Single Edge Certainty July 31, 2016November 22, 2022 / Bill Alsept Single Edge Certainty Alsept Edge Simulators 1 Edge 2 Edge (1 Slit) 4 Edge (2 Slit) 6 Edge (3 Slit) 8 Edge (4 Slit) SEC Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading...
21 thoughts on “Single Edge Certainty”
Bill: Saw your comments on Physics Stack, on the extent of Photons. Absolutely correct. I am now kicked off Physics Stack for a month and could not comment I think I have a photon structure theory that meets the needs of your theory and testing. Good luck.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken, thanks for your comments. Could you be more specific about which of my posts you agree with and a description of your ideas? Thanks
Hi there, how does the obstacle depth effect diffraction for half plane diffraction? For an example, if you have a sharp razor blade vs a more rounded object
Hello! I am a physicist and have learned much QM and QFT. If your theory is right, there are no quantum waves. What is the current status of the theory? I dont see it published.
Ilian, As I describe on page seven, anything resembling a wave is made of billions of individual coherent photons. Every light phenomenon can be derived with a photon/particle theory but a wave theory can only explain some. A photon particle can be physically described but a light wave cannot. No one has ever done it. Its even hard to visualize. I appreciate the interest, please let me know if there are other questions.
Hi Bill, I am beginning to read it. I can accept that a photon can hypothetically expand and contract which you call positive and negative phases (without having in mind to seek any reasons). But what does that mean for the detector (screen) that a photon comes in positive phase (sphere) or a negative phase (point). I can not see any reason that the detector reacts differently in either case. (page 7 and Figure 12.) The energy is the same in either case.
Ilper, I am so glad you are interested. As for reasons why a photon would oscillate as I describe, look no farther than any basic pendulum or cyclical action. My paper is older now and I have updated some of the ideas. I describe the photons spherical expansion and collapse very similar to some of the cyclical models of the universe collapsing into a bounce followed by a big bang. I would say in a fractal sort of way that they are identical. My idea of a cycle is slightly different where the expansion is immediate and powerful followed by a long condensing phase. For example a green photon with a 500nm wavelength has a frequency, or cycles of almost 600 trillion times per second. For each cycle the photons expansion phase is quick and only uses maybe .005 % of a complete cycle, with the rest of the phase condensing into a collapse. Any way what that does is give a photon an extreme amount of energy during that short expansion phase. This energy has nothing to do with its linear speed. When photons make contact with the detection screen they can only be registered by the extreme energy of the expansion. Photons in a condensing phase are not registered on the detection screen. In other words you could move the screen back or forward 1/2 wavelength and a photon may or may not be detected. Thanks again for the discussion.
I also thank you for the quick respond. But this idea you now write about that the photons does not interact with the slits in 99.995 % does not obey the energy conservation principle. As much energy a photon takes from the source so much it must deliver to the screen. This a fact. Have you considered this? By the way it can not transfer its energy to another photon, no does it leave the detector (pass tru it). So where is the energy in this case?
Ilian, First of all the photons always interact with the slits. Whether they are in a negative or positive phase when they go through the slit they will rotate to become polarized parallel with the slit. As for conservation just look at any cycle and you will find phases that are positive, neutral or negative. Think of a simple pendulum where the energy increases on the down swing and seems to disappear when it gets to the top. Or the nodes on a guitar string where nothing is moving. You can find thousand of cycles in nature going through positive and negative phases. Because photons move so fast we tend to associate all their energy with speed. Imagine a pendulum swinging back and forth toward a screen and away from a screen. Now imagine the pendulum moving closer to the screen as its still swinging back and forth. As you can imagine when the pendulum finally makes it to the screen it will be swinging toward or away from the screen. Swinging toward the screen could be a lot of energy if the frequency is fast. On the other hand if the pendulum is swinging away when it gets there, it could be neutral or negative energy. There are trillions and trillions of other photons every second going through that same screen that you never see. For example radio waves as you know are not really waves but billions of coherent photons. Radio photons have much slower frequencies (or cycles) and can pass through wall (or screens) because their energy is lower and their negative phases are longer (longer wavelength). Its interesting that you said ” As much energy a photon takes from the source”. Most people say the source emits photons, as in sending them off. Whether you meant it that way or not I would agree with it. As resistance creates friction in a light bulb filament, the heat and energy builds up. My theory has billions of photons already coming from every direction. Photons of every frequency and the photons that happen to be in a negative or (vacuum if easier to imagine) phase as they get to the source will pick up a quantum of energy as they pass through with out slowing down. When negative photons absorbs this energy as their passing through their frequency may jump from 300 gigahertz (microwave) to 600 terahertz (green light). Sorry this was only a quick reply but I will try to come up with a better analogy next time.
