The speed of light visualized.

[starbiter]

http://futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/_news ... ough-space

Nothing like being able to visualize.

michael

[nick c]

From the article, there is a link to a more 'in depth' description of the experiment:
http://web.media.mit.edu/~raskar/trillionfps/

[tholden]

pretty amazing....

[tholden]

http://futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/_news ... ough-space

Nothing like being able to visualize.

michael

Mike,

I don't see anything in the video which would support a claim of a light "particle" being what light amounts to.

But what I do see casts a lot of doubt on a literal interpretation of Ralph Sansbury's claim of light as a pure and instantaneous force. The video would seem to support my own interpretation of Sansbury (the rifle-fire analogy of light) and what I call the redneck theory of light. The video seems to be showing a wave and it does appear to be the sort of a bow wave which the redneck theory would predict.

[starbiter]

Hello Ted: I'm ignoring the word photon in the video and article.

The light does seem to travel and collide. It may be some sort of trick. I wish there wasn't a moving mirror involved, but it seems to show the speed of a laser beam.

Thought provoking.

michael

[Influx]

Hello everyone, first of, it is impossibly to see photos, or light. Light is on information carrier, we do not see light, but we see information, that our brain makes sense of.

Second, to image a photon, you would need an information carrier, that has to be much smaller and faster than photons. Perhaps, in the future they will have tachyon cameras. That should do the trick.

So what we are actually seeings is the photons interaction with matter. Since the medium through which the bunch of photons is being transmitted is lossy, you see the photons that have scattered and struck the cameras sensor array. If it had been a perfect vacuum, the camera would have seen nothing.

So, in-short, We are not seeing anything amazing here, just the slow scattering of photons as they interact with matter.

It is because of the scattering that we are able to see the "pulse" at all. Some of the photons are scattered by their interaction with matter and get deflected into your eye, or camera, and hence you see the "pulse" traveling down the side of the bottle.

In a perfect vacuum, a perfectly collimated , loss-less, laser beam, EVEN IN THE GIGAWATT RANGE, would be undetectable to you, your eyes or your skin.

Just like a fiber optic cable, even when transmitting megabits of data, dues not light up like the Christmas tree. Because not a single photon escapes the total internal reflection.

This is why this is nothing but a gimmick, you can not image photons with photons. So it might be a cool demonstration of camera technology, which might find practical application in other fields. But this experiment, as a means to elucidate the nature of light, is a total fail.

My two cents worth.

[mjv1121]

influx,

You're near enough right. You cannot "image" light/photons. The only photons the camera can "see" are the ones that go into the camera lens/CCD. Animals (including the human ones) only "see" what enters their eyes, which is then converted to a signal which your brain uses to generate an image that is used by your "consciousness". There is NO LIGHT except the light in the image generated by your brain. The photons are simply minuscule particles emitted by electrons (this is true enough even if you insist on a wave form of some kind). The camera does not confirm any true nature of light it simply confirms the image generated internally by our brain.

Because not a single photon escapes the total internal reflection.

Be careful not to think all anthropomorphic. How could a single photon "see" a reflective surface? Answer: it cannot - we "see" a mirror as a hard shiny impenetrable surface, but photons operate on an entirely different scale - all they can "see" is electrons and a nucleus. Either we are to believe that photons bounce off nucleons or we must realise that actually they are absorbed by electrons and the electron the emits and entirely new photon. The photon "re-emitted" is dependent on the environment/circumstances of the electron that emits it, that is to say, different atomic/molecular structures emit different photons.

This is why this is nothing but a gimmick, you can not image photons with photons. So it might be a cool demonstration of camera technology, which might find practical application in other fields. But this experiment, as a means to elucidate the nature of light, is a total fail.

I am in complete agreement.

Michael

[Goldminer]

influx,
You're near enough right. You cannot "image" light/photons. The only photons the camera can "see" are the ones that go into the camera lens/CCD. Animals (including the human ones) only "see" what enters their eyes, which is then converted to a signal which your brain uses to generate an image that is used by your "consciousness". There is NO LIGHT except the light in the image generated by your brain. The photons are simply minuscule particles emitted by electrons (this is true enough even if you insist on a wave form of some kind). The camera does not confirm any true nature of light it simply confirms the image generated internally by our brain.

photon dies screaming Your eyes absorb a web of holographic wave fronts from everywhere in the panorama before you. A miniature inverted picture forms on the retina in each eye. So there is a picture formed within your eyes, just the same as a camera. The cones and rods within the retina contain atoms and molecules that absorb various wavelengths of light. Bill Beaty points out in the article link above that the wavelengths are way too long to be directly absorbed by an atom or molecule, let alone an electron. When the atom emits or absorbs the energy of the incident light, electrons within the atom move to lower or higher orbits.

