Photon wave forms

[Jan Panteltje]

I think after my jive here in s.e.d about mixers preserving waveforms,
and my repeated arguments in sci.physics that a 'photon'
is just a small disturbance[1], a wave packet with a specific start and decay,
so has sidebands, this article is a very refreshing read:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/10/photon-shape-could-be-used-to-encode-quantum-information

On the horizon I finally see an end to quantum bullshit, and some sanity arriving.
'Oh it has a spectrum after all'.
And the particles dropped to the floor, disappearing...
And waves ruled the universe.

<press here to close this window>
[1]of ether made of ?

Oh well.

[Robert Baer]

But the controversy of wave VS particle would seem to continue..

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:25:09 -0700) it happened Robert Baer
<rober...@localnet.com> wrote in
<0eadnQPv7ZAX063N...@posted.localnet>:

That is why I wrote it that way, in the end the question always is 'what waves'.
But from the quantum club perspective, where it is usually parroted that a photon can be
in an infinite number of superimposed states,
if you look at it as a waveform, and remember this is all happening in 3D space,
like a stone shaking in the water sends pressure waves in EVERY direction,
then you can look at the photon as a quadrature modulated wave for at least some
of the observers, and thus QAM modulation, and thus it obeys Shannon's limit where
signal to noise limits the information content (or number of superimposed states
to stay with that club), and we are back to normal life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon\u2013Hartley_theorem
That what constitutes the 'ether', that what moves, particles, whatever, is so much finer
in structure that it seems we have not been able to detect it yet.
Indeed wave properties can be assigned to matter (De Broglie)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
,not completely illogical,
as most is empty space, and that space filled up by that same 'ether' or whatever you want to call it.
Moving 2 grids over each other also gives a interference (moire) patterns.

Look it is Sunday morning, I have to reply to a zillion Usenet posts with very different subjects,
so this may have been kept a bit short.

[G=EMC^2]

On Aug 19, 3:27 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:25:09 -0700) it happened Robert Baer

> <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote in
> <0eadnQPv7ZAX063NnZ2dnUVZ_j6dn...@posted.localnet>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >> I think after my jive here in s.e.d about mixers preserving waveforms,
> >> and my repeated arguments in sci.physics that a 'photon'
> >> is just a small disturbance[1], a wave packet with a specific start and decay,
> >> so has sidebands, this article is a very refreshing read:

> >>  http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/10/photon-shape-cou...

What is waving????? Hard to come up with an answer. We know motion
through a medium creates waves. That takes in the motion of spinning.
My "Spin is in theory" covers this. It shows how electrons create a
waving field. Reality is our thinking of a rock drpped into a pond can
relate to quantum waves fits. It does not. TreBert

[Robert Baer]

I _DO_ like your description and approach.
Ages ago, i heard of an experiment (do not know if it was actually
done and recorded AND repeated) where a beam of light goes thru two
holes in a card, producing an interference pattern (which "proves" wave
description) on a surface.
BUT that same surface is photosensitive and its reaction is uniform
and quantized, "proving" the particle description.
Possible other terms to use: Waveacle? Absent minded? Pesky?

[Robert Baer]

Yes, i know; the rock drops to the bottom and gets muddy.
The electron drops to a lower energy state and does NOT get muddy.

[G=EMC^2]

Photons go in pairs with a wave between them. When they move further
apart the wave is weaker.Very far apart they are radio. Very close
they are gamma. Short waves vibrate fast Long waves vibrate slow.
When in gamma state photons can kick free electrons around. In radio
state no matter how intense the source its impossible. Get the
picture TreBert

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Aug 20, 11:38 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
> > On a sunny day (Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:25:09 -0700) it happened Robert Baer

> > <robertb...@localnet.com>  wrote in
> > <0eadnQPv7ZAX063NnZ2dnUVZ_j6dn...@posted.localnet>:

>
> >> Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >>> I think after my jive here in s.e.d about mixers preserving waveforms,
> >>> and my repeated arguments in sci.physics that a 'photon'
> >>> is just a small disturbance[1], a wave packet with a specific start and decay,
> >>> so has sidebands, this article is a very refreshing read:

> >>>    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/aug/10/photon-shape-cou...

It could also be argued that a single photon is a zero-rise-and-fall-
time frequency-domain pulse, and we know what the spectrum of such a
pulse looks like, don't we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Thought up by Thomas Young to resolve the wave-particle debate ca.
1800. Replicated over and over and over...

