This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
I will tell you what kid Jennings. You need to be more clear when talking about science. Isn't it interesting that the famous E=mc^2 shows that all matter may be made of light particles? I think there is a problem in using "energy" or "vis-visa" as Leibniz called it - in that matter and motion, I don't think can be exchanged- that is - mass cannot be changed into motion and motion cannot be changed into mass - because of the conservation of mass and conservation of motion princip
@tedhuntington Well, if an electron's velocity were to change, it would mean that energy would have to be applied or lost. and we know that energy and matter are the same thing. so it seems to make sense that when something's velocity changes, we also see it's mass change.
This idea that an electron velocity changing implies that energy is gained or lost which implies that mass changes raises some interesting issues. These questions will probably be debated until the end of time - for example - there is this idea of conservation of motion - which implies that there is a finite quantity of motion in the universe. One view is that this motion can be transferred from particle to particle- another is that the motion remains attached to each particle.
Just to add that - there are different theories. For example I doubt that motion can be converted into matter or vice versa. Another interesting point is: is acceleration only the result of particle collision? Do we live in an all-particle-collision only universe without action-at-a-distance gravity or electromagnetism? These questions many times send people to celebrate what we do know - that if humans are successful we will build a globular cluster - that at least is simple.
Don't be hurt Sir. I 'ope yer bein sarcastic. Of course there is no pain involved in disagreement on a scientific theory. Besides - William Lawrence Bragg long ago in 1912, showed that diffraction is caused by particle reflection.
thanks. Light particles emit from a source - generally in a spherical direction - since most light sources are very large and not very tiny points, light particles tend to take a spherical distribution from each point of the light filament (or light area - as in the case of evacuated fluorescent bulbs).
Actually, check Newton's rings to see the same effect without any slits. What happens is when you make another trajectory available for photons to go through, you change the probability that a photon will strike a particular place. I understand that vector equations can accurately predict these probabilities. The dark rings are the areas of very low probability. Photons have no waves -- the probabilities just make it look that way.
@tedhuntington I agree with you, light is particles, not waves. Waves is just a model that might explain it, but the model is wrong. In every test to detect light, light presents itself in a discrete packet. Saying light is waves is like saying a camel's tail is a rope because it is rope-like. Just because under certain circumstances it appears to display a certain property, does not mean that it IS that property. People get confused so easily. :)
thanks 89013344, I think rest mass must always be greater than 0 - because mass is thought to be 0 at the speed of light. But I reject that claim - it violates the conservation of mass, and conservation of motion laws, which I think are probably true. I can accept that possibly an electron loses mass in the form of light particles - I view light as a material particle - nice 3D demo very informative.
Hell yeah I can ;) - If the view is that mass of an electron depends on velocity, absent any gain or loss of external matter - any increase or decrease in mass with a change in velocity would represent a violation of the conservation of mass. Simply put - mass cannot appear from out of empty space - if the conservation of mass law is viewed as accurate.
@89013344 I think most people accept that relativity theory is a violation of the conservation of mass theory - Cecil Powell states this in one of his books. There are a lot of problems with relativity - for example clearly light is material, and another problem is the concept of time dilation/contraction which originated with Lorentz to save the aether theory for light.
@tedhuntington we observe particles forming out of photons all the time and vice versa. also, how is light clearly material? i can name you a few decays/reactions that are ONLY possible because light has a rest mass of zero. and where is a problem with time dilation? it has been observed and measured all the time.
If they are the result of particle collision, how do you account for sequential-stream electron patterns that show interference, but there is only one particle sent down the slit at a time?
