Curving light waves

Originally posted by ubeenhad
See Photoelectric effect for one of many examples.

So Mary says light is waves. Then she asks you for an example of how it's a particle.

What do you show her? A diagram which illustrates the light as wave packets. Do you see the irony?

I think there's some confusion over the definition of particle. It simply means that it's quantized, as in the "packet" term of "wave packet". It could indeed be a quantized amount of wave energy like a "wave packet" as shown in the illustration you pointed to:

So if we look at photons as wave packets, it might be easier to visualize how the wave nature or the packet nature could alternately be observed in different experiments. And in that case, we don't have to debate whether it's a wave or a particle, it's a wavicle.

reply to post by DocHolidaze


You do not need gravity, you only need to curve the medium where light propagates, for instance a fiber optic...

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by DocHolidaze

 

You do not need gravity, you only need to curve the medium where light propagates, for instance a fiber optic...

Show me the physics of how fiber optics bends light. Does it really bend it? Or is the light being reflected in straight lines inside the fiber?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ubeenhad
See Photoelectric effect for one of many examples.

So Mary says light is waves. Then she asks you for an example of how it's a particle.

What do you show her? A diagram which illustrates the light as wave packets. Do you see the irony?

I think there's some confusion over the definition of particle. It simply means that it's quantized, as in the "packet" term of "wave packet". It could indeed be a quantized amount of wave energy like a "wave packet" as shown in the illustration you pointed to:

So if we look at photons as wave packets, it might be easier to visualize how the wave nature or the packet nature could alternately be observed in different experiments. And in that case, we don't have to debate whether it's a wave or a particle, it's a wavicle.

edit on 12-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Since your too thick to stop thinking classically Ill give you a more straightforward example.

A single photon. Thats proof light has complementarity.

And trust me, no ones got the wrong definition of a particle in the field. You are just not up to speed on Quantum Mechanical logic. Its tough, and some people just cant rewire themselves. You know enough that Im sure you have atleast been presented with the info, and just couldnt comprehend it in the way needed.

reply to post by ubeenhad

I don't know how you got the idea I denied complementarity. A wavicle is confirming it, not denying it.

reply to post by primalfractal


The frequency of light would be bent (Doppler shift) but the actual light itself would travel through the shortest path as mapped on space-time.

Similar "bending" of frequency is seen in the refraction of light through a prism (producing a rainbow spread of the various frequencies that make up white light).

reply to post by chr0naut


yeah, I have a question about that.

Are there any known structures for a prism, in which the light bending/ splitting effect can be reversed within the prism?

Let me explain, is there any form of prisms, beyond the one we all know, that can manipulate light "within" it to produce light in a new frequency? So the rainbow comes out as the combined light of the spectrum again?

We all see the effect of light passing through the prism once it exits....but what I ask is if there is one that produces the effect while the light is still inside of it?

Perhaps a prism within another crystalline structure....possibly a refracting sphere with a Tetragonal prism within?

?

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
reply to post by chr0naut

 

yeah, I have a question about that.

Are there any known structures for a prism, in which the light bending/ splitting effect can be reversed within the prism?

Let me explain, is there any form of prisms, beyond the one we all know, that can manipulate light "within" it to produce light in a new frequency? So the rainbow comes out as the combined light of the spectrum again?

We all see the effect of light passing through the prism once it exits....but what I ask is if there is one that produces the effect while the light is still inside of it?

Perhaps a prism within another crystalline structure....possibly a refracting sphere with a Tetragonal prism within?

?

edit on 13-10-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

A similarly oriented second prism of a material with a negative refractive index would work, or you could probably have a second prism inverted with respect to the original prism and this would diffract again but oppositely, putting the colors back together.

Is this what you were meaning?

reply to post by chr0naut


yes.....

thanks!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ubeenhad
See Photoelectric effect for one of many examples.

So Mary says light is waves. Then she asks you for an example of how it's a particle.

What do you show her? A diagram which illustrates the light as wave packets. Do you see the irony?

I think there's some confusion over the definition of particle. It simply means that it's quantized, as in the "packet" term of "wave packet". It could indeed be a quantized amount of wave energy like a "wave packet" as shown in the illustration you pointed to:

So if we look at photons as wave packets, it might be easier to visualize how the wave nature or the packet nature could alternately be observed in different experiments. And in that case, we don't have to debate whether it's a wave or a particle, it's a wavicle.

edit on 12-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

He's having the same problem on the other thread. I rename him The CONTRADICK

Originally posted by primalfractal

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ubeenhad
See Photoelectric effect for one of many examples.