Of course, once the signals leave the retina they are impossible to distinguish, just as trying to understand the signals on a usb line. There is plenty to understand, and it seems to me that your gloss on the subject is near pointless. For example: this statement: "The camera does not confirm any true nature of light it simply confirms the image generated internally by our brain" IMHO is about as meaningless as some of the statements in the original article.

Because not a single photon escapes the total internal reflection.

Be careful not to think all anthropomorphic. How could a single photon "see" a reflective surface? Answer: it cannot - we "see" a mirror as a hard shiny impenetrable surface, but photons operate on an entirely different scale - all they can "see" is electrons and a nucleus. Either we are to believe that photons bounce off nucleons or we must realise that actually they are absorbed by electrons and the electron re-emits an entirely new photon. The photon "re-emitted" is dependent on the environment/circumstances of the electron that emits it, that is to say, different atomic/molecular structures emit different photons.

It's the atoms that absorb the energy from the received waves, which cause the electrons within the atoms to change orbits. Yes, "seeing" is a higher level abstraction, that cameras and the like perform too.

This is why this is nothing but a gimmick, you can not image photons with photons. So it might be a cool demonstration of camera technology, which might find practical application in other fields. But this experiment, as a means to elucidate the nature of light, is a total fail.

I am in complete agreement.
Michael

It's true photons cannot be imaged, IMHO because they are an artifact of the interaction of vibrations in the aether with atoms and such in matter.

[mjv1121]

Goldminer,

Admittedly I am quick to poo poo the LaFreniere vision of physical reality, and I am an advocate of a simple particle nature of physical reality, I do have some sympathy for the idea of the possibility of light as some kind of aethereal wave form. Although I try to be guided primarily by Occam's Razor (Keep It Simple Stupid) it is entirely plausible that fundamental reality is ridiculously complicated - life being a good example of nature's ability to arrive at complex diversity.

The camera does not confirm any true nature of light it simply confirms the image generated internally by our brain"

My point being that unless a camera's image matches our own internal image it would not be said to be working properly - it is designed by humans to replicate our own internal images.

Your eyes absorb a web of holographic wave fronts from everywhere in the panorama before you.

It these holographic wave fronts exist then the level of interference would be astronomical - the level of overlap and distortion of the signal received by eyes/brain would be colossal. Even a the complexity particle stream that I advocate for is almost beyond our capacity to contemplate, but a flow of 3D wave fronts is orders of magnitude more complex. As I said above, added complexity is not necessarily grounds for rejection...but.

I haven't read through your link yet, but right from the start there is the pre-requisite assumption (handed down from from the mathematical abstractions of Maxwell) that light is an EM wave. That light has no EM properties (other than velocity and electron emission) is completely disregarded. Also, are you able to explain to me how the "wavelength" of light is measured? A satisfactory answer might well change my opinions on more than just light/photons.

I must say that your post has been quite stimulating - please do reply.

Michael

PS I still think influx had right with regards to the thread subject.

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

Admittedly I am quick to poo poo the LaFreniere vision of physical reality, and I am an advocate of a simple particle nature of physical reality, I do have some sympathy for the idea of the possibility of light as some kind of aethereal wave form. Although I try to be guided primarily by Occam's Razor (Keep It Simple Stupid) it is entirely plausible that fundamental reality is ridiculously complicated - life being a good example of nature's ability to arrive at complex diversity.

The camera does not confirm any true nature of light it simply confirms the image generated internally by our brain"

My point being that unless a camera's image matches our own internal image it would not be said to be working properly - it is designed by humans to replicate our own internal images.

Your eyes absorb a web of holographic wave fronts from everywhere in the panorama before you.

It these holographic wave fronts exist then the level of interference would be astronomical - the level of overlap and distortion of the signal received by eyes/brain would be colossal. Even a the complexity particle stream that I advocate for is almost beyond our capacity to contemplate, but a flow of 3D wave fronts is orders of magnitude more complex. As I said above, added complexity is not necessarily grounds for rejection

Yes, super-complex, reflected and transmitted light entering your eyes from every angle accepted by your eyes. IMHO, it is the 720 degrees of freedom possessed by the aether that allows for this complexity. Even the curvature of each wave-front is assessed by the eye/brain system. The holograms everyone discusses are produced by coherent laser light, which does interfere with itself. That's how the interference pattern is produced there.

