[dleviwing]

hbd;
You are beginning to realize the complexity of attempting to explain the nature of wave mechanics as it relates to the micro world.
The point particle is in a state of perfect wave symmetry with no harmonics. All energy domains beyond that, are either even harmonics, odd harmonics, or combinations of both as the distance increases (These are domains of standing waves). The best way to visualize atomic structures is to view them as holistic structures of hydrogen atoms. Though electrons may have the same distance from their nucleus, they are still only associated with one proton/neutron set within the nucleus group; thus they are holistic combinations of hydrogen. This would indicate that the spectral lines of elements should be the summation of entire groups of hydrogen lines blue-shifted in quantum increments. The enhanced lines (in phase brightest) will show the bonding wavelengths of the nucleus structure itself.

Is this what you had in mind?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault Dave do you remember commenting in one of my thread ["Is FTL an allowed speed"] that everything in the universe could be referred to a "2C"? Meanning twice the speed of light? You were D... right about it! The pattern of standing nuclear waves I have propossed as to the reason for MATTER to exist in the universe is just that! Two waves colliding "face-to-face" making a third one to SPIN at light speed (!) Two waves that are relatively moving toward each other at TWICE THE SPEED OF LIGHT (!) You were right when you said that NOTHING in this universe could surpass that correspondance... This is how I see it demonstrated physically speaking. HUMANBYDEFAULT

You are quite right about the above HBD. I have thought the energy produced by the forces of two 1c waves colliding, grazing or mating is what keeps the entire sub-quantum system cycling at the quantum-self-equilibriated speed of light. I have also thought these two 1c forces of velocity are produced inside the entire star, and hot planet core, complexes of the universe... Great work you are doing HBD...

regards

[humanbydefault]

Thank you both for your comments. They trully are a source of inspiration to me. I wished someone with strong basics in mathematics could take a close look at these ideas and see where we got it wrong in the past. I'll be more specific in my post today about how right was Plank in his assumptions based on the existence of "small harmonic oscillators >>> atoms-wannabe being the ones responsible for the spectrum of frequencies coming out of the so-called "Black Body."

HBD

[humanbydefault]

.
Planck made this quantization assumption five years before Albert Einstein hypothesized the existence of photons as a means of explaining the photoelectric effect. At the time, Planck believed that the quantization applied only to the tiny oscillators that were thought to exist in the walls of the cavity (what we now know to be atoms), and made no assumption that light itself propagates in discrete bundles or packets of energy. Moreover, Planck did not attribute any physical significance to this assumption, but rather believed that it was merely a mathematical device that enabled him to derive a single expression for the black body spectrum that matched the empirical data at all wavelengths.
Ultimately, Planck's assumption of energy quantization and Einstein's photon hypothesis became the fundamental basis for the later development of Quantum Mechanics. Both scientists would eventually receive (separate) Nobel prizes in recognition of these major contributions to the advancement of physics. [wikipedia]

I took the liberty of underlining a segment of the quote above that I found really puzzling (?) If something was right from the very beginnings of quantum mechanics was his early assumptions about those "tiny oscillators" he thought responsible for the quantization process of the final scaterring.
This entire thread is about how right he was (then) and how wrong we are now (!)
IF IT IS TRUE THAT:
A beam of light is the association of a number of quanta of electromagnetic energy and it is precisely the (actual) number of those "chunks" involved in the beam what makes for what we call INTENSITY of the light ray...
THE PHYSICAL REALITY IS THAT:
LIGHT STILL OBEY THE CONDITIONS OF PROPAGATION INPOSSED BY "c" [speed of light aprox. 300,000 km/s] so instead of an "alien movement" of "discrete bundles or packets of energy..." (keeping a distance from each other)The ENERGY of a given LIGHT "RECOILS BACK" into a SPIRAL-shape in response to the LIMITATION FORCED UPON BY THE UNIVERSE'S SPEED LIMIT "c". Not only that it suffers from RECOILING when it comes to space but it also "melts" into one "uniform-looking" WAVE TREND.
************************************************** *******
This is the LOGICAL THINKING that will keep you from falling into the paradoxical "duality nature of quantum mechanics." There is in my view nothing "paradoxical" about it (!)
Let's put our imagination to work in some interesting thought experiments:
Let's assume that you had the ability to observe what happens with energy across space when you shoot photons in different scenarios... Just what Einstein used to imagine when he was a kid.
You shoot one photon and this one will "s p r e a d o u t" in space first. The "bundle" or "packet" suddenly "melts" into a different density acquiring a special shape along with it. In a tiny fraction of "our human second" the UNIVERSE will "DICTATE" and force upon the already beginning to melt and spread out ENERGY his own LIMITATION>>> "c". It is the actual ENERGY " initially "contained" in that "bundle" we shot a moment ago the decisive FACTOR in the eventual recoiling process and the final density state of the WAVE that is about to propagate with a given FREQUENCY the rest of "its trip."
NO PROBLEM with "finding a frequency" to this photon wave-wannabe! Since the "conversion" from ENERGY to FREQUENCY is conditioned by a constant "c" I see nothing but a LINEAR (mathematical) relationship between them.