@Stroggoth each electron has a different direction when leaving and they reflect off the inside surface of the slit in various places depending on their angle. Plus, it seems doubtful that a single electron can be isolated, but perhaps. "Diffraction" was shown in the early 1900s by William Lawrence Bragg to actually be reflection of particles off of semitransparent-semireflective planes - Bragg found a very simple equation where angle of incidence determines wavelength - from interval of planes.
just to add that William Lawrence Bragg showed that diffraction is simply reflection - and created his simple equation n(lambda)=2Dsin(theta) (lambda=so called wavelength which is actually "light particle interval"), n=order (I showed that n=number of reflections), D=distance between planes, theta=angle of incidence.
One amazing and interesting thing is that "double-slit" - is all BS - you don't need a double slit - a single slit works perfectly well. Because the phenomena has to do with reflection off the inside sides of the slit - and adding another slit makes little to no difference. Much of the problem with the corpuscular theory is that people are one of two people - they know about neuron reading and writing or they dont - if they do - they stay quiet - if they dont they dont realize the big lie.
@tedhuntington - I want to modify this simply to say that you can get orders with a single slit, but not diffraction - according to the Bragg theory - which I view as correct- there needs to be a series of planes for an interval to be established. Diffraction may work for any particles and semi-reflective-semi-transparent regular planes - even for sound.
sorry, you're gonna have to explain this to me, i'm just starting to learn about quantum mechanics. but i thought that particles are supposed to behave like waves when they encounter the slit... but these particles acted like solid matter.
THe corpuscular theory for light originates in the modern form with Isaac Newton around the late 1600s - if fell out of favor in the early 1800s because of the work of Thomas Young and August Fresnel - however the two theories - have long been in competition. I was interested to find recently that neutron beams refract through various materials - not only transparent materials - but metals too - so here is yet more evidence that diffract, refract, interfer is all partic. collision.
just to add that for a computer simulation using the corpuscular theory for light of Grimaldo's (or Grimaldi's) classic experiment search for "Francesco Grimaldi Diffraction Experiment".
Thanks fletch88zz. I'm not sure which classic experiment you are referring to. The origin of diffraction is from Francesco Grimaldi - who thought the light "bent" around the edge of the slit. I found that only a single slit is necessary for the effect. There simply is no way of filtering light beams so that all transmitted beams are exactly in the same direction - light particles are very small.
Here is something neat: with a diffraction grating - hold it up to a light and then move your index finger in front of the grating while you look through it. You will see that your finger causes a shadow in the spectrum - and that the spectrum you see is produced from a part of the grating that is not directly in the center of the grating relative to your eyes, but from a point which is at a large angle to the left and right. Spectrum light is reflected about 45 degrees.
When any group of particles pass through a small corridor, many times there will be collisions with the inside sides, and this creates two reflections - so yes, a single slit is all that is needed for the traditional "node" patterns of gratings and slits.
So what this animation implies, is that the wave properties we get in the double slit experiment actually is an Illution. p.s. was it necessary to have that bright arrow of photons in such an extream angle that it never even impacts the wall?
Yes, to obtain the two nodes, either the light particles must have a direction that will cause them to collide with the inside walls of the grating groove or the angle of the grating groove walls must be angled relative to the direction of the light particles.
That is a classic claim. It seems impossible to me to release a single photon - photons are extremely small particles - and then the claim of being able to detect a single photon seems to me highly doubtful. But even if accepting that claim, the firing of a photon may not be in the exact same identical direction everytime and as a result of reflection can cause similar patterns - in particular for a spherical distribution of photon directions.
thanks babe. I'm just sayin that the corpuscular, or emission, or particle theory for light, I think must be afforded an equal footing with other theories for light instead of the current second class standing this theory has been given since the early 1800s and the work of THomas Young and Augustin Fresnel.
The corpuscular theory was debunked as long ago as the 1600's when Grimaldi confirmed interference fringes after passing a beam of sunlight over a thin rod. Particles could only deflect outward, away from the rod. However the fringes included a bright band dead center.
The Grimaldi experiments have not publicly and fully been modeled using 3D and a light-as-a-particle theory. The story of the scientific interpretation of light is an interesting story. Lucretius actually described light as being composed of particles/atoms. But Newton was the first to bravely and publicly state his belief that light is a particle - and compared light to a tennis ball.