>    BUT that same surface is photosensitive and its reaction is uniform
> and quantized, "proving" the particle description.

Nope, not in 1800. Fringes observed by naked eye.

Got a laser pointer?

>    Possible other terms to use: Waveacle? Absent minded? Pesky?

I think the "debate" is more about how we insist on viewing reality
than about what reality actually does.

Notice the double-slit experiment has been done with "actual"
particles from electrons to entire C-60 molecules, demonstrating the
wave nature of "solid matter".


Mark L. Fergerson

[Phil Hobbs]

Yup. The math says what it says, and at ordinary energies it preducts
the experimental results with really astonishing accuracy. (I'd point
out that the astonishing comprehensibility of nature in situations very
far from common observation or any sort of evolutionary bias is an
excellent argument for our being made in God's image. (Kepler said that
the most wonderful thing about his work on planetary orbits was
"thinking God's thoughts after Him.") However, that would just make
trouble, so I won't.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[Robert Baer]

So there you are; "proof" of particle nature of photons
(err..electrons) and interference giving "proof" of wave nature.
Give each proof a sword and let them DUEL it out..

Maxwell and Heisenberg are not allowed to watch.

[bjacoby]

On 8/20/2012 5:25 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:

> Photons go in pairs with a wave between them. When they move further
> apart the wave is weaker.Very far apart they are radio. Very close
> they are gamma. Short waves vibrate fast Long waves vibrate slow.
> When in gamma state photons can kick free electrons around. In radio
> state no matter how intense the source its impossible. Get the
> picture TreBert

Photons go in PAIRS with waves between them? WOW! That is PURE GENIUS!

I'm going to have to tell mpc755 that someone ELSE can now finally
explain the two slit diffraction problem! Each photon of the PAIR goes
each through it's OWN slit!


Of course now there is the problem of the 3 slit diffraction... Oh well,
nobody looks at that anyway! Get the picture?

[Robert Baer]

Right-handed and left-handed so they know in advance which way to go.

[G=EMC^2]

You can relate two photons as seen as one like looking at binary
stars at a great distance. Get the picture yet? TreBert

[G=EMC^2]

Think a wave like a worm cut it in half and its still
wiggling(waving) Drop a rock in a pond and how many waves does it
create? original wave does not move to shore. Why are the waves always
round even if you dropped a square block in? Are the waves in reality
moving? If water could be compressed what then? When wave touches the
pond bottom then what takes place? What effect does surface tension
have on these waves? Why is it a cork does not follow these waaves to
shore,but stays put and only goes up and down? What did this rock
hitting the water actual do? How does oil on water keep waves down?
When water gets very cold and before freezing why does is shrink? What
gives water the ability to climb uphill?How is it water can absorb so
much heat and yet its own temperature does not go up that much?
Reality is if ice did not float there would be no high life forms on
Earth. ThebERT

[josephkk]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:56:24 -0700, Robert Baer <rober...@localnet.com>
wrote:

>nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 11:38 am, Robert Baer<robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>> Jan Panteltje wrote:

<snip>

>>> I _DO_ like your description and approach.
>>> Ages ago, i heard of an experiment (do not know if it was actually
>>> done and recorded AND repeated) where a beam of light goes thru two
>>> holes in a card, producing an interference pattern (which "proves" wave
>>> description) on a surface.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
>>
>> Thought up by Thomas Young to resolve the wave-particle debate ca.
>> 1800. Replicated over and over and over...
>>
>>> BUT that same surface is photosensitive and its reaction is uniform
>>> and quantized, "proving" the particle description.
>>
>> Nope, not in 1800. Fringes observed by naked eye.
>>
>> Got a laser pointer?
>>
>>> Possible other terms to use: Waveacle? Absent minded? Pesky?
>>
>> I think the "debate" is more about how we insist on viewing reality
>> than about what reality actually does.
>>
>> Notice the double-slit experiment has been done with "actual"
>> particles from electrons to entire C-60 molecules, demonstrating the
>> wave nature of "solid matter".
>>
>>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
> So there you are; "proof" of particle nature of photons
>(err..electrons) and interference giving "proof" of wave nature.
> Give each proof a sword and let them DUEL it out..
>
> Maxwell and Heisenberg are not allowed to watch.

Wouldn't that be Schrodinger instead of Maxwell?

?-)