar to you, then that may explain part of your difficulty. But after I have patiently described the meaning in even simpler English words, I'm not sure what your point is in continuing to complain about this lacuna in your own vocabulary. Don't blame me, blame your grade school. And, again, this whole digression was solely for the purpose of debunking your belief that photons are made of electromagnetic waves, when in fact it is the other way around, i.e., electromagnetic waves are made of photons (very crudely speaking). Bricks are not made of houses, but houses are made of bricks. A child could understand this.
Also, I've explained to you, in very simple terms, the sense in which a photon has a frequency, even though a photon does not oscillate. You always ignore the explanation. It is not complicated. A barmaid could understand it.
Okay, we agree that we have language problems. You only know one
way to explain things, and that way seems invalid to me.

So, there is no point in arguing further.

Ed
Townes Olson
2021-09-15 17:03:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ed Lake
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
He didn't say that. It's just another of those memes that circulate among nitwits. Of course, Ernest Rutherford famously said that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid", but the closest thing to a similar remark that can be attributed (indirectly) to Einstein is that Louis de Broglie recalled Einstein once saying to him, while the two of them were waiting for a train in Paris, that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions aside, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description "that even a child could understand them". Clearly just a rhetorical statement.
I can probably find a couple dozen quotes that CAN be traced back
to Einstein which basically say the same thing as the grandmother quote.
As usual, you mis-read. I pointed out that your "quote" was bogus, and then I gave you the actual origin of that quote, which was Rutherford's "barmaid" comment, and then I gave you the closest thing to that quote that can indirectly (via de Broglie) be related to Einstein. You ignore this information, and reply with three more bogus pseudo-quotes, i.e., three more memes that circulate among nitwits. Einstein did not write Hallmark greeting card slogans. I agree with the two better (and genuine) quotes of Feynman, that were written on his blackboard at the time of his death: "What I cannot create I don't understand", and "Know how to solve every problem that has been solved". You should contemplate both of those quotes.
Post by Ed Lake
You just recite memorized dogma...
That childish allegation is both false and pointless. I'm explaining to you, in quite simple terms, and with no mathematics at all, quantum electrodynamics. (You're welcome.) My explanations to you are neither dogma nor memorized. The people you are responding to here are telling you that the subject can't be explained simply, but I have explained it to you simply, and indeed you realized from my explanation that you needed to withdraw your "paper". You could actually gain some understanding of the subject if you would stop being distracted and focus on the subject, and ask questions about what you don't understand, and pay attention to the answers.
Post by Ed Lake
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
Again, when describing light in terms of classical electromagnetism (e.g., oscillating electric and magnetic fields), you're not giving the lower-level quantum description in terms of photons. The classical fields are a conceptualization of the electromagnetic interaction that is actually, at the quantum level, mediated by photons. The classical electromagnetic field oscillates, but the underlying individual quanta (photons) that actually effectuate the fields do not oscillate. The phase of the source of a photon advances, and each photon carries the phase of the source at emission, and this phase does not advance between emission and absorption. If there is only one available path, the phase really doesn't matter, since all that matters is the magnitude, but if there are multiple paths of different path length the phases matter, because they can interfere.
When you talk about a tiny particle centered in the fields... well, that's pure nonsense, and you yourself have admitted that your belief cannot account for the interference pattern in the two-slit experiment, so it's unclear why you continue to espouse that thoroughly debunked belief.
Post by Ed Lake
I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
"cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?
No, I'd say the optimum word in English is mediate, especially considering the space-like virtual photon interactions that are bi-directional. Yes, this is standard terminology, but there is a reason it is standard - it most accurately conveys the meaning. It does not mean "bring about a result", and it does not mean "cause", it means mediate. If this simple English word is unfamiliar to you, then that may explain part of your difficulty. But after I have patiently described the meaning in even simpler English words, I'm not sure what your point is in continuing to complain about this lacuna in your own vocabulary. Don't blame me, blame your grade school. And, again, this whole digression was solely for the purpose of debunking your belief that photons are made of electromagnetic waves, when in fact it is the other way around, i.e., electromagnetic waves are made of photons (very crudely speaking). Bricks are not made of houses, but houses are made of bricks. A child could understand this.
Also, I've explained to you, in very simple terms, the sense in which a photon has a frequency, even though a photon does not oscillate. You always ignore the explanation. It is not complicated. A barmaid could understand it.
Okay, we agree that we have language problems.
Well, we've discovered that you didn't know the meanings of some English words, but now you know their meanings, and if we encounter any more words you aren't familiar with, you can just ask. That isn't an insurmountable obstacle.
Post by Ed Lake
You only know one way to explain things, and that way seems invalid to me.
Not true, I've explained things to you in a variety of ways, all of which you ignore. (See above, for example.) Of course, all these ways are explaining the same thing, and that's the thing you aren't understanding. It is unreasonable and illogical for you to expect the truth to change, simply because the truth "seems invalid" to you. You can't really assess whether it is valid or not until you understand it, which you presently do not. The usual pattern of our discussions is that I explain things, you voice an objection, I debunk your objection, and then you run off... making some lame excuse like "we have language problems".