Then around 1800 Thomas Young measured the wavelength of light using Newton's data, and Young and August Fresnal both supported the theory that light is a transverse wave in an aether medium. The aether was shown to not exist by Albert Michelson around 1887. This gave rise to the unlikely theory of space and time dilation. Planck then supported a particulate view for energy, Einstein adapted Plank's theory to a particulate view for light-energy. But still wait for light as matter
The MM expt did not rule out the existence of a light propagation medium. All the MM expt debunked was Lorentz's particular version. Lorentz's aether was already problematic for other reasons. It was unjustifiably assumed distinct and separate from "other matter" which led to plenty of problems. It was also unjustifiably assumed to be perfection stationary. There is no reason either of these has to be the case. Indeed, they cannot be the case.
However Einstein himself said "According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence..."
Time dilation is only surprising if you have never considered carefully how time is actually being measured. The period of an orbiting particle (or the most dense part of a wave-packet) at constant speed must increase.
i didn't vote this down - somebody clicked my finger muscle. But anyway - yes this is good evidence that Einstein was more solidly in the wave camp-with Lorentz as opposed to the particle camp with Planck. I just found evidence for dust sized neuron writers from a 1909 Jean Perin work - see my web page on neuron reading and writing for more info. Perin uses the word "thought" three times in the same paragraph with dust particles - and then almost nowhere else in an 80 page paper.
to my knowledge Planck saw quantization as a mathematical device, not as physical. If I were to define a "particle camp" via prominent researchers' names I'd probably use Bohr and Born. If I were to do likewise for waves I'd probably use de Broglie and Schrodinger.
If each cycle of the system sends us a signal and that's what we use to count off time, we will naturally count fewer signals for a system in motion relative to us.
Length contraction is similarly unsurprising given time dilation. We measure the length of a remote object by measuring the time difference between its two ends. If the object is moving it emits fewer signals and we will measure a shorter length.
first came space dilation and contraction - people often neglect to mention the contraction aspect of the FitzGerald theory. The theory that space contracts or dilates just enough to compensate for the motion of a so-called aether seems extremely unlikely to me. Much more simple and logical is the theory that there is no aether. But I must say that in some sense light particles may be similar to an aether in an interpretation of the universe where gravity is actually particle collisn
Your response makes me think you didn't read and understand what I said, but maybe you did and you're choosing to comment otherwise.
Physically, we have a system under periodic motion, such as an atom. Assuming the oscillating body moves with constant speed, the period of the system must increase if the system is uniformly translating. If we count periods (oscillations) as clock ticks, we count fewer for a moving system.
Anyway, the original point was that it is impossible to explain the results of Grimaldi type experiments with particles. Particles diverge. They can only bounce outwards, away from the object. They are incapable of producing a fringe pattern directly behind the intervening barrier.
I think the needle "diffraction" experiment can be explained with a particle explanation. Unbelievably Grimaldi's 1600s work has not been translated to English from the Latin which is absurd being the basis of the so-called "diffraction"- you would think that English speaking people might want to know more about the origin of this concept. Clearly, in my mind, light is reflected - again off slits and/or off the curved back of the needle - there is never a needle in isolation.
At the same time, it is impossible to explain experiments like G.I. Taylor's in 1909 wherein the light source is dimmed down far enough so we can actually watch the buildup of the fringe pattern, with the traditional aether-wave theory. The discrete spots that appear at intervals are inconsistent with spherical "water waves", which would produce a gradual buildup of the entire fringe pattern equally everywhere.
the classic experiment that proves this was not done with photons but electrons which also exhibit the wave-particle duality, and it is much easier to send electrons one at a time than photons
That's a good point, but I still have doubts about the ability to emit a single electron without others being emitted. Then also, there is the point that the precise direction of the emitted particle may vary widely, and tiny variations in a spherical shape would result in reflections very similar to the so-called "diffraction" or what I call "reflection grating" nodes.