Incoherent, diffused light to which we are accustom, does not normally interfere with itself. The wave fronts with which our eyes deal every instant are mind boggling and yet our eyes and brain deal with it. 2D cameras don't decode the curvature very well, but the active system in our eyes and brain do.

But . . .
I haven't read through your link yet, but right from the start there is the pre-requisite assumption (handed down from from the mathematical abstractions of Maxwell) that light is an EM wave. That light has no EM properties (other than velocity and electron emission) is completely disregarded.

Bill Beaty's diagrams of the atom absorbing energy are not depicting EM waves. He shows an interpretation of Poynting vectors. IMHO, these travel through space as longitude waves or ripples in the aether. I 've read where polarization is not a problem with longitude waves of this type since we are not dealing with just a super thin thread vector. Only when the longitude waves are transmitted or received do the E and B fields appear. The induced EM "waves" are transverse. Incidentally, the "EM field" is different in the far field than the near field.

The wave train does not "wave" as it moves. Just as the "vibrations" on a record do not "vibrate" until the record moves under the fixed in position needle on the record player. (I mean: If you were traveling with the "wave" you would not see it vibrating.) Detectors detect motion (vibration) as the fixed wave train moves into the receiver. (Detectors are 2D.) IMHO, it is the motion of the entire "fixed" longitude wave train past the atoms that vibrates the atoms.

Basically all that is known about the aether has been produced by what is essentially antenna technology. This of course involves the interaction of matter with the Poynting vector waves.

Also, are you able to explain to me how the "wavelength" of light is measured? A satisfactory answer might well change my opinions on more than just light/photons.

I think you can do the research yourself. Try a search on "measuring the wave length of light" for starters!

I must say that your post has been quite stimulating - please do reply.

Michael

PS I still think influx had the right idea with regards to the thread subject.

Well, congratulations, that is a better response than "This we know for certain!"
I'm a grumpy AH too, but I try, or at least make a pretense to be humble, in spite of the fact.

.

[Bonaventure]

Hello again,

After asking for a better way to visualize electrons around a nucleus (and receiving one - thank you alxm), I am now left wondering about photons. How should I go about visualizing them? I have heard that they have a wavefunction, just like electrons do, but I would like to know more about the nature of that wavefunction.


What does the wavefunction describe?

What does the frequency describe?

Does the wave fill a given area, or is it confined?

Is there a good picture/diagram of how I should picture a photon?

[Goldminer]

Hello again,

After asking for a better way to visualize electrons around a nucleus (and receiving one - thank you alxm), I am now left wondering about photons. How should I go about visualizing them? I have heard that they have a wavefunction, just like electrons do, but I would like to know more about the nature of that wavefunction.


What does the wavefunction describe?

What does the frequency describe?

Does the wave fill a given area, or is it confined?

Is there a good picture/diagram of how I should picture a photon?

Perhaps Forrest Bishop can add to this discussion with the TEM wave.

Frequency is the inverse of wave length. A pulse of light travels away from the source at c, the speed of light, in a given medium. In a vacuum, the speed of this pulse, or the latency between its transmission and reception is about a foot per nanosecond. In other words, a light nanosecond is about a foot.

The wave lengths of Kilo Hertz frequencies are several miles long. (Which leads to the question: do "photons" exist that are several miles in diameter?)

Visible light has wavelength in a range from about 380 nanometres to about 740 nm, with a frequency range of about 405 terahertz to 790 THz. (Atoms vary in diameter from 100 picometers to 1000 picometers. I leave it to you to find the relation of picometers to nanometers.)

Gamma rays have exahertz frequencies (or 1019 Hz), and therefore wavelengths less than 10 picometers, less than the diameter of an atom.

Microwaves (mega hertz) have the wavelength capability to shake whole molecules and cause heating of agglomerations of them, known as infrared heating.

Visible light shakes atoms at a high enough rate to elevate electrons to higher energy levels.

Gamma rays just blow the hell outta stuff.

Uncollimated light radiates in a spherical or hemispherical pattern. Laser light is monochromatic and usually collimated, so that it does not diverge as much as most of the light that we see. At any rate, what we see is not the sphere, but a tiny potion of it, the diameter of our aperture in each eye, a ray or beam of the expanding sphere.

