It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Right on the money about the "confined standing wave" not being dividable, something not characteristic of a confined standing wave, so indeed this does destroy beebs' assertion.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by -PLB-
Secondly, this description does not explain the interference patters in the double slit experiment, as the confined standing wave is still not dividable, and still does not go through both slits at once in the double slit experiment. So it doesn't solve the paradox.
Right on the money!
Your point shows the paucity of depth in Beebs' argument, in a compelling way.
Even when the single electron appears to be interfering with itself and goes through both slits at once in some sense, we don't get 2 half electrons, one from each slit to hit the screen, it's always one single electron hitting the screen in exactly one spot, showing it's not divisible even when it's somehow passing through both slits at once.
when a laboratory apparatus was developed that could reliably fire single electrons at the screen, the emergence of an interference pattern suggested that each electron was interfering with itself, and therefore in some sense the electron had to be going through both slits.
I haven't found anywhere Larson explains the photoelectrec effect in the context of his theory, so if you can't explain it either, I don't know why you would believe it, that was the way we determined that Larson's idea was false before he had it, when other people had the same idea decades earlier.
Originally posted by beebs
I am unaware of Larson's opinion on your questions. I have not read all of his work. I doubt he and I agree on everything, but I am sure he has very nuanced positions regarding E=mc^2 and how his model accounts for electrons. I will let you know when or if I have located his answers to those questions. If you would like to locate for yourself and criticize his own statements go for it, I am all ears.
I've seen thousands of motors and generators before, with stators and rotors, and the only thing unusual about that is that the parts of the rotor aren't connected together, and then to a shaft and a load, like they usually are so that the rotor can be used to do practical work in the real world. Here's a more typical motor but it's still very similar except the rotor magnets are connected together instead of seaprate:
Your statements about Searl are unfounded and not at all considering the available evidence. Start watching videos:
So you want to describe a photon or electron as a standing wave confined in a small space? Then it still has particle properties. But aside from that, I see some issues with this description. First, what exactly confines the standing wave? What are the borders made of? Secondly, this description does not explain the interference patters in the double slit experiment, as the confined standing wave is still not dividable, and still does not go through both slits at once in the double slit experiment. So it doesn't solve the paradox.
I don't really know what you mean by collapsing the superposition. Super position of what on what? And how do you collapse a superposition? Or did you mean something else than superposition?
I am pretty sure that when you do not measure it, it still behaves like a particle. Whether we measure it or not, the photon or electron is at a certain position in space, and not at an infinite positions at once, only deciding a single position when we measure it.
But the bottom line is, it doesn't really matter what you are concerned with. Electrons and photons have particle like behavior, with or without your concern. A model would be incomplete if it is ignored.
Radio waves (essentially photons) are emitted from an antenna. Radio waves are not a part of the structure of the antenna. Photons are just propagating fields, and fields are created by electric charges under certain conditions. It's their property. Look at the Maxwell's equations. There are equivalent mathematical instruments in quantum electrodynamics.
Form follows function. The functional behavior is wavelike. The form or structure, therefore, makes more sense as a standing wave center of space than a 'material' particle in space.
If you insist on "function", you still can't say it's unequivocally "wavelike". You've been given examples here which you promptly chose to ignore.
Originally posted by beebs
Pure energy is different than a material particle. Energy would be described as fields or fluids, not particles. It isn't so easy to just say that photons are 'created' when there is too much energy. What form is that energy in before they are 'created' in emission? A photon wave is emitted in a cohere state, and when we detect it it behaves like a particle after superposition is collapsed. The photon is more like a bundled wave structure in space.
There are no borders like classical particle physics. There is no definite Heisenberg Cut. Particle properties only appear through the distorting lens of certain presuppositions. There is no need to make arbitrary separations of nature, no need to define borders - only to find out how the system flows, eddies, vibrates, and interacts among itself as a whole system.
The paradox is only a paradox with the presuppositions of classical/nuclear/particle physics. It is no paradox, when the particle going through the slits is not a particle, but a discrete wave structure of space. A wave structure is divisible into component 'parts', only the parts are better characterized as subharmonics. This is what quarks would be.