It seems beyond coincidence that the patterns made by a beam of light going in between two simple parallel plates of glass produce the exact same nodes - but by reflection.
Thanks, I think we need to reserve some doubt about our interpretations of the universe or else we might get caught enforcing an inaccurate dogma - like the electromagnetic wave theory for light which was originally conceived by Maxwell using an aether medium, and then adopted by Einstein without the ether - but a wave without any medium is tough to imagine- in addition time dilation is most likely false. I find that a double slot is not even required for these patterns to appear-a single is ok.
It has been proven numerous times with atomic clocks, and is required for a muon (which would normally never make it to the Earth's surface) to reach Earth's surface.
But I also think skeptics in Science is necessary. Why don't you think it exists?
Thanks for your interest crybllrd. Time dilation as a theory developed initially as a theory of matter compressing in the direction of motion relative to an ether by George FitzGerald, and the Henry Lorentz. Einstein mysteriously embraced this theory - and then rejected the theory of an aether as unnecessary - so it puts Einstein's theory of relativity when time dilation is included, as a direct descendent of light as a wave with an ether medium theory which was popular after Thomas Young.
but to add more - we cannot reject the possibility of a theory that time is everywhere the same in the universe at any given one time. In other words that there may be a time 1 variable "t" for any time, but never a simultaneous time 2 variable. Being based on an ether-based explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment casts a lot of doubt on time dilation. There are other explanations for the apparent slowing of particles in accelerators, etc. in particular particle collision explanations.
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice video!
This is an invitation to see an artist theory on the physics of light and time!
This theory is based on two postulates
1. Is that the quantum wave particle function Ψ represents the forward passage of time ∆E ∆t ≥ h/2π itself
2. Is that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle ∆×∆p×≥h/4π that is formed by the w- function is the same uncertainty we have with any future event that we can interact with turning the possible into the actual!
nickharvey7 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
add on for young's double slit experiment like you've never seen before
watch?v=Z_6XqRHrp7U
kevinstuartfr0st 5 months ago
@mjennings1271
I will tell you what kid Jennings. You need to be more clear when talking about science. Isn't it interesting that the famous E=mc^2 shows that all matter may be made of light particles? I think there is a problem in using "energy" or "vis-visa" as Leibniz called it - in that matter and motion, I don't think can be exchanged- that is - mass cannot be changed into motion and motion cannot be changed into mass - because of the conservation of mass and conservation of motion princip
tedhuntington 9 months ago
@tedhuntington Well, if an electron's velocity were to change, it would mean that energy would have to be applied or lost. and we know that energy and matter are the same thing. so it seems to make sense that when something's velocity changes, we also see it's mass change.
EnderW1gg1n 10 months ago
@EnderW1gg1n
This idea that an electron velocity changing implies that energy is gained or lost which implies that mass changes raises some interesting issues. These questions will probably be debated until the end of time - for example - there is this idea of conservation of motion - which implies that there is a finite quantity of motion in the universe. One view is that this motion can be transferred from particle to particle- another is that the motion remains attached to each particle.
tedhuntington 10 months ago
@EnderW1gg1n
Just to add that - there are different theories. For example I doubt that motion can be converted into matter or vice versa. Another interesting point is: is acceleration only the result of particle collision? Do we live in an all-particle-collision only universe without action-at-a-distance gravity or electromagnetism? These questions many times send people to celebrate what we do know - that if humans are successful we will build a globular cluster - that at least is simple.
tedhuntington 10 months ago
this is very hurtful sir...these ideas don't mesh with Dr. Quantum and i'm hurt by that...
johnsmdm 11 months ago
@johnsmdm
Don't be hurt Sir. I 'ope yer bein sarcastic. Of course there is no pain involved in disagreement on a scientific theory. Besides - William Lawrence Bragg long ago in 1912, showed that diffraction is caused by particle reflection.
tedhuntington 11 months ago
i thought the photons were supposed to travel in a straight line from one position? not randomly starting from a mass of different angles...