Look, it's obvious what the problem is. You equate "valid explanation" with an explanation in terms of classical entities with definite trajectories. It so happens that quantum phenomena do not conform to that expectation, e.g., a photon in quantum electrodynamics is not a classical particle with a definite trajectory, it is an interaction involving a superposition of possibilities. Yes, this uses the word "superposition", which you don't understand, but I have explained this in simple terms. But you obviously will never feel that you understand quantum mechanics as long as you insist that "to understand" means to picture what's happening in classical terms of entities with definite trajectories, ignoring superpositions. The whole essence of quantum mechanics (the reason it is not classical) is the concept of superpositions. If this doesn't interest you, then you simply have no interest in understanding quantum phenomena... just as we've seen that you have no interest in actually understanding relativity.
Post by Ed Lake
So, there is no point in arguing further.
We're not arguing, I'm explaining the two-slit experiment to you, along with the rudimentary aspects of quantum electrodynamics necessary to understand it, and you are using all your strength to avoid learning. You want the answer to be localized classical entities moving along definite trajectories... but that is not reconcilable with the actual quantum phenomena. If you're not interested in understanding this, then so be it.
Python
2021-09-14 22:42:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
Post by Ed Lake
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
"the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles.
You just spout memorized slogans. You explain NOTHING.
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
Most alleged quotes from A.E. are fake. Anyway... Why would
Albert Einstein assumed that grandmothers are dumber than
Ed Lake?
Michael Moroney
2021-09-15 07:01:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
Post by Ed Lake
I believe light consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields centered
on some kind of tiny particle.
You claimed not to believe the photon was a classical particle, however
that description of a vibrating tiny particle sure sounds like a
classical description to me!
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Townes Olson
First, as explained to you before, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so it makes no sense to say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields.
"the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons"??? What does that mean?
It means the same thing it meant two weeks ago, when you asked me the same question and I answered it, carefully and clearly. Remember? Again, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles.
You just spout memorized slogans. You explain NOTHING.
Einstein supposedly once said "“You do not really understand something
unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”
You just spouted a memorized slogan, which explains NOTHING.
Post by Ed Lake
You just recite memorized dogma and argue that I need to learn the
dogma so that I will understand you. I've got better things to do.
You are projecting. You just recited memorized dogma as part of your
complaint about reciting memorized dogma!
Post by Ed Lake
If you throw a baseball to someone, the recoil pushes you back, and when they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you understand what the word "mediate" means.
I assume you want "mediate" to mean "bring about a result." Why not just use
"cause"? Is it because you can only recite memorized dogma?
I've found out how to delete "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" from
vixra.org. I'm going to do that now. Whether or not I'll replace it someday
with a paper titled "Demystifying the Double-Slit Experiment" is unknown.
It looks like I may not be able to totally "demystify" how single photons can
go through the double slits and gradually created the "interference pattern."
You are a laugh. You are just like Ken Seto and Archie Plutonium,
writing "books" on topics you don't even understand!
Tom Roberts
2021-09-14 15:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The FACT that photons have a FREQUENCY and a WAVELENGTH says that
they OSCILLATE.
That is your fantasy, not any fact.