Next time we shut 5 photons one after the other and let's see what's going to happen in a moment:
SINCE the LIMITATION is still ON I see no chance for a bunch of photons to violate "c" and its consequent universal nature. The density of the "system" (the actual wave) will have to stand the same as it was with just one photon. WHY? BECAUSE the energy of each individual "bundles" or "packets" have not change at all. The so-called INTENSITY of the wave remains UNCHANGED the rest of the trip. How about the shape or configuration of the light wave?
It will have to adopt the familiar "COIL" shape as it propagates since "c" IS "ALWAYS WATCHING" and the universe does that by sort of "connecting" the end of the wavelength of the previous "bundle" with the front of the wavelength of the following one keeping always the same density on space.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

(I'll continue with this in a moment)

[humanbydefault]

I hope you have followed me so far into the process of "The Making of Light" with LOGIC and COMMON SENSE.
The probabilistic nature or the so-called uncertain outcome of our observations has alot to do (in my humble opinion) with not undestanding the physical implications of what I described in the previous post.
We arrived a moment ago to the (physical) reasons of why a "bundle" of energy [also know as "the chunk" or the "packet" by different authors] could ONLY propagate as a wave with a FIXED density and a proportional (linear) frequency.
The REAL problem becomes when we have to DEFINE how many "bundles" "packets" or "chunks" of ENRGY a c t u a l l y FIT INSIDE A UNIFORM-LOOKING WAVE without collpasing it (!) That's the DILEMMA Mr. Hamlett!
The best that Quantum Mechanics could do so far is to give us the PROBABILITY to find the exact position of that "bundle" once we attempt to collapse it (interrumpting its propagation in space at the incredible speed of light). I'm not talking about quanta INSIDE THE ATOM, do not misunderstand me. I'm referring to scattered radiation from those harmonic oscillators as Plank used to call them in 1900.
The way I see the dilemma it could have eventually a plausible solution. If there was a mathematical procedure that could enable us to reconciliate the numbers with this non-linear energy-distribution dictated by a COMPROMISING process of DENSITY-WAVELENGTH-"COIL" STRUCTURE of the wave>>> The so-called PROBABILISTIC NATURE of the best theory of modern physics will be something of the past.
The key to understand why we have to satisfy ourselves with controversial probabilities lies within the proper description of our physical reality as Einstein once dreamed.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[dleviwing]

Though it is simpler to visualize light as a photon when analyzing Planck's constant, it should be kept in mind that EM radiation is only a wave phenomenon. The quantum unit that represents the photon is the same as the spatial boson. They are the spatial domains produced by 2 or more wave interference patterns. Each domain appears to form with the same quantitative measure and only vary in there physical spatial volumes, thus producing the E=hf relationship. These domains however do not travel through space as photons, they are the structure of space (domains of interference patterns of EM radiation). Only when these volumes acquire angular motion from atomic structures, do they become autonomous to the environment. This is what occurs at the atomic level as being energy absorption.

[humanbydefault]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault The REAL problem becomes when we have to DEFINE how many "bundles" "packets" or "chunks" of ENRGY a c t u a l l y FIT INSIDE A UNIFORM-LOOKING WAVE without collpasing it (!) That's the DILEMMA Mr. Hamlett!HUMANBYDEFAULT