The resulting Huygens–Fresnel principle was extremely successful at reproducing light's behavior and, subsequently supported by Thomas Young's discovery of double-slit interference, effectively disbanded the particle light camp.[4] Thomas Young's sketch of two-slit diffraction of waves, 1803. The final blow against corpuscular theory came when James Clerk Maxwell discovered that he could combine four simple equations, which had been previously discovered, along with a slight modification to describe self propagating waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. When the propagation speed of these electromagnetic waves was calculated, the speed of light fell out. It quickly became apparent that visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared light (phenomenon thought previously to be unrelated) were all electromagnetic waves of differing frequency. The wave theory had prevailed – or at least it seemed to.
The idea of light quanta began with Max Planck's published law of black-body radiation ("On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum". Annalen der Physik 4 (1901)) by assuming that Hertzian oscillators could only exist at energies E proportional to the frequency f of the oscillator by E = hf, where h is Planck's constant. By assuming that light actually consisted of discrete energy packets, Einstein wrote an equation for the photoelectric effect that agreed with experimental results. It explained why the energy of photoelectrons were dependent only on the frequency of the incident light and not on its intensity: a low-intensity, high-frequency source could supply a few high energy photons, whereas a high-intensity, low-frequency source would supply no photons of sufficient individual energy to dislodge any electrons. This was an enormous theoretical leap, but the concept was strongly resisted at first because it contradicted the wave theory of light that followed naturally from James Clerk Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic behavior, and more generally, the assumption of infinite divisibility of energy in physical systems. Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations for the photoelectric effect were accurate, resistance to the idea of photons continued, since it appeared to contradict Maxwell's equations, which were well-understood and verified.
Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a particle simultaneously
The wave center(the densest part of space/energy) is what appears like a particle, it is confined only in our ability to detect its outermost energy levels. Like the center in this photo:
The wave structure dissipates, like a wave in water, into the surrounding environment and eventually approach infinitely less energy density. This is what we call Zero Point Energy, or the density of the 'vacuum' or space.
Originally posted by beebs
The superposition of quantum mechanics. What model are you basing your argument on? Sounds like classical to me...
Superposition is collapsed, or 'realized', when we disturb the functional natural quantum state of whatever we are
measuring, when we measure it. The natural state is coherent, the collapsed state is decoherent.
All the possible consistent states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus (including the observer) are present in a real physical (not just formally mathematical, as in other interpretations) quantum superposition. Such a superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems is called an entangled state. While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe, i.e. the consistent state contribution to the mentioned superposition, we inhabit.
Well, I am pretty sure that when we do not measure it, it behaves like a wave. That is why we have the mathematics of the wave function. That is the whole gist of the WPD, and DSE.
That is where the Copenhagen interpretation, and idea of complementarity, are used to say that they behave like both particle and wave.
I think the particle-like behavior is a misinterpretation of reality, and is an optical illusion of sorts - especially with psychological interference from misleading presuppositions.
I am arguing for just the wave interpretation, rather than have an awkward contradiction like the Copenhagen interpretation about everything in reality.
Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Message from Searl Magnetics, Inc."
At the last Tesla Tech Conference 2010, different instruments were
demonstrated to isolate Pr. Searl's scientific claims which will play an important
role in the real prototype.
These are:
The production of eddy currents from the spin of copper materials
The attracting-repulsing forces created by the mix of eddy currents and
magnetized roller
A magnetic material can be de-magnetized from its general magnetic 'spectrum'
and receive at least once permanent magnetic wave in the same operation (if you
get the last Tesla Tech conference DVD, you'll find out more.)
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by beebs
Pure energy is different than a material particle. Energy would be described as fields or fluids, not particles. It isn't so easy to just say that photons are 'created' when there is too much energy. What form is that energy in before they are 'created' in emission? A photon wave is emitted in a cohere state, and when we detect it it behaves like a particle after superposition is collapsed. The photon is more like a bundled wave structure in space.
Photons can be described as particles, and they are energy only. It seems that you regard a particle as a solid piece of mass, a grain-of-sand-like structure as you called it earlier. You even suggested I should not regard it like that, but it seems that you do it yourself. Particle like behavior just means there is an object of "something" that occupies a fixed amount of space or is in a certain point in space. A photon can be described as such.