Photons do not "have" either frequency or wavelength, because it simply
is not possible to measure either the frequency or wavelength of a
single photon [#]. This is quantum mechanics, and the only things that
can be sensibly discussed are MEASUREMENTS.

[#] For the simple reason that a photon has a single
detection/destruction event. Measuring frequency requires
multiple measurements over time, and measuring wavelength
requires multiple measurements over space; neither is
possible for a single photon.

Collections of photons, with appropriate coherence properties to form a
(monochromatic) light beam, can have their frequency and wavelength
measured, because the coherence makes the individual photon amplitudes
behave that way. But individual photons simply do not "have" those
properties.

[Yes, this is weird. Yes, this is not acting like
"little bullets" would act. QM is WEIRD.]

With a suitable detector one can measure the energy of a single photon.
But the single "click" in the detector has neither frequency nor wavelength.

The actual theory of photons is VERY MUCH MORE COMPLICATED than the
popular writings that you believe describe the underlying physics --
THEY DON'T. Your FANTASY is wrong. You REALLY need to learn something
about the subject before attempting to write about it, and popular
writings don't provide complete or correct information.
The word "photon" is defined as: "a particle representing a quantum
of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy
proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass."
That is not wrong, but it is greatly oversimplified; moreover, it
attempts to define one word in terms of another undefined word -- what
does "quantum" actually mean??? You can search dictionaries until you
are blue in the face without learning anything useful, because
dictionaries cannot capture the essence: in QED a photon is a specific
type of term in the perturbation expansion of an amplitude; the fact
that it is accompanied by an integral means your simple-minded notions
are just plain wrong.

You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting
to write about it.

Tom Roberts
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 16:12:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
The FACT that photons have a FREQUENCY and a WAVELENGTH says that
they OSCILLATE.
That is your fantasy, not any fact.
Photons do not "have" either frequency or wavelength, because it simply
is not possible to measure either the frequency or wavelength of a
single photon [#]. This is quantum mechanics, and the only things that
can be sensibly discussed are MEASUREMENTS.
[#] For the simple reason that a photon has a single
detection/destruction event. Measuring frequency requires
multiple measurements over time, and measuring wavelength
requires multiple measurements over space; neither is
possible for a single photon.
Collections of photons, with appropriate coherence properties to form a
(monochromatic) light beam, can have their frequency and wavelength
measured, because the coherence makes the individual photon amplitudes
behave that way. But individual photons simply do not "have" those
properties.
[Yes, this is weird. Yes, this is not acting like
"little bullets" would act. QM is WEIRD.]
With a suitable detector one can measure the energy of a single photon.
But the single "click" in the detector has neither frequency nor wavelength.
It is NOT just "a single click in the detector." As you say, it is a MEASUREMENT
OF ENERGY. And each TYPE of photon has a different amount of ENERGY.
That ENERGY is equivalent to its oscillation FREQUENCY.

Ed
Tom Roberts
2021-09-14 20:11:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[detection of a single photon] As you say, it is a MEASUREMENT OF
ENERGY. And each TYPE of photon has a different amount of ENERGY.
That ENERGY is equivalent to its oscillation FREQUENCY.
Did you measure that "frequency"? -- No. So you cannot sensibly discuss
it. That "equivalence" is for MANY, MANY photons in a beam, not single ones.

[Note: there is only one "type" of photon -- indeed all
photons are identical. In my earlier post where I
mentioned "type" I meant photons in different
topological places in various Feynman diagrams. I guess
that was a poor choice of words, as you clearly
misunderstood (but you are very good at misunderstanding).]