So Mary says light is waves. Then she asks you for an example of how it's a particle.

What do you show her? A diagram which illustrates the light as wave packets. Do you see the irony?

I think there's some confusion over the definition of particle. It simply means that it's quantized, as in the "packet" term of "wave packet". It could indeed be a quantized amount of wave energy like a "wave packet" as shown in the illustration you pointed to:

So if we look at photons as wave packets, it might be easier to visualize how the wave nature or the packet nature could alternately be observed in different experiments. And in that case, we don't have to debate whether it's a wave or a particle, it's a wavicle.

edit on 12-10-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

He's having the same problem on the other thread. I rename him The CONTRADICK

edit on 13-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

Im gunna take your frustration as your finally gettign tired of this nonsense and gunna start making unfounded nicknames? Cause i can do alot better than that.

Cant believe he even says things like this and expects people to take him seriously. Guess logic is out the door. Lets just say any wierd s#** ,ub does. He's a scientist and that. He's with it. Yea man. So clever you don't make any sense at all

Originally posted by primalfractal

Originally posted by primalfractal

Sure, there are some details about the nature of light and subatomic particles in general that we cannot describe in any situation, including your image experiments

Do you even look at what you write? You are a walking, breathing, living contradiction. Congratulations.

Nothing about your proposed experiemnt could tell us anything more than we already know

You are so funny

This is a clear case of cognative dissonance - a mental problem.

UB has said two things in the one post that are mutually exclusive, they cancel each other out. They cant both be true but he thinks them both at the same time. Is this sane?

I would like to point out that such statements come from raving madmen, with no base in logic or reality. His mental fitness to continue this convo is questionable to say the least.

en.wikipedia.org...

Cognitive dissonance is the term used in modern psychology to describe the state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.[1]

Sorry about the name, was just getting angry because of your cognative probs, I do have a cure you know?

Originally posted by primalfractal

Sure, there are some details about the nature of light and subatomic particles in general that we cannot describe in any situation, including your image experiments

One of your two disconnected brains agrees with me and keeps speaking to me. No matter what "you" do. That's why I love you, thanks bro. Keep up the fight and you'll get there

Originally posted by primalfractal
Just wondering if science (or alternate science) recognises that light, in wave form, curves when emanating from a moving position.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Just because I referred to photons doesn't mean they aren't waves. You could think of them as wave packets as this illustration shows:

abyss.uoregon.edu...

So a photon, or a free moving electron, can be thought of as a wave packet, having both wave-like properties and also the single position and size we associate with a particle.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I made a sketch:

Originally posted by primalfractal
Well, it's posted on physicsforums.com, wonder how we will go?

"What happens to a photon wave packet when half out of a moving device?"

Linky

On the physics forum, looking at the 5 similar threads that are listed at the bottom, I see "Photon Wave Packet Envelope Question." I know that thread has been mentioned here.

But what about the thread "Is a photon an EM wave packet?"?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Mary Rose, the topic on physicsforums is now locked. This is probably because they have answered your question.

I have also responded in this post on the other thread and hope that it sufficiently resolves the question.

Originally posted by chr0naut
Mary Rose, the topic on physicsforums is now locked.

Why?

reply to post by Mary Rose


I believe that the first reply to your post actually answered the question.

Subsequent posts were a side issue regarding the question of if the superposition of photons was possible (and this was resolved to be not possible).

As I am not a moderator on that board and the thread is locked and closed without comment, I could assume that they believed the question was answered and the thread had gone off topic.

You could privately message the moderator to find out the reason the thread was closed.

Originally posted by chr0naut
You could privately message the moderator to find out the reason the thread was closed.

I suspect that would do as much good as asking ATS why someone was banned!

Originally posted by chr0naut
Mary Rose, the topic on physicsforums is now locked.

I see the member associated with the last post of the thread has a line drawn over his/her name. Does that mean the person was banned?

From Physics Forums "Is a photon an EM wave packet?":

reply to post by Mary Rose


The offtopic question of superposition does, peripherally, speak to the original question.

Waves can be superimposed upon each other and particles cannot.

So the determination of which is applicable in calculation is relevant. Since the quantum wave function is not indicative of an actual wave and since superposition cannot occur (by Pauli exclusion as well as by Schrödinger's equation) it could be misleading to refer to a photon as a wave packet.

A photon is modulated but the modulation is superimposed on the photon, it is not an intrinsic property of the photon itself (if that makes sense).