The questions seems more dubious and naive as time separate us from 1900 but it has never been less important then than it is now.
I suposse we all agreed that for every conceivable "chunk" of energy [radiation >>>excluding thermal energy] "c" will DICTATE a specific FREQUENCY >>> An observable phenomenon evident in their direct (linear) proportionality.
However the actual DILEMMA comes in when we ask ourselves:
COULD ANY POSSIBLE (in size) "CHUNK" OR "BUNDLE" OF ENERGY [known as QUANTUM] BE ALLOWED TO EXIST IN THE UNIVERSE?
My answer to that question is a rotund NO!
I need you to follow me during the following trend of analysis so I don't loose you in between:
Is there any possibility to exist for a magnet with one magnetic pole alone?
[other than in a flawed theory of course].
If you shot a rock into a pond... Would there be any chance to observe only half-spherical waves moving from the vortice of impact?
Could we produce the scatterring of two entangled quanta with two "up" spin or two "down" ones... or what's worse yet>>> either one "up" or "down" spin alone?
Those questions above will help you to see that even in the macroworld but specially in the quantum world when we refer to FREQUENCY we must include the entire wavelength front-to-end of the elemental wave.
If you agreed with me about this particular topic too I hope non of you will have problems to see what comes next.
We have said that for ANY POSSIBLE "CHUNK" OF ENERGY "c" will imposse (always) a specific FREQUENCY. I'm telling you know that for any FREQUENCY to exist it must be the result of an EXACT MAGNITUDE OF ENERGY [no more and no less] that will ENABLE the (primary or elemental) wavelength to FIT COMPLETELY INSIDE the wavelength-package.
So the conclusions for this trend of reasonning concludes with a very impostant assumption... one that could be resumed as follows:
What Mr. Plank observed back in 1900 coming out from his "Black Body" was EXCLUSIVELY those "tiny bundles" of energy allowed to be scatterred to the vacuum (!) In other words those who were LEGITIMATE by the rules of the vacuum.
This important conclusion has been the center of my theories all this time. That could also explain why the difference between those light frequencies we interprete in our "vision sensors" as one perfectly DEFINED spectrum of COLORS.
How many times have you read theoretical descriptions of what colors are... However how many times those same scientists have come up with a LOGICAL and PLAUSIBLE reason to explain why those NUMBERS? Why those specific frequencies and not a decimal point more or less in their wavelengths (!)
I recall watching a specific segment of a popular documentary film about the universe and quantum mechanics. I guess it was one part of the series titled "The Incredible Universe." In the scene the author is sit in front a console and he is trying to change the UNIVERSAL CONSTANTS [gravity, electron's mass and charge etc.] and he was giving us an appocaliptic vision of the universe if such thing could actually happen.
WELL! Now you know why those arguments could be part of SCI-FI episodes and have no place to be consider serious at all.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[michellemfry]

Uncertainty refers to being able to determine the location and velocity of an electron in spacetime, more to the point, in three dimensions. Perhaps the electron exists with certainty in perhaps the fifth dimension. You can detect the electron visually in the lab by it's color. You can know this with absolute certainty. It appears blue when electrons are being thrown off in a reaction. When they are no longer involved in the molecular tug and pull of filling orbitals, they have no location in spacetime, and their velocity is relative to nothing in the atom anymore. But the light of the freed electron arrives in your eye.
Planck gave us our first constant. When studying something, he found that no matter what there was this something that did not change, was constant in the face of all things physical. The reason for frequency, if you desire one, is that there is a coupling of energy that varies to something that does not vary. It results in an equation that we can use and rely on. I have great respect for poor Planck. I don't think he was terribly proud of the mathematics being so simple. Kind of retarded. Not very elegant. Often overlooked.
It reminds me of binary stars, quite frankly. Two stars that are related and bound by gravity to one another, with the eventual consumption of one by the other. They dance in the sky as one leads the dance and one follows. One is the constant and the other varies to it endlessly until it exists no more. There is no guarantee that the larger of the companion stars will consume the smaller. Sometimes it is the other way around.
Gravity, as a constant, and a companion variable, to say that frequency is part of the dance and can be visualized and measured. Energy cannot be created or destroyed because there is a constant present in the mathematics. We are in a binary star relationship with the universe. Over and over we behave with frequency and angular momentum(and reverse), to the constant we are drawn to. We can dance with it or die.

[humanbydefault]

WHY HUMANBYDEFAULT?