I repeat: What you think you know about this is WRONG. You REALLY need
to learn about the subject before attempting to write about it.

Tom Roberts
Ed Lake
2021-09-15 14:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tom Roberts
[detection of a single photon] As you say, it is a MEASUREMENT OF
ENERGY. And each TYPE of photon has a different amount of ENERGY.
That ENERGY is equivalent to its oscillation FREQUENCY.
Did you measure that "frequency"? -- No. So you cannot sensibly discuss
it. That "equivalence" is for MANY, MANY photons in a beam, not single ones.
Wow! You are TOTALLY removed from reality.

"It is not actually possible to directly measure the frequency of a single photon of light.
This is because a single photon is going to behave more like a particle than a wave,
and the concept of frequency (cycles or alternations per second) only applies to waves.

"A spectrometer is a device that disperses the path of impinging photons through an
angle that is dependent on their wavelength. In this way it is possible to closely
estimate the wavelength of the photons.

"The wavelength measurement is then used in a simple equation relating speed of a
wave, its wavelength and frequency: frequency = speed / wavelength.

"The speed of light is defined exactly as 299,792,458 m/s. A photon of red-orange light
from a HeNe laser has a wavelength of 632.8 nm. Using the equation gives a frequency
of 4.738X1014 Hz or about 474 trillion cycle per second."

Source: https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae442.cfm
Post by Tom Roberts
[Note: there is only one "type" of photon -- indeed all
photons are identical.
Wow! You are TOTALLY removed from reality.

"Low-energy photons, like radio photons, tend to behave more like waves,
while higher energy photons (i.e. X-rays) behave more like particles."

Source: https://www.univie.ac.at/geographie/fachdidaktik/FD/site/external_htmls/imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/waves4.html

Ed
Tom Roberts
2021-09-17 14:47:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Tom Roberts
[detection of a single photon] As you say, it is a MEASUREMENT OF
ENERGY. And each TYPE of photon has a different amount of ENERGY.
That ENERGY is equivalent to its oscillation FREQUENCY.
Did you measure that "frequency"? -- No. So you cannot sensibly discuss
it. That "equivalence" is for MANY, MANY photons in a beam, not single ones.
Wow! You are TOTALLY removed from reality.
No. YOU are totally removed from physics.

Tom Roberts
Sylvia Else
2021-09-14 00:53:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”
Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.

Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
slit.

Sylvia.
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 14:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Ed Lake
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”
Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.
Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics
Post by Sylvia Else
Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
slit.
Sylvia.
Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY. The problem
is explaining it LOGICALLY.

Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
correct. If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct. And then you
should be able to build a valid mathematical model of it.

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-14 21:10:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Ed Lake
In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper.
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle”
or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is
impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.”
The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”
Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.
Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics
Post by Sylvia Else
Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
slit.
Sylvia.
Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY.
No, that’s completely false. Quantum physics has its own set of perfectly
sensible and logical physical concepts. It is not just a mathematical
artifice.
Post by Ed Lake
The problem
is explaining it LOGICALLY.
Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
correct. If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct.
Ed, stop. What you are saying is that physics needs to be a subject that
can explain things without using any mathematics at all, just pictures and
everyday language. But physics is not that. It is not a subject that a
layperson with no prep or prerequisite skills can comprehend, let alone
master. Neither is neurochemistry. Neither is aeronautical engineering.
Neither is international economics. Is wishes were fishes, you’d have an
aquarium.
Post by Ed Lake
And then you
should be able to build a valid mathematical model of it.
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-09-15 15:20:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Ed Lake
In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper.
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle”
or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is
impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.”
The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”
Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.
Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics
Post by Sylvia Else
Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
slit.
Sylvia.
Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY.
No, that’s completely false. Quantum physics has its own set of perfectly
sensible and logical physical concepts. It is not just a mathematical
artifice.
Those "concepts" disregard reality so that the mathematics will work.
Everything must be a "quantum," which means you cannot have anything
that is "infinite" or "unknown."
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
The problem
is explaining it LOGICALLY.
Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
correct. If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct.
Ed, stop. What you are saying is that physics needs to be a subject that
can explain things without using any mathematics at all, just pictures and
everyday language. But physics is not that. It is not a subject that a
layperson with no prep or prerequisite skills can comprehend, let alone
master. Neither is neurochemistry. Neither is aeronautical engineering.
Neither is international economics. Is wishes were fishes, you’d have an
aquarium.
I'm saying that if you UNDERSTAND a topic, you should be able to explain it
in MANY different ways, fitting your explanation to the listener so that he
will understand what you are saying. If you can't do that, then you
do NOT UNDERSTAND the topic, and all you really know is what you
have memorized.