Just curious, what part of the world are you in?
Have a good night. Thanks Bill
Bill, lets concentrate on one thing. I made a mistake with the word slit -originally I meant screen in fact. But as it is said – the the mistake was right. Now I prefer to understand why the slit is always interacting with the photons, but the screen not? If the interaction depends on the distance from source to edge than changing the distance one will see cases with no edge diffraction at all.
I am from Bulgaria. Interestingly what do you know about Bulgaria?
Keep save from covid.
Ilian, OK if we are only discussing visible photons there are two types of interactions. (1) a photon directly interacts with the slit when it impacts one of the edges. (2) a photon indirectly interacts with the slit as it passes through in two different ways. First it rotates to become polarized with the slit and depending on its frequency and proximity to the edges, can diffract one way or the other certain amount. The photon then continues on its way without slowing down.
When a photon of visible frequency reaches a detection screen it interacts directly. The detection screen registers energy when an impacting photon is at a positive amplitude of the cycle. If the photon is in a negative/neutral phase when it hits the detection screen it just absorbed into an atom without leaving an impact signature. This is not much different than the billions of other photons interacting with the screen that are also not registering.
I”m sad to admit that I do not know very much about Bulgaria but it sound beautiful. As for corona-virus yes it is getting scary and I hope you and your family are also staying safe.
1) if you are right about positive and negative phases than the photons without any edge would show a diffraction pattern.
Just a source and screen in your hypotheses results in diffraction pattern like with an obstacle with an edge. It doesn’t.
2) There are multiple experiments with just 1 photon at a time between source and screen and double slit in between. No photon has disappeared.
3) It works in dark
4) when not dark the other photons are a background.
5) i can not accept that the photon interacts with the slit (vacuum) – the idea is after all that you have interaction with the edge.
6) if nevertheless you accept this – the screen (not vacuum) must also interact as a whole (but this is not a particle anymore):
Does the photons know if there is a slit or a ´screen beforehand?
The inventor of the modern computer is from Bulgaria, though working in USA John Atanassov.
The Apollo travel to the Moon was possible due to the inventions of Viden Tabakov, especially the heat protection.
Armstrong was very thankful that the ship endured the extreme heat thanks to Tabakov.
1) You only get diffraction when there are edges to both polarize and make coherent the photons. Without edges you will still get the full spectrum if the source is white light but not a diffraction pattern.
2) The only photons being counted are the positive ones. The others are not registering.
5) any photon passing through a polarizer or diffraction grating (which has many slits) will be polarized without direct interaction.
6) Of course the photon knows nothing at any time.
I realize these ideas are not status quo and there are more details dealing with the issues.
We know photons exist and we know certain things about them.
AS a particle:
1) They each have an absolute speed.
2) They have an individual energy or quanta.
3) They can be polarized.
4) They can be diffracted.
5) They each have a frequency. My idea describes what they are frequently doing? My idea describes how frequency is related to energy.
On the other hand we know nothing about a light waves. We throw the term around without any physical description and no one even tries.
There is no accountability and attempts to explain just go around and around and around. Like photons are excitation’s of the electromagnetic field and fields are waves and waves are……All if this is just kicking the can down the road. When its all said and done there still is no description of whats really going on.