Contrary to intuition, the closer to the source one detects the sphere, the smaller the sphere from which the ray is detected, and yet the bigger the object appears to the observer!

A corollary to this subject is the fact that in a given instant, we observe simultaneously; events from the near present time and events in the distant past, at the same time! This leads some to claim that light is instantaneous. In fact this is the basis for all the confusion about relativity. (see the thread about "Silly Einstein.")

.

[Chromium6]

The Photon Dies Screaming link by Goldminer reminded me of Ray Tomes.


http://amasci.com/freenrg/sukdynam.html

In this way an atom behaves as an "electromagnetic funnel." It actively "sucks" EM field-energy from its surroundings. This cannot happen without the sharp resonance, the locally stored EM energy, and the resulting dipole field surrounding the atom.

Weird, eh? Have you every heard anything like this before?

This phenomenon is well know to antenna designers. In fact, it is the basis of operation of all portable AM radios. The wavelength of AM radio signals is immensely larger than the size of a pocket radio. How can these devices intercept significant energy? A 1/4-wave dipole should be needed, yet at 1.5MHz, a 1/4-wave dipole is about 150 feet long! AM radios rely upon the oscillating fields surrounding a coil/capacitor circuit which is sharply tuned to resonate with the incoming EM waves. The ferrite-core coil in a portable AM radio has a capacitor across it. It is an "electromagnetic funnel" of the same type as I describe above regarding atoms. This kind of tuned-circuit coil/capacitor antenna has been understood at least since the time of Nikola Tesla. He used them as part of his "worldwide wireless power " scheme.

-----

The DRIP Model of Light
by Ray Tomes

The DRIP model of light

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:48:42 GMT

An analogy to photon behaviour which removes the mystery from QM.

Imagine a tap dripping into a full bucket of water so that waves form and cause drips to fall over the side. Here are some of the salient points about the wave and particle behaviour of the system. [Comparison to QM noted]

Infalling drips [emitted photons] cause waves to travel [wavefunction or e/m field] and result in outfalling drips [absorbed photons] which are discrete events that are causally related ["collapse" of wavefunction] to the emissions.

This model is only 2D compared to a real 3D world and the vertical dimension has no significance (except that it affects the energy of the emitted wave).

1. Over any long period of time the number of drips falling in and out are the same because the bucket remains equally full. [Conservation of energy]

2. Each drip that falls out is due to sufficient energy arriving at one time at one point on the edge. Part of this energy is from an infalling drip that made a wave travel between the two events. [At the speed of light]

3. In addition to the direct wave arriving at an outfalling drip there is a background of ripples left over from previous waves that bounced off the edges. This energy will have some characteristic distribution by frequency. [Zero Point Energy]

4. If inward drips are stopped the background energy very soon reaches a level which is not quite sufficient to cause additional drips out. [Zero Point Field]

5. Any one infalling drip [emitted photon] may result in 0, 1, 2 or more outfalling drips [absorbed photons] but must average exactly 1 and as each drip falling out is an independent event [there is no "collapse" of the wavefunction] the number of outfalling drips related to 1 infalling drip is a poisson distribution of mean 1.

6. Each drip that falls out has taken energy from waves locally but does not affect other locations except by the propagation of this energy removal which happens at the wave propagation speed. [No non local effects]

7. Any location at which a drip falls out must have had sufficient energy arriving by convergence at exactly that place and time. [Back action]

8. Although each outfalling drip can normally be traced to a particular infalling drip as a cause, only a small part of the energy actually comes from that other drip which really acts a the final straw in adding to the background energy which was just below the outfalling drip threshold.

9. Therefore most of the energy and momentum of the outfalling drip did not come from the infalling drip but will be related by the fact of nearly common frequency. [Uncertainty principle]

10. An exception to this will apply when the source and observation are sufficiently close in relation to the wavelength of the particular wave. In that case the uncertainty will be reduced. [Casimer effect???]

11. There is no sense in which the outfalling drip *IS* the "same" drip that fell in even though there may be a causal connection between them. Each outfalling is also related to many other infalling drips waves which have been multiply reflected. [No "photon" identity]

12. Although all drips in and out are of discrete amounts of energy [particle behaviour] there is no such thing as a travelling drip [photon in flight], only the wave nature of the surface [wave behaviour] which is continuous in its behaviour. [Maxwell's equations]

-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --

The Wave Structure of Matter
Ray Tomes
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycl ... WSM_RT.pdf

[Goldminer]

The Photon Dies Screaming link by Goldminer reminded me of Ray Tomes.


http://amasci.com/freenrg/sukdynam.html

In this way an atom behaves as an "electromagnetic funnel." It actively "sucks" EM field-energy from its surroundings. This cannot happen without the sharp resonance, the locally stored EM energy, and the resulting dipole field surrounding the atom.