Ed
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-15 15:36:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Ed Lake
In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper.
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle”
or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is
impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.”
The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”
Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.
Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics
Post by Sylvia Else
Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
slit.
Sylvia.
Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY.
No, that’s completely false. Quantum physics has its own set of perfectly
sensible and logical physical concepts. It is not just a mathematical
artifice.
Those "concepts" disregard reality so that the mathematics will work.
Nonsense. Where did you get that idea.
Post by Ed Lake
Everything must be a "quantum," which means you cannot have anything
that is "infinite" or "unknown."
Quantum mechanics has no problem with the infinite. Where did you get the
idea otherwise?

And I have no idea what you mean about quantum mechanics dealing with the
unknown.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
The problem
is explaining it LOGICALLY.
Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
correct. If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct.
Ed, stop. What you are saying is that physics needs to be a subject that
can explain things without using any mathematics at all, just pictures and
everyday language. But physics is not that. It is not a subject that a
layperson with no prep or prerequisite skills can comprehend, let alone
master. Neither is neurochemistry. Neither is aeronautical engineering.
Neither is international economics. Is wishes were fishes, you’d have an
aquarium.
I'm saying that if you UNDERSTAND a topic, you should be able to explain it
in MANY different ways, fitting your explanation to the listener so that he
will understand what you are saying.
No, I’m sorry, that’s a pipe dream. There are many subjects that are just
not reducible to concepts and language that are easily understandable to
laypeople. I listed a few, there are many many others. This does not mean
that the experts in all those fields don’t actually understand the
subjects. They certainly do. They just can’t make it all accessible to
non-experts.
Post by Ed Lake
If you can't do that, then you
do NOT UNDERSTAND the topic, and all you really know is what you
have memorized.
That too is a false premise. People who are experts in an area do
understand it, and it is not just memorization. That doesn’t mean that it
can be explained to laypeople who have not invested in the time and energy
to learn it.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ed Lake
2021-09-15 16:03:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
I'm saying that if you UNDERSTAND a topic, you should be able to explain it
in MANY different ways, fitting your explanation to the listener so that he
will understand what you are saying.
No, I’m sorry, that’s a pipe dream. There are many subjects that are just
not reducible to concepts and language that are easily understandable to
laypeople. I listed a few, there are many many others. This does not mean
that the experts in all those fields don’t actually understand the
subjects. They certainly do. They just can’t make it all accessible to
non-experts.
No one said anything about making it "ALL accessible to non-experts."

What I'm saying is that any IDEA in physics should be explainable in
plain English. And if it's not understood, it should be explainable in
different words until it is understood (assuming that the listener is
of at least "normal" intelligence).
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
If you can't do that, then you
do NOT UNDERSTAND the topic, and all you really know is what you
have memorized.
That too is a false premise. People who are experts in an area do
understand it, and it is not just memorization. That doesn’t mean that it
can be explained to laypeople who have not invested in the time and energy
to learn it.
People who are "experts" in an area can be doing their work purely
by rote. They know what works and they do it over and over and over.

Teachers tend to teach what is in the textbook and what will be on the
tests. Ask them a question that they haven't memorized the answer to
and they often cannot answer.