My ideas are at least an attempt to explain whats physically going on. AS far as I know, the only attempt. I have not seen any other hypothesis or attempts to physically explain all the different light phenomena. So far I have used my ideas to derive many different phenomena such as: the double slit with photons or electrons, diffraction, dispersion, reflection, partial reflection, Malus Law and cos2theta, Multiple polarizers, interferometers experiments, and even Bell’s inequality. Some of these I’m still have fun working through but at least they are attempts instead of just excepting the unaccountable the status quo.
Yes Bulgaria has many great minds in physics. I remember studying Rashko Zaykov who like Einstein was also a musician.
What is a light wave IF NOT billions of individual coherent and oscillating photons?
Bill, I share you opinion about the waves. I especially noticed that the wave concept does not include interaction
with the edges of the slit. In fact, in the Hyugence principle one has only wavelets from the gap of the slit but not
the edges themselves. The wave that goes on the edge is in fact reflected in the formalism. This strikes me as not
physical concept at all but a pure description model of what happens after. This is not so bad in classical physics
but in Quantum Physics it becomes a great problem as there the wave is just an imaginary entity. It turns out that
a photon does not interact but the impulse is changed.
I appreciate your efforts very much. But you know there are serious difficulties with particle concept in QM.
So let me understand how does it work in simple cases. If it works I would be glad.
Or you should make some corrections.If you like.
1) Do you mean the edge makes the photons different? By polarizing them? What kind of polarization do you mean?
The usual physics term?
The photons and EM waves are getting polarized when going through polarizers (not near an edge – at least I didn’t read
about such effect). In fact there is polarization by reflection but only at the Brewster angle there is full polarization (not sure but
I think that was the case). In typical setup the photons must be perpendicular to the edge (slit) and I think Brewster is parallel
to the slit.
2) So as far as I understand in your hypothesis the photons don’t contract when emanated from the middle of a flat surface
but begin to contract when when they pass near the slits something happens to them so they begin to contract?
Do you insist that photons from the middle of heated plate are different (not contracting) than those from the edges
3) There are serious problems with energy. The Double Slit Experiments with one photon at a time in the setup are made in dark (just that photon).
No lost of photons (energy) is observed. One photon from the source – one on the screen. As you insist they contract and
their energy (some of them) vanish. In fact they are just distributed in strips.
4) There is also an issue with contraction. If the photons are contracting they must have an internal structure. Experiments
you know show they are elementary.
Ilian, in response to your first nine sentences. I am glad you agree there are major problems with a light wave theory. It has no physical description, explanation or even a hypothesis of how it could possibly work. I mean they go as far as using photons to describe light quanta but at the same time act as if photons don’t really exist. They treat them as some excitation of the electromagnetic field, bla bla bla…, What is the electromagnetic field if not billions of individual photons?
Wave theory barely explains anything, but Individual photons can explain everything classically and QM. The difference is that wave theory does not even try to physically describe some sequence of actions or cause and effects. They just say it’s a wave and that’s it. A particle theory at least gives you physical descriptions of cause and effect. Things that can be described and shown to already exist in nature.
For example, we know that electrons can flip to align their poles as they pass through openings or magnetic fields. This is not just a hypothesis, it is real. The idea that a photon could do the same thing is also a real and physical concept. It’s not some uncountable, baseless or as you say purely descriptive idea just thrown out there as a place holder.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the impulse is changed” but photons interact with the edges in several ways. 1) Direct impact where the oscillating energy proportional to frequency is transferred to an electron on the edge. 2) Direct scattering when a photon barely skips off and away from the edge, (also related to frequency). 3) Like the electron the polarity of the photon flips parallel to the edge as it passes. 4) The photon depending on its proximity to the edge is diffracted toward and around the edge. 5) Another more complicated interaction with a subtle effect is a combined effect of the above and the positive/negative oscillation of the photon. I describe this in more detail, in another paper I’m writing on Bell’s inequality and Malus Law.
As I have said a photon/particle theory can explain every light phenomenon and I see no serious difficulties with a particle concept in QM. Most phenomena such as individual quanta impact or the photo-electric effect are easily explained. The so-called problems with QM are usually related to single photon interference patterns or Bell’s inequalities comparing Malus Law or cos2theta and they can be explained.
