Monday, October 14, 2024

LIGHT - LIGHT INTERACTIONS

 

Light - Light Interactions 

 IN SEARCH OF KNOWLEDGE


Are you capable of changing your mind, of really questioning what you've been taught?

If you think you understand the Double-Slit experiment, or even if you don't..........read on.

In his review of Anil Ananthaswamy's splendid book Through Two Doors at Once, Philip Ball said "According to the eminent physicist Richard Feynman, the quantum double-slit experiment puts us up against the paradoxes and mysteries and peculiarities of nature".

Feynman said of the twin slit experiment that it has in it the heart of quantum mechanics and that in reality, it contains the only mystery.

Philip Ball continued in his review to say “By Feynman's logic, if we could understand what is going on in this deceptively simple experiment, we would penetrate to the heart of quantum theory - and perhaps all its puzzles would dissolve."


In Through Two Doors at Once, Ananthaswamy concludes that "physics has yet to complete its passage through the double-slit experiment. The case remains unsolved."

Another quote of Feynman is “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

Can we dispel the mystery of quantum mechanics by questioning some of his answers?

The belief that light propagates as a wave is taken by Feynman as proven in the double-slit experiment where it is considered that photons of light waves interfere with each other to produce the patterns seen.

However.........

Photons, the fundamental particles of light, do not interact with each other in everyday life.”

http://www.weizmann.ac.il/complex/Firstenberg/quantum-nonlinear-optics-strongly-interacting-photons

And..........

Normally, beams of light pass through each other unperturbed.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

And.........

...instead of bouncing off of each other, these beams of light travel in straight lines, ignoring each other entirely.”

https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~aephraim/PhotonGate/PhotonGate.html

Physics is fully aware that photons of light or any other energy level [or ‘frequency’] DO NOT interfere with each other, therefore it should be known that such an interaction cannot be responsible for the patterns observed in the double-slit experiment.

Is it that physicists just haven't noticed this flaw in a critical fundamental upon which so much else is based, or is a blind eye turned to it as there seems to be no viable explanation utilizing the alternative of light propagating somehow as a particulate thing?

If we set aside the discussion of 'interference patterns' formed by photons for now and consider the identical results obtained when electrons are used in the twin slit experiment we are able to discern a clear causal process.

[That is provided we are able to see past the confirmation bias displayed in the convenient view that electrons also propagate as a wave rather than as a particle!]

As we know, matter is comprised of atoms in association with each other. This is of course true for the material in which the two slits are formed for the twin slit experiment.

Under normal environmental conditions the atoms of any material thing, including those of the twin slit material, are in constant thermal motion.

In general terms, atoms present a negative charge to their surroundings owing to their electron field.

This charge appears as either a simple or complex spherical field and this field is on a very large scale in comparison with an electron passing in its vicinity.

A negatively charged electron approaching the electron field of an atom will be repelled by the [mobile] negative charge exhibited by that atom.

The direction taken by an electron repelled by the negative field of any atom it encounters is primarily determined by the angle at which the curvature of the atomic field is encountered and the instantaneous motion of the atom at that time.

Consideration of the twin slit material and its behavior at the atomic scale provides a clear picture showing that simultaneous or successive electrons passing through the twin slits will be deflected and scattered across a broad range by the atoms they encounter.

Picture small balls bouncing off very large balls that are constantly moving and jostling each other.

These deflections cause the electrons to encounter the twin slit screen in many places, producing patterns determined largely by the characteristics of the slit material [and the energy (frequency) of the light].

It should be clear that the pattern formed by electrons emitted one at a time to pass through the slits will accumulate the same type of image on a storage screen as that produced immediately by a flood of electrons.

It can be seen that a very similar but not identical pattern emerges with the use of one slit only. The basic mechanism for why this is so should now be apparent to you.

As the twin slit experiment produces identical results for electrons and photons it appears reasonable to conclude that the same or a similar mechanism may be involved in both instances.


"If we want a scientific theory, we also have to require that it describes what we observe. It's science, not maths. This means that the requirement that the assumptions describe what we observe is *necessary to select the theory. And so, one of the reasons for why a scientific theory is correct will always be "Because it describes what we observe"." Sabine Hossenfelder


ANALYSIS METHOD FOR NATURE OF LIGHT

In the world of electronic engineering the process for investigating the cause of the failure of a complex piece of equipment or system is similar to that employed in reverse engineering.

Reverse engineering is a process by which deductive reasoning is utilized in an attempt to understand the mechanisms by which a device, process, system or software meets its observed performance.

The same process is used to determine what caused a faulty piece of equipment to exhibit its observed failure symptoms.

Logically applied deduction follows a path of successive analysis of immediately prior causes to arrive at conclusions regarding the origins of present observations.

Based upon prior training and experience in addition to logical reasoning, an investigator will consider a range of ‘what if?’ questions while conducting their analysis.

The ability to imagine and analyze what may at first consideration appear to be unlikely or even ridiculous ‘what if?’ questions separates the most successful systems analysts from the majority and can produce valuable results where a more conventional approach may fail to do so.