I have a patent for a bi-directional hydraulic flow meter. When I invented
it I just had a rudimentary understanding of hydraulics. The "professionals"
all said such a thing was impossible to build using mostly just the basic
materials they used for one-directional hydraulic flow meters. I invented
one new part, and it worked perfectly. The first order was for $10,000 worth.

I'm a retired professional ANALYST. That means it was my JOB to go into
an area where the "experts" are just working by rote and have a problem they
cannot solve. I ANALYZE the problem and develop a solution.

Ed
Dono.
2021-09-15 16:50:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm a retired professional CRETIN
Ed
Yep
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-15 17:04:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm a retired professional CRETIN
Ed
Yep
Well, Ed didn't write it, but why wouldn't Dono scum
lie? His Shit is worthy any lie, of course.
Dono.
2021-09-15 17:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm a retired professional CRETIN
Ed
Yep
Well, Ed wrote it
....and Maciej is licking the insides of the toilets. Again.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-15 17:42:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dono.
I'm a retired professional CRETIN
Ed
Yep
Well, Ed wrote it
....and Maciej is licking the insides of the toilets. Again.
See, Dono: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had,
and you're just an insane religious crank. You can't discuss
against me, of course, all you can do is to spit, slander and
lie. But you do what you can for your moronic Shit.
Michael Moroney
2021-09-15 21:10:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Dono.
I'm a retired professional CRETIN
Ed
Yep
Well, Ed wrote it
....and Maciej is licking the insides of the toilets. Again.
See, Dono: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had,
You're the best logician humanity ever had yet the only way you'll drink
orange juice for breakfast is in the form of a screwdriver, and you lick
toilets at work? Humanity is doomed, I guess.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 04:20:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Dono.
I'm a retired professional CRETIN
Ed
Yep
Well, Ed wrote it
....and Maciej is licking the insides of the toilets. Again.
See, Dono: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had,
You're the best logician humanity ever had yet the only way you'll drink
orange juice for breakfast is in the form of a screwdriver, and you lick
toilets at work? Humanity is doomed, I guess.
See, stupid Mike: I'm one of the best logicians the humanity ever had,
and you're just an insane religious crank. You can't discuss
against me, of course, all you can do is to spit, slander and
lie. But you do what you can for your moronic Shit.
Odd Bodkin
2021-09-15 17:30:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
I'm saying that if you UNDERSTAND a topic, you should be able to explain it
in MANY different ways, fitting your explanation to the listener so that he
will understand what you are saying.
No, I’m sorry, that’s a pipe dream. There are many subjects that are just
not reducible to concepts and language that are easily understandable to
laypeople. I listed a few, there are many many others. This does not mean
that the experts in all those fields don’t actually understand the
subjects. They certainly do. They just can’t make it all accessible to
non-experts.
No one said anything about making it "ALL accessible to non-experts."
What I'm saying is that any IDEA in physics should be explainable in
plain English.
And that’s not really possible at any level of fidelity, I’m afraid.
Post by Ed Lake
And if it's not understood, it should be explainable in
different words until it is understood (assuming that the listener is
of at least "normal" intelligence).
No, and this is what I want to make clear. There is a REASON why these
subject areas involve taking instruction for several years. There’s legwork
that’s needed for the interested person even to understand the words being
used, and you can’t just short-circuit it by using different words. There
is no shortcut. It isn’t a scam. It’s what’s necessary.
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
If you can't do that, then you
do NOT UNDERSTAND the topic, and all you really know is what you
have memorized.
That too is a false premise. People who are experts in an area do