SteveFusionX 1 year ago
@SteveFusionX
thanks. Light particles emit from a source - generally in a spherical direction - since most light sources are very large and not very tiny points, light particles tend to take a spherical distribution from each point of the light filament (or light area - as in the case of evacuated fluorescent bulbs).
tedhuntington 1 year ago
Actually, check Newton's rings to see the same effect without any slits. What happens is when you make another trajectory available for photons to go through, you change the probability that a photon will strike a particular place. I understand that vector equations can accurately predict these probabilities. The dark rings are the areas of very low probability. Photons have no waves -- the probabilities just make it look that way.
FlashJack85 1 year ago
@FlashJack85
I just think light is made of particles of matter.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@tedhuntington I agree with you, light is particles, not waves. Waves is just a model that might explain it, but the model is wrong. In every test to detect light, light presents itself in a discrete packet. Saying light is waves is like saying a camel's tail is a rope because it is rope-like. Just because under certain circumstances it appears to display a certain property, does not mean that it IS that property. People get confused so easily. :)
FlashJack85 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tedhuntington
"I just think light is made of particles of matter."
Yes. It also has wave-like properties.
MomoTheBellyDancer 11 months ago
@tedhuntington particles of matter with a rest mass of != 0? that is not consistent with neither relativity nor particle physics.
89013344 11 months ago
@89013344
thanks 89013344, I think rest mass must always be greater than 0 - because mass is thought to be 0 at the speed of light. But I reject that claim - it violates the conservation of mass, and conservation of motion laws, which I think are probably true. I can accept that possibly an electron loses mass in the form of light particles - I view light as a material particle - nice 3D demo very informative.
tedhuntington 11 months ago
@tedhuntington i have never heard about a rest mass of zero violating the conservation of mass and motion laws. can you elobarte?
89013344 11 months ago
@89013344 *elaborate
89013344 11 months ago
@89013344
Hell yeah I can ;) - If the view is that mass of an electron depends on velocity, absent any gain or loss of external matter - any increase or decrease in mass with a change in velocity would represent a violation of the conservation of mass. Simply put - mass cannot appear from out of empty space - if the conservation of mass law is viewed as accurate.
tedhuntington 11 months ago
@tedhuntington well if relativity is correct (as it has been confirmed a lot), there is no violation of conservation of mass law.
89013344 11 months ago
@89013344 I think most people accept that relativity theory is a violation of the conservation of mass theory - Cecil Powell states this in one of his books. There are a lot of problems with relativity - for example clearly light is material, and another problem is the concept of time dilation/contraction which originated with Lorentz to save the aether theory for light.
tedhuntington 11 months ago
@tedhuntington we observe particles forming out of photons all the time and vice versa. also, how is light clearly material? i can name you a few decays/reactions that are ONLY possible because light has a rest mass of zero. and where is a problem with time dilation? it has been observed and measured all the time.
89013344 11 months ago
If they are the result of particle collision, how do you account for sequential-stream electron patterns that show interference, but there is only one particle sent down the slit at a time?