The Nature of Light.

I came away from a series of lectures by professor Richard Feynman with a feeling of uneasy dissatisfaction and a reluctance to accept the inherent limitation on human knowledge that was implied and seemingly considered reasonable by physicists.

Although fully aware of my own intellectual limitations in comparison with those at the forefront of science I was also aware that many physicists themselves admit [quietly in most instances] that there must be a shortcoming somewhere in the fundamental theory.

Presently accepted concepts fail to account for all known aspects of reality.

Despite my lack of formal education in advanced physics I had the perhaps delusional thought that my considerable and successful experience in the analysis of many diverse complex systems in military and civilian electronic engineering....

as well as in other fields of investigation may have provided me with an advantage not afforded to many qualified scientists when it comes to ascertaining the characteristics light would need to possess to cause it to behave as observed and to do so in all regards.

Applying the concepts of reverse engineering to the well documented behavior of light I asked myself a range of ‘what if?’ questions in an attempt to discover its true nature.

Considering it almost certainly an exercise in futility but determined to either confirm the generally accepted characteristics of light, find answers to satisfy myself or to ultimately conclude that the subject matter is beyond the scope of my capabilities...

I was surprised to conceive a ‘particulate’ photon model that appeared to meet the necessary criteria.

While my model for the nature and behavior of light [photons] may in fact be a pure fantasy, it seemed to work at a fundamental level. But did it explain any physical phenomena?

If you wish to understand how the equivalence of photons and electrons in this experiment could be true I suggest you closely analyze the presentation at https://www.hereticalphysics.com by going to 

The Wayback Machine at:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220818170117/http://hereticalphysics.com/#Bookmark_2

as the direct hereticalphysics site is no longer in use.

A capable and unspoiled mind should appreciate and gain from the experience, and any comments to hereticalphysics@gmail.com should confine themselves to analyzing and questioning the ideas explored rather than contrasting them with current beliefs.

Sabine Hossenfelder said in her excellent book Lost in Math “With hindsight one often wonders why a particular conclusion was not drawn earlier, even though the pieces were all there already.”


What do YOU think? Can we dispel some mysteries?

                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                           Eric Weinstein

 

A modification to the foundations of physics is indeed possible without having the whole thing collapse around us.


When we shoot two waves of light through a double slit, they form a pattern based on the way their peaks and troughs match up or clash. When we shoot a single photon through, we'd expect it to just go through unchanged. But it won't. When you shoot enough single photons through—one at a time, alternating slits—they form the same interference pattern as the waves of light. Basically, that means that all the possible paths of these particles can interfere with each other, even though only one of the possible paths actually happens.” From POPULAR MECHANICS - The Double-Slit Experiment That Blew Open Quantum Mechanics

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a22094/video-explainer-double-slit-experiment/

This is a mysterious explanation that is seen to be unnecessary and indeed a nonsense in light of the Ignis hypothesis.                                                                                                                                            

Einstein favored explanations capable of visualization. I think he would have agreed with my approach, if perhaps not with my conclusions.                                                                                                              

Appropriate computer graphics in key areas would avoid the need for visualization of course and would make the ideas quite clear but creating such things is not within my skill-set.                                                                                                                                                          

Einstein is reported to have said that unless you can explain an idea to your grandmother you do not really understand it yourself. I believe that any intelligent and scientifically minded person in their mid-teens would be capable of following the argument I present if they have the patience for it.                                                                                                                                                                                            

I have a direct challenge to the claim by Professor Richard Feynman and many others that the observed outcome of the twin slit experiment is evidence for the wave theory of light.                                                                                                                                                        

My challenge is in accordance with the requirements of the Hard Core Science Group's owner as it is rooted in a comprehensible scientific argument.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              In addition to pointing out errors in the wave explanation I provide argument in support of the particle theory alternative for the propagation of light that takes into account the nature of matter at the atomic scale.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Those interested in advancing our understanding of scientific concepts are asked to apply logical analysis to what I have to say and to explain any errors they may find in my work.                                                                                                                                           

I fully understand the enormity of my claim and while realizing your first instinct [as well as perhaps your second] will be to ridicule what I have to say let me assure you that it actually has the potential to rekindle your excitement about physics.

One-at-a-time electrons [or photons].

A little thought about the foregoing allows us to easily explain why 'interference patterns' produced by electrons [or photons] passing one at a time through the slits are not mysterious in any way.

Each individual electron or photon interacts with the mobile, curved negative charges of the atoms it encounters in the walls of the slits through which it passes.

This interaction causes the deflection of the paths of these individual entities as previously discussed.

Deflection of successive particles is thus able to gradually produce the results found on a screen able to store the accumulated pattern.

No superposition of electrons or photons is necessary for this result to occur.

It is not necessary for particles to travel back in time to interfere with themselves for the observed outcome to come about.

Food for thought?

Please see the following link to explore this idea further.

https://photon-interactions.blogspot.com/2019/08/what-is-light-insearch-of-knowledge.html

No comments:

Post a Comment