understand it, and it is not just memorization. That doesn’t mean that it
can be explained to laypeople who have not invested in the time and energy
to learn it.
People who are "experts" in an area can be doing their work purely
by rote.
But they aren’t.
Post by Ed Lake
They know what works and they do it over and over and over.
No, that’s not what they did. That’s what a technician does.
Post by Ed Lake
Teachers tend to teach what is in the textbook and what will be on the
tests. Ask them a question that they haven't memorized the answer to
and they often cannot answer.
That’s not my experience at all. It’s a real shame that you’ve had such a
poor experience with education that you hold such low regard for teachers,
and that you think the expectation is just to memorize to pass a test. That
is not education of any quality.
Post by Ed Lake
I have a patent for a bi-directional hydraulic flow meter. When I invented
it I just had a rudimentary understanding of hydraulics. The "professionals"
all said such a thing was impossible to build using mostly just the basic
materials they used for one-directional hydraulic flow meters. I invented
one new part, and it worked perfectly. The first order was for $10,000 worth.
I'm a retired professional ANALYST. That means it was my JOB to go into
an area where the "experts" are just working by rote and have a problem they
cannot solve. I ANALYZE the problem and develop a solution.
Again, I think if that’s what you view your role as, and your view of
“experts” is so dim, then you have really suffered a disservice.
Post by Ed Lake
Ed
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-15 17:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
No, and this is what I want to make clear. There is a REASON why these
subject areas involve taking instruction for several years. There’s legwork
that’s needed for the interested person even to understand the words being
used, and you can’t just short-circuit it by using different words. There
is no shortcut. It isn’t a scam. It’s what’s necessary.
An idiot has said! Must be true.
Michael Moroney
2021-09-15 22:05:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ed Lake
I'm saying that if you UNDERSTAND a topic, you should be able to explain it
in MANY different ways, fitting your explanation to the listener so that he
will understand what you are saying.
No, I’m sorry, that’s a pipe dream. There are many subjects that are just
not reducible to concepts and language that are easily understandable to
laypeople. I listed a few, there are many many others. This does not mean
that the experts in all those fields don’t actually understand the
subjects. They certainly do. They just can’t make it all accessible to
non-experts.
No one said anything about making it "ALL accessible to non-experts."
What I'm saying is that any IDEA in physics should be explainable in
plain English. And if it's not understood, it should be explainable in
different words until it is understood (assuming that the listener is
of at least "normal" intelligence).
Physics doesn't come with any sort of promise to be simple. No do any
other science or engineering for that matter. Why would you think all
physics MUST be so simple anyone can understand it? (If you still think
so, go design the next generation of stealth nuclear submarines. Be
ready by tomorrow. The Navy will thank you)
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-16 04:23:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Physics doesn't come with any sort of promise to be simple.
Oppositely, it has to be dark, twisted and mystical; if it was simple,
how would it expect idiots like stupid Mike to worship it?
Sylvia Else
2021-09-17 05:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Ed Lake
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.”
Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.
Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics
Post by Sylvia Else
Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
slit.
Sylvia.
Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY. The problem
is explaining it LOGICALLY.
Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
correct. If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct. And then you
should be able to build a valid mathematical model of it.
Ed
Yes, I know, you'd like the universe to made of recognisable pieces that
fit together in an easily understandable way.