Stroggoth 1 year ago
@Stroggoth each electron has a different direction when leaving and they reflect off the inside surface of the slit in various places depending on their angle. Plus, it seems doubtful that a single electron can be isolated, but perhaps. "Diffraction" was shown in the early 1900s by William Lawrence Bragg to actually be reflection of particles off of semitransparent-semireflective planes - Bragg found a very simple equation where angle of incidence determines wavelength - from interval of planes.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
just to add that William Lawrence Bragg showed that diffraction is simply reflection - and created his simple equation n(lambda)=2Dsin(theta) (lambda=so called wavelength which is actually "light particle interval"), n=order (I showed that n=number of reflections), D=distance between planes, theta=angle of incidence.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
One amazing and interesting thing is that "double-slit" - is all BS - you don't need a double slit - a single slit works perfectly well. Because the phenomena has to do with reflection off the inside sides of the slit - and adding another slit makes little to no difference. Much of the problem with the corpuscular theory is that people are one of two people - they know about neuron reading and writing or they dont - if they do - they stay quiet - if they dont they dont realize the big lie.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@tedhuntington - I want to modify this simply to say that you can get orders with a single slit, but not diffraction - according to the Bragg theory - which I view as correct- there needs to be a series of planes for an interval to be established. Diffraction may work for any particles and semi-reflective-semi-transparent regular planes - even for sound.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
sorry, you're gonna have to explain this to me, i'm just starting to learn about quantum mechanics. but i thought that particles are supposed to behave like waves when they encounter the slit... but these particles acted like solid matter.
willardftw 1 year ago
@willardftw
THe corpuscular theory for light originates in the modern form with Isaac Newton around the late 1600s - if fell out of favor in the early 1800s because of the work of Thomas Young and August Fresnel - however the two theories - have long been in competition. I was interested to find recently that neutron beams refract through various materials - not only transparent materials - but metals too - so here is yet more evidence that diffract, refract, interfer is all partic. collision.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@tedhuntington i feel dumb, but... are you saying that the phenomenon is caused by refraction and particle collisions instead of a wave function?
willardftw 1 year ago
@willardftw
dont feel dumb - yes - im saying diffraction and refraction are probably the result of particle collision.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@tedhuntington okay, thanks... but i guess i still have a lot more learning to do XD
willardftw 1 year ago
just to add that for a computer simulation using the corpuscular theory for light of Grimaldo's (or Grimaldi's) classic experiment search for "Francesco Grimaldi Diffraction Experiment".
tedhuntington 1 year ago
This example deviates from the classic double slit experiment because the particles begin with different trajectories
fletch88zz 1 year ago 2
@fletch88zz
Thanks fletch88zz. I'm not sure which classic experiment you are referring to. The origin of diffraction is from Francesco Grimaldi - who thought the light "bent" around the edge of the slit. I found that only a single slit is necessary for the effect. There simply is no way of filtering light beams so that all transmitted beams are exactly in the same direction - light particles are very small.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@fletch88zz
continued:
Here is something neat: with a diffraction grating - hold it up to a light and then move your index finger in front of the grating while you look through it. You will see that your finger causes a shadow in the spectrum - and that the spectrum you see is produced from a part of the grating that is not directly in the center of the grating relative to your eyes, but from a point which is at a large angle to the left and right. Spectrum light is reflected about 45 degrees.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
YOU SUCK!!
Needlegate 1 year ago
@Needlegate
we all suck, bite, chew - whats yer pernt?
tedhuntington 1 year ago
öhh? so if I coverd up one of the slits, in this animation, I would end up with ... WHAT a wave pattern???
ElPolloGullefjun 2 years ago
When any group of particles pass through a small corridor, many times there will be collisions with the inside sides, and this creates two reflections - so yes, a single slit is all that is needed for the traditional "node" patterns of gratings and slits.
tedhuntington 2 years ago
So what this animation implies, is that the wave properties we get in the double slit experiment actually is an Illution. p.s. was it necessary to have that bright arrow of photons in such an extream angle that it never even impacts the wall?
ElPolloGullefjun 2 years ago
Yes, to obtain the two nodes, either the light particles must have a direction that will cause them to collide with the inside walls of the grating groove or the angle of the grating groove walls must be angled relative to the direction of the light particles.
tedhuntington 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice video!
In my video Quantum Mechanics an artist view Time has symmetry and geometry that can explain the two slit experiment of Quantum Physics.
nickharvey7 2 years ago
But what about when they shot the particles one at a time? It still had a interference pattern even then...