The problem is, that no one takes the time to truly visualize a photon particle as a real three-dimensional thing, moving through space on a real trajectory and doing other things such as oscillating, rotating, expanding or collapsing. These are real concepts and things that real particles actually do.
OK, so if my ideas works, I too will be glad and if changes are needed, I’d be happy to make modifications. I have made modification through the years but have always been able to stick with the main concept as I’ve worked through the different phenomena.
1) The edge does not make the photon different other than changing its polarization (it was always polarized some direction), Changing its trajectory or absorbing it.
By polarization I mean the usual physics term. For simplicity picture a disk moving through space like a Frisbee, rotating horizontally. Now picture a picket fence where most likely the Frisbee will not pass through, but if the fence’s wood slats where at 45 degrees and the Frisbee made it through, then it would continue on its way but rotated to 45 degrees instead of horizontally. I realize this is a poor analogy, but my photon derivations include expansion, collapsing and rotating polarization which allow a photon to pass the edges unobstructed other than the interactions I mentioned above. There are articles such as “ Spin-orbit interaction of light and diffraction of polarized beams” that talk about polarization of photons and edges etc.
2) I’m not sure what you meant here but photons always have an expanding/contracting oscillation as they travel along at the speed of light or as long as they exist. This is what their frequency is all about. The slit does not start the oscillation but can effect it with direct interaction.
“Do you insist that photons from the middle of heated plate are different (not contracting) than those from the edges (which contract)?
Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by this.” Could you please re-phrase this question? Thanks
3) There are no lost photons and the double slit experiment with one photon at a time are never “just that photon” First of all its very very hard to isolate a single photon from the source but even still we have photons impacting in the negative phases which you do not register. You are only counting the first photon to interact positively with the screen. Thousands of other photons could have ended up somewhere else or half of them out of phase so that they are undetectable. They are not just distributed in strips. As I have described in my paper “Single edge Certainty” photons in every phase of their cycles impact the screen everywhere.
4) Many cycles contract and expand. Some as simple as such as spring action or a positive/negative atmospheric systems and some as complicated such as the cyclical universe model. All of them have internal structures that are describable, unlike the wave theory..
Thanks again Ilian for the feedback
Still thinking about simulating your approach, and found this on Wolfram’s website. It seems very similar to your argument, and the simulator is easy to run. Do you know it?
“This Demonstration presents a speculative alternative theory that shows that it is possible to construct classical dynamical systems that do not rely on any concept of quantum theory yet display the same interference patterns as those observed in single-photon double-slit experiments. “
Hi Anwar, I have not seen that before but I’m not sure what they are doing. What determines where the
impacts will be? What is the cause? What is their description of how the particles travels from start to finish?
What do you have in mind for simulating ideas like mine? Thanks for staying interested.
Bill, I only know what I shared, I did not try to track them further though I may do so at some point. They do list the source code, I just don’t know Mathematica. Still, it has a huge reach. There may be other simulations, I will look.
As for my ideas, as a former engineer, I was thinking of literally visualizing your argument. Like a video game, a single photon is seen as a particle moving from the emitter towards the slits. Most are absorbed in the wall, perhaps bouncing back and colliding with incoming photons, some go through the slits, and some of these interact with the edges. On the other side, a screen records the impacts from which the interference patterns appear. This is literally your own geometric representation, visualized as moving particles. All credit will go to you, obviously.
The trouble is that I don’t know Mathematica, so would have to learn it or hire a young person to do it. I am an economist, so grad students looking for small funds would be another possibility.
How does that sound?
I found the pdf of the article behind the Wolfram website experiment, it is simple but not like your system (which is simpler and more complete, imo). I have it in pdf, which can be downloaded from the Wolfram site if you create a free login. Not sure how to send you the pdf, let me know if you want it
Thanks Anwar, I appreciate it. You can reach out directly to me if you want at: email@example.com
I wouldn’t mind reading the full article. Thanks again