But all indications are that it is not. We have to understand things as
they are, not as we'd prefer them to be. The mathematics of Quantum
Mechanics describes the behaviour of the quantum world with considerable
precision. To the extent that it means anything to talk about an
underlying reality, it seems likely that Quantum Mechanics connects
closely to it.

The world is not as you'd like it to be. Deal with it.

Sylvia.
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-09-17 08:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Ed Lake
In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper.
It's titled "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" and this is the
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a
“puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon
which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any
classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain
it in a “classical way.”
Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.
Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics
Post by Sylvia Else
Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
slit.
Sylvia.
Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY.  The problem
is explaining it LOGICALLY.
Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
correct.  If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct.  And then you
should be able to build a valid mathematical model of it.
Ed
Yes, I know, you'd like the universe to made of recognisable pieces that
fit together in an easily understandable way.
But all indications are that it is not. We have to understand things as
they are, not as we'd prefer them to be.
Sylvia, you've got that wrong:
We have to understand things, not as they are, but as Ed Lake
prefers them to be.

Dirk Vdm
Post by Sylvia Else
The mathematics of Quantum
Mechanics describes the behaviour of the quantum world with considerable
precision. To the extent that it means anything to talk about an
underlying reality, it seems likely that Quantum Mechanics connects
closely to it.
The world is not as you'd like it to be. Deal with it.
Sylvia.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-09-17 08:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Ed Lake
In case anyone is interested, I just finished another science paper.
It's titled "The Double-Slit Experiment Demystified" and this is the
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a
“puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon
which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any
classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain
it in a “classical way.”
Classical physics had no problem with it, because wave theory explains
it perfectly. Difficulties only arose with the realisation that things
that were considered to be particles also showed wave-like effects.
Yes, and a particle with wave-light properties is a problem in Classical Physics
Post by Sylvia Else
Quantum physics dealt with that, so there is no problem with the double
slit.
Sylvia.
Quantum physics just means you solved it MATHEMATICALLY. The problem
is explaining it LOGICALLY.
Coming up with a mathematical solution doesn't mean the solution is
correct. If the problem can be VISUALIZED and LOGICALLY EXPLAINED
WITHOUT MATHEMATICS, then it SHOULD BE correct. And then you
should be able to build a valid mathematical model of it.
Ed
Yes, I know, you'd like the universe to made of recognisable pieces that
fit together in an easily understandable way.
But all indications are that it is not. We have to understand things as
they are, not as we'd prefer them to be.
We have to understand things, not as they are, but as Ed Lake
prefers them to be.
Or maybe as Tom Roberts screams we're FORCED to.
Ken Seto
2021-09-14 15:19:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.” This paper will explain the Double-Slit experiment in a very logical and simple way that anyone should be able to understand."
The link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2109.0117v1.pdf
All my papers: https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake
How can something be considered a "mystery" for hundreds of years
when there doesn't seem to be any mystery about it at all?
New interpretations of the result of the double slit experiment is on page 77 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
Ed Lake
2021-09-14 16:45:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ed Lake
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.” This paper will explain the Double-Slit experiment in a very logical and simple way that anyone should be able to understand."
The link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2109.0117v1.pdf
All my papers: https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake
How can something be considered a "mystery" for hundreds of years
when there doesn't seem to be any mystery about it at all?
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
Thanks, but a quick look indicates it won't be of any help to me at all.

Ed
Dirk Van de moortel
2021-09-14 18:55:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ed Lake
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.” This paper will explain the Double-Slit experiment in a very logical and simple way that anyone should be able to understand."
The link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2109.0117v1.pdf
All my papers: https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake
How can something be considered a "mystery" for hundreds of years
when there doesn't seem to be any mystery about it at all?
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
Thanks, but a quick look indicates it won't be of any help to me at all.
Nothing is of any help to you at all.
Not even Ken Seto's autistic nonsense.

Dirk Vdm
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-14 18:30:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.” This paper will explain the Double-Slit experiment in a very logical and simple way that anyone should be able to understand."
The link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2109.0117v1.pdf
All my papers: https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake
How can something be considered a "mystery" for hundreds of years
when there doesn't seem to be any mystery about it at all?
Ed
They did the 2 slit experiment without observers
and Observer Created Reality failed...
Einstein was right all along... and
Bohr's science was only a fiction.

Mitchell Raemsch
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-09-15 21:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ed Lake
"Thomas Young’s Double-Slit experiment has been described as a “puzzle” or “mystery” for over 200 years, also as “a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way.” The problem seems to be the requirement to explain it in a “classical way.” This paper will explain the Double-Slit experiment in a very logical and simple way that anyone should be able to understand."
The link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2109.0117v1.pdf
All my papers: https://vixra.org/author/edward_g_lake
How can something be considered a "mystery" for hundreds of years
when there doesn't seem to be any mystery about it at all?
Ed
It was used to disprove Observer Created Reality.
Its results show that light... not an observer makes
the difference on quantum waves instead....

Mitchell Raemsch
Loading...