As for the form of energy, it seems to me that it would be thermal energy in the case of a light bulb. But what does it matter? And yes, it behaves like a particle when we measure, hence the wave/particle duality. It seems you totally agree on that, but somehow you still want to look at it as a wave only. I don't really understand why you want to ignore the particle-like behavior which you agree there is.
There are no borders like classical particle physics. There is no definite Heisenberg Cut. Particle properties only appear through the distorting lens of certain presuppositions. There is no need to make arbitrary separations of nature, no need to define borders - only to find out how the system flows, eddies, vibrates, and interacts among itself as a whole system.
Then how is the wave confined in a single spot? Why doesn't the wave dissipate, diffuse or defract, but keeps it particle-like properties? To give an analogy, you can't have a standing wave in an infinite large surface of water, unless you have something to confine it (like the walls of a pool).
The paradox is only a paradox with the presuppositions of classical/nuclear/particle physics. It is no paradox, when the particle going through the slits is not a particle, but a discrete wave structure of space. A wave structure is divisible into component 'parts', only the parts are better characterized as subharmonics. This is what quarks would be.
But then we measure it, and it is not a wave at all, it is a particle. Hence the paradox. The view you propose is an outdated classical view. From Wikipedia:
The resulting Huygens–Fresnel principle was extremely successful at reproducing light's behavior and, subsequently supported by Thomas Young's discovery of double-slit interference, effectively disbanded the particle light camp.[4] Thomas Young's sketch of two-slit diffraction of waves, 1803. The final blow against corpuscular theory came when James Clerk Maxwell discovered that he could combine four simple equations, which had been previously discovered, along with a slight modification to describe self propagating waves of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. When the propagation speed of these electromagnetic waves was calculated, the speed of light fell out. It quickly became apparent that visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared light (phenomenon thought previously to be unrelated) were all electromagnetic waves of differing frequency. The wave theory had prevailed – or at least it seemed to.
So at that moment, around 1800, it seemed settled that light were waves. But then, around 1900, Einstein came with the idea that light consisted of discrete quanta:
The idea of light quanta began with Max Planck's published law of black-body radiation ("On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum". Annalen der Physik 4 (1901)) by assuming that Hertzian oscillators could only exist at energies E proportional to the frequency f of the oscillator by E = hf, where h is Planck's constant. By assuming that light actually consisted of discrete energy packets, Einstein wrote an equation for the photoelectric effect that agreed with experimental results. It explained why the energy of photoelectrons were dependent only on the frequency of the incident light and not on its intensity: a low-intensity, high-frequency source could supply a few high energy photons, whereas a high-intensity, low-frequency source would supply no photons of sufficient individual energy to dislodge any electrons. This was an enormous theoretical leap, but the concept was strongly resisted at first because it contradicted the wave theory of light that followed naturally from James Clerk Maxwell's equations for electromagnetic behavior, and more generally, the assumption of infinite divisibility of energy in physical systems. Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations for the photoelectric effect were accurate, resistance to the idea of photons continued, since it appeared to contradict Maxwell's equations, which were well-understood and verified.
So it actually took effort to change the classical wave only view. The conclusion:
Electromagnetic radiation propagates following linear wave equations, but can only be emitted or absorbed as discrete elements, thus acting as a wave and a particle simultaneously
The wave center(the densest part of space/energy) is what appears like a particle, it is confined only in our ability to detect its outermost energy levels. Like the center in this photo:
The wave structure dissipates, like a wave in water, into the surrounding environment and eventually approach infinitely less energy density. This is what we call Zero Point Energy, or the density of the 'vacuum' or space.
But it is still a particle which can not be divided. It doesn't solve the paradox.edit on 31-3-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
Particle like behavior just means there is an object of "something" that occupies a fixed amount of space or is in a certain point in space. A photon can be described as such.
But then we measure it, and it is not a wave at all, it is a particle
Even when the single electron appears to be interfering with itself and goes through both slits at once in some sense, we don't get 2 half electrons, one from each slit to hit the screen, it's always one single electron hitting the screen in exactly one spot, showing it's not divisible even when it's somehow passing through both slits at once.
Originally posted by beebs
Form follows function.
The functional behavior is wavelike.