Weird, eh? Have you every heard anything like this before?

This phenomenon is well know to antenna designers. In fact, it is the basis of operation of all portable AM radios. The wavelength of AM radio signals is immensely larger than the size of a pocket radio. How can these devices intercept significant energy? A 1/4-wave dipole should be needed, yet at 1.5MHz, a 1/4-wave dipole is about 150 feet long! AM radios rely upon the oscillating fields surrounding a coil/capacitor circuit which is sharply tuned to resonate with the incoming EM waves. The ferrite-core coil in a portable AM radio has a capacitor across it. It is an "electromagnetic funnel" of the same type as I describe above regarding atoms. This kind of tuned-circuit coil/capacitor antenna has been understood at least since the time of Nikola Tesla. He used them as part of his "worldwide wireless power " scheme.

-----

The DRIP Model of Light
by Ray Tomes

The DRIP model of light

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:48:42 GMT

An analogy to photon behaviour which removes the mystery from QM.

Imagine a tap dripping into a full bucket of water so that waves form and cause drips to fall over the side. Here are some of the salient points about the wave and particle behaviour of the system. [Comparison to QM noted]

Infalling drips [emitted photons] cause waves to travel [wavefunction or e/m field] and result in outfalling drips [absorbed photons] which are discrete events that are causally related ["collapse" of wavefunction] to the emissions.

This model is only 2D compared to a real 3D world and the vertical dimension has no significance (except that it affects the energy of the emitted wave).

1. Over any long period of time the number of drips falling in and out are the same because the bucket remains equally full. [Conservation of energy]

2. Each drip that falls out is due to sufficient energy arriving at one time at one point on the edge. Part of this energy is from an infalling drip that made a wave travel between the two events. [At the speed of light]

3. In addition to the direct wave arriving at an outfalling drip there is a background of ripples left over from previous waves that bounced off the edges. This energy will have some characteristic distribution by frequency. [Zero Point Energy]

4. If inward drips are stopped the background energy very soon reaches a level which is not quite sufficient to cause additional drips out. [Zero Point Field]

5. Any one infalling drip [emitted photon] may result in 0, 1, 2 or more outfalling drips [absorbed photons] but must average exactly 1 and as each drip falling out is an independent event [there is no "collapse" of the wavefunction] the number of outfalling drips related to 1 infalling drip is a poisson distribution of mean 1.

6. Each drip that falls out has taken energy from waves locally but does not affect other locations except by the propagation of this energy removal which happens at the wave propagation speed. [No non local effects]

7. Any location at which a drip falls out must have had sufficient energy arriving by convergence at exactly that place and time. [Back action]

8. Although each outfalling drip can normally be traced to a particular infalling drip as a cause, only a small part of the energy actually comes from that other drip which really acts a the final straw in adding to the background energy which was just below the outfalling drip threshold.

9. Therefore most of the energy and momentum of the outfalling drip did not come from the infalling drip but will be related by the fact of nearly common frequency. [Uncertainty principle]

10. An exception to this will apply when the source and observation are sufficiently close in relation to the wavelength of the particular wave. In that case the uncertainty will be reduced. [Casimer effect???]

11. There is no sense in which the outfalling drip *IS* the "same" drip that fell in even though there may be a causal connection between them. Each outfalling is also related to many other infalling drips waves which have been multiply reflected. [No "photon" identity]

12. Although all drips in and out are of discrete amounts of energy [particle behaviour] there is no such thing as a travelling drip [photon in flight], only the wave nature of the surface [wave behaviour] which is continuous in its behaviour. [Maxwell's equations]

-- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --

The Wave Structure of Matter
Ray Tomes
http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycl ... WSM_RT.pdf

Ray Tomes is a treasure to be cherished. The harmonics of existence is the time factor of physics.

What Ray is describing here is the loading theory that Eric Reider describes in his research leading up to his experiments Here

"Particle Only"/"Mechanical" coreligionists here on the TBolt Forum, cannot allow any forum post dealing with the wave nature of existence to stand without comment. Somehow everyone must use their viewpoint to evaluate reality notwithstanding their own shortsighted theories!