GlObAlInFeCtIoN 2 years ago
That is a classic claim. It seems impossible to me to release a single photon - photons are extremely small particles - and then the claim of being able to detect a single photon seems to me highly doubtful. But even if accepting that claim, the firing of a photon may not be in the exact same identical direction everytime and as a result of reflection can cause similar patterns - in particular for a spherical distribution of photon directions.
tedhuntington 2 years ago
I suppose that does make sense. I think to simple :(.
GlObAlInFeCtIoN 2 years ago
thanks babe. I'm just sayin that the corpuscular, or emission, or particle theory for light, I think must be afforded an equal footing with other theories for light instead of the current second class standing this theory has been given since the early 1800s and the work of THomas Young and Augustin Fresnel.
tedhuntington 2 years ago
@tedhuntington
The corpuscular theory was debunked as long ago as the 1600's when Grimaldi confirmed interference fringes after passing a beam of sunlight over a thin rod. Particles could only deflect outward, away from the rod. However the fringes included a bright band dead center.
altonhare 1 year ago
@altonhare
@altonhare
The Grimaldi experiments have not publicly and fully been modeled using 3D and a light-as-a-particle theory. The story of the scientific interpretation of light is an interesting story. Lucretius actually described light as being composed of particles/atoms. But Newton was the first to bravely and publicly state his belief that light is a particle - and compared light to a tennis ball.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
Then around 1800 Thomas Young measured the wavelength of light using Newton's data, and Young and August Fresnal both supported the theory that light is a transverse wave in an aether medium. The aether was shown to not exist by Albert Michelson around 1887. This gave rise to the unlikely theory of space and time dilation. Planck then supported a particulate view for energy, Einstein adapted Plank's theory to a particulate view for light-energy. But still wait for light as matter
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
The MM expt did not rule out the existence of a light propagation medium. All the MM expt debunked was Lorentz's particular version. Lorentz's aether was already problematic for other reasons. It was unjustifiably assumed distinct and separate from "other matter" which led to plenty of problems. It was also unjustifiably assumed to be perfection stationary. There is no reason either of these has to be the case. Indeed, they cannot be the case.
altonhare 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
However Einstein himself said "According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence..."
Time dilation is only surprising if you have never considered carefully how time is actually being measured. The period of an orbiting particle (or the most dense part of a wave-packet) at constant speed must increase.
altonhare 1 year ago
@altonhare
i didn't vote this down - somebody clicked my finger muscle. But anyway - yes this is good evidence that Einstein was more solidly in the wave camp-with Lorentz as opposed to the particle camp with Planck. I just found evidence for dust sized neuron writers from a 1909 Jean Perin work - see my web page on neuron reading and writing for more info. Perin uses the word "thought" three times in the same paragraph with dust particles - and then almost nowhere else in an 80 page paper.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
it sounds like a crazy thing, but the the crazy thing is that its true.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
"particle camp with Planck."
to my knowledge Planck saw quantization as a mathematical device, not as physical. If I were to define a "particle camp" via prominent researchers' names I'd probably use Bohr and Born. If I were to do likewise for waves I'd probably use de Broglie and Schrodinger.
altonhare 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
"dust sized neuron writers..."
What is that?
altonhare 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
If each cycle of the system sends us a signal and that's what we use to count off time, we will naturally count fewer signals for a system in motion relative to us.
Length contraction is similarly unsurprising given time dilation. We measure the length of a remote object by measuring the time difference between its two ends. If the object is moving it emits fewer signals and we will measure a shorter length.
altonhare 1 year ago
@altonhare
first came space dilation and contraction - people often neglect to mention the contraction aspect of the FitzGerald theory. The theory that space contracts or dilates just enough to compensate for the motion of a so-called aether seems extremely unlikely to me. Much more simple and logical is the theory that there is no aether. But I must say that in some sense light particles may be similar to an aether in an interpretation of the universe where gravity is actually particle collisn
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
Your response makes me think you didn't read and understand what I said, but maybe you did and you're choosing to comment otherwise.