"Thanks Baudrunner... I appreciate your comment as well however you seem to forget who's running the show in every single physical experiment we (humans) come up with. Nature, universe... God? Call it as you wish the fact of the matter is that we are not the one in charge here but HE (It)is!
It doesn't take a "good eye" to realize that what you saw in their "computer animation" is not entirely accurate (?) Allow me to "fix it" with a coupple of "languistic corrections" if you which:
1>>> Firstable the shape or configuration of the wavelength inside the fiber was made to look almost like the original one. You have to remember that INVARIANCE is the conservation of the original frequency in EXCHANGE for a new WAVELENGTH and/or SPEED while confronting a different MEDIUM (other than the vacuum). You can't have it both ways my friend! If the original pulse was "forced" to adopt a different wavelength as it went through the "new medium" you couldn't expect that the actual energy involved in the propagation during that "transient period of the propagation" would stay the same... Could you? You can't fit a size 10 feet inside a 5 and 1/2 size shoe! [Ref. Cinderella].
2>>> You would also agree with Plank, Einstein and the OTHERS that a quantum of light is precisely what it is BECAUSE it can't be "broken up" in pieces... Wouldn't you?
So... How could you accept a hypothetical argument (a fabricated animation) implying that the second pulse DID IN FACT got away, carrying the same energy of the first one, even when still remains of what it used to be the first pulse is "hanging around" inside the fiber... (?)
A simple look at the overall energy of the "system" will conclude that energy was actually appearing from nowhere just to help the research team... Don't you get the same feeling here? Are they implying that we are witnessing a "deja vue" of tunneling? The same old "happily ever after" version of energy being borrowed from the universe to be paid back at the end of the process? Is this what the whole things is all about?
But even if that was the case here... A simple vectorial operation of the "remainning waves" inside the fiber will end up in a total cancellation of the confronting waves!
One wave "going backwards" colliding with what's left of the first pulse will probably cancel each other's energy resulting in the net energy of ZERO. Conclusion? "THE UNIVERSE IS ALWAYS WATCHING!"
We thought we were smarter than the universe in this one too... You know what? It always send us the BILL! Energy can't be created from nothing and it can't be made to disappear into nothing either.
The modified frequency of the pulse while moving across the fiber could be seen as an optical distorsion of the light. A teaspoon looks bent inside a glass of water but you don't "swallow in" that version of the story.
My last argument refers to the way I see things and also describe them in my own style. I don't use orthodox words, concepts and classical analogical images on purpose. I do refer to them when needed but I write to everyone not only to those who believe they know something we don't. That's why I chose to sign my articles and opinions as HUMANBYDEFAULT. Neither as a "Scientist-Wannabe" nor as an "Insider" either... Just as a HUMAN; one with a great sense of appreciation for the value of LOGIC and COMMON SENSE inhereted from our ancestors.
Thank you for your time."

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[Lloyd Gillespie]

A beautiful simple comment HBD, keep up the great analysis.

regards

Originally Posted by humanbydefault WHY HUMANBYDEFAULT? "Thanks Baudrunner... I appreciate your comment as well however you seem to forget who's running the show in every single physical experiment we (humans) come up with. Nature, universe... God? Call it as you wish the fact of the matter is that we are not the one in charge here but HE (It)is! It doesn't take a "good eye" to realize that what you saw in their "computer animation" is not entirely accurate (?) Allow me to "fix it" with a coupple of "languistic corrections" if you which: 1>>> Firstable the shape or configuration of the wavelength inside the fiber was made to look almost like the original one. You have to remember that INVARIANCE is the conservation of the original frequency in EXCHANGE for a new WAVELENGTH and/or SPEED while confronting a different MEDIUM (other than the vacuum). You can't have it both ways my friend! If the original pulse was "forced" to adopt a different wavelength as it went through the "new medium" you couldn't expect that the actual energy involved in the propagation during that "transient period of the propagation" would stay the same... Could you? You can't fit a size 10 feet inside a 5 and 1/2 size shoe! [Ref. Cinderella]. 2>>> You would also agree with Plank, Einstein and the OTHERS that a quantum of light is precisely what it is BECAUSE it can't be "broken up" in pieces... Wouldn't you? So... How could you accept a hypothetical argument (a fabricated animation) implying that the second pulse DID IN FACT got away, carrying the same energy of the first one, even when still remains of what it used to be the first pulse is "hanging around" inside the fiber... (?) A simple look at the overall energy of the "system" will conclude that energy was actually appearing from nowhere just to help the research team... Don't you get the same feeling here? Are they implying that we are witnessing a "deja vue" of tunneling? The same old "happily ever after" version of energy being borrowed from the universe to be paid back at the end of the process? Is this what the whole things is all about? But even if that was the case here... A simple vectorial operation of the "remainning waves" inside the fiber will end up in a total cancellation of the confronting waves! One wave "going backwards" colliding with what's left of the first pulse will probably cancel each other's energy resulting in the net energy of ZERO. Conclusion? "THE UNIVERSE IS ALWAYS WATCHING!" We thought we were smarter than the universe in this one too... You know what? It always send us the BILL! Energy can't be created from nothing and it can't be made to disappear into nothing either. The modified frequency of the pulse while moving across the fiber could be seen as an optical distorsion of the light. A teaspoon looks bent inside a glass of water but you don't "swallow in" that version of the story. My last argument refers to the way I see things and also describe them in my own style. I don't use orthodox words, concepts and classical analogical images on purpose. I do refer to them when needed but I write to everyone not only to those who believe they know something we don't. That's why I chose to sign my articles and opinions as HUMANBYDEFAULT. Neither as a "Scientist-Wannabe" nor as an "Insider" either... Just as a HUMAN; one with a great sense of appreciation for the value of LOGIC and COMMON SENSE inhereted from our ancestors. Thank you for your time." HUMANBYDEFAULT