Physically, we have a system under periodic motion, such as an atom. Assuming the oscillating body moves with constant speed, the period of the system must increase if the system is uniformly translating. If we count periods (oscillations) as clock ticks, we count fewer for a moving system.
altonhare 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
Anyway, the original point was that it is impossible to explain the results of Grimaldi type experiments with particles. Particles diverge. They can only bounce outwards, away from the object. They are incapable of producing a fringe pattern directly behind the intervening barrier.
altonhare 1 year ago
@altonhare
I think the needle "diffraction" experiment can be explained with a particle explanation. Unbelievably Grimaldi's 1600s work has not been translated to English from the Latin which is absurd being the basis of the so-called "diffraction"- you would think that English speaking people might want to know more about the origin of this concept. Clearly, in my mind, light is reflected - again off slits and/or off the curved back of the needle - there is never a needle in isolation.
tedhuntington 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
"needle diffraction experiment can be explained with a particle"
I don't understand how. Could you help illuminate this for me?
I agree with the absurdity that Grimaldi's original work has not been translated. AFAIK it's the earliest work illustrating wave aspects of light.
altonhare 1 year ago
@tedhuntington
At the same time, it is impossible to explain experiments like G.I. Taylor's in 1909 wherein the light source is dimmed down far enough so we can actually watch the buildup of the fringe pattern, with the traditional aether-wave theory. The discrete spots that appear at intervals are inconsistent with spherical "water waves", which would produce a gradual buildup of the entire fringe pattern equally everywhere.
altonhare 1 year ago
the classic experiment that proves this was not done with photons but electrons which also exhibit the wave-particle duality, and it is much easier to send electrons one at a time than photons
arvaris 2 years ago
That's a good point, but I still have doubts about the ability to emit a single electron without others being emitted. Then also, there is the point that the precise direction of the emitted particle may vary widely, and tiny variations in a spherical shape would result in reflections very similar to the so-called "diffraction" or what I call "reflection grating" nodes.
tedhuntington 2 years ago
It seems beyond coincidence that the patterns made by a beam of light going in between two simple parallel plates of glass produce the exact same nodes - but by reflection.
tedhuntington 2 years ago
Thanks, I think we need to reserve some doubt about our interpretations of the universe or else we might get caught enforcing an inaccurate dogma - like the electromagnetic wave theory for light which was originally conceived by Maxwell using an aether medium, and then adopted by Einstein without the ether - but a wave without any medium is tough to imagine- in addition time dilation is most likely false. I find that a double slot is not even required for these patterns to appear-a single is ok.
tedhuntington 2 years ago
You think time dilation is false?
It has been proven numerous times with atomic clocks, and is required for a muon (which would normally never make it to the Earth's surface) to reach Earth's surface.
But I also think skeptics in Science is necessary. Why don't you think it exists?
crybllrd 2 years ago 2
Thanks for your interest crybllrd. Time dilation as a theory developed initially as a theory of matter compressing in the direction of motion relative to an ether by George FitzGerald, and the Henry Lorentz. Einstein mysteriously embraced this theory - and then rejected the theory of an aether as unnecessary - so it puts Einstein's theory of relativity when time dilation is included, as a direct descendent of light as a wave with an ether medium theory which was popular after Thomas Young.
tedhuntington 2 years ago
but to add more - we cannot reject the possibility of a theory that time is everywhere the same in the universe at any given one time. In other words that there may be a time 1 variable "t" for any time, but never a simultaneous time 2 variable. Being based on an ether-based explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment casts a lot of doubt on time dilation. There are other explanations for the apparent slowing of particles in accelerators, etc. in particular particle collision explanations.
tedhuntington 2 years ago