Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

explorer
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:49 pm UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby explorer » Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:09 pm UTC

"It's *impossible*, absolutely, completely, 'don't even think about it' impossible, to detect photons at a distance. The only photons we can ever detect are ones that enter our eye (or, equivalently, enter our photon detector lens). The only photons we can detect in any way are ones that fly through the air, *hit us* in the face, go through the eyeball, and get absorbed."

Absolutely, like everyone else this was also my idea until I read the double-slit experiment presented in the article. We all know that dark bands are formed due to destructive interference and no light is supposed to reach dark bands. Now, I am trusting the author's observation without conducting the experiment that we can see the light and all objects even from a slit made in the dark band. If this is so then either darkness does not mean absence of light which means trillons of photons are reaching the dark band but manifest themselves only when a slit is made in the dark band or it means that photons are not reaching the dark band and we see the light wherever it is (I checked again and author clarifies that provided light is in the observable range of our eyes). Since photons are not reaching the dark band therefore there is darkness in this area.

Or, is it that darkness is relative phenomenon? Is author right that darkness and light are relative phenomenon?

I do not think any other possibility exists esp. with the properties of photons that we know and have discussed so far and esp. about the role of photons in sense of sight. I mean the role of photons discussed here confirms author's observation on the Double-slit experiment. We are being contradictory.

Now, with what we have discussed thus far about the role of photons in the communication of information, with the mechanism explained thus far, multiple shadows in case of multiple shadows shall not be formed in case of multiple light source.

Am I wrong?

I have left the article apart and am trying to figure out one explanation that can explain all the experiments in the article.

I was shocked to see the images of pencil in the water. We have all read it in schools and yet we can see the original pencil exactly where it should be under water.

As a student of science, last thing I want to do is to accept and reject anything just because it is new but it is so very against everything we know and yet it is uncomfortably logical.

explorer
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:49 pm UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby explorer » Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:15 pm UTC

I think, I must thank our moderatory for allowing the discussion to continue. Normally, anything against what we know is immediately stopped. It takes away the basic objectives of forum - to promote constructive discussion on science.

Congrats

I'm leaving this open in the hopes that eventually you'll come to realize where your very, very basic mistakes are being made. If, however, after a few more days you're still insisting that you know more about how optics *really* work than, oh, every other scientist since Newton, and most laypeople besides, I will not hesitate to lock it.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby BlackSails » Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:17 pm UTC

If you look through a slit in a dark band in the box you will see light but NOT for the reason the author states.

NO light from the detector directly reaches the dark band. The light that hits the light bands however, will bounce off the walls, bounce around the box, and some portion of it will land on the dark bands.

explorer
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:49 pm UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby explorer » Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:40 pm UTC

I requested the author to reply to the observations; reply received is reproduced here,

Thanks for your invitation to join the discussion. So far, I have received 254 responses to my article. Some of these responses appreciate the observations; some raise questions, and some have criticized and have even used abusive language. I do not mind abusive language, as long as analysis is technical and logical.

I have read the observations of the forum on various issues. My comments are as follows,

As far as detection of a single photon is concerned, it is an established scientific fact that dark-adopted human eye and even sensors can detect a single photon. Several observers placed at different positions can track the movement of a single photon; obviously not all of them can absorb the photon, that too for an extended period because there is only one photon.

I think confusion here is between information and making sense of information. The fact that we cannot make sense of information without our mind having been trained to turn information into knowledge does not in any way cancels out the fact that we can sense the information.

As mentioned in one of the posts, a person watching a star for the first time will not be able to make sense of the information but he will still 'see' the star as clearly as everyone else.

As far as double-slit experiment is concerned, there are only two possibilities; either the photons reach the dark bands or photons do not reach the dark bands. Take any of these cases at a time and explore all the possibilities and you will reach the same conclusion I have.

The images of pencil speak for themselves. I do not think I even need to discuss it.

Let us move to the mirror experiment. I suggest another experiment as follows,

Let us place an opaque screen between the mirrors and shoot a laser beam from the bottom. Let us have some smoke around so that we can track the movement of the laser beam. There is no way laser beam can reach mirror A after hitting the screen without encountering the screen again. But you will find that the image of the beam and the spot it hits the screen are clearly visible in the mirror A at the point right behind the original spot as shown by the straight arrow. You will also find only one spot where laser beam hits the screen and you will see the entire beam in the mirror ‘A’ until it hits the screen. It does not even matter how close we keep the screen to the mirror B. I mean, we can keep the screen quite close to the mirror B to avoid any possibility of laser beam reaching the Mirror A without hitting the screen more than once. We will still see only one spot and one beam from the source to the screen.

The image above shows it conclusively and even this experiment can be conducted at home by anyone.

I think my job is over with the presentation of my ideas in the article, if they represent truth then they will be accepted sooner rather than later, but if they do not then they will find their place in the dust-bean. Life is too short to stick to the past. It is over and done with and its fate will be determined by the sheer fact whether it is true reflection of nature or not. As such, I do not want appreciative comments; I am looking for constructive criticism.

If group is interested in a more complicated experiment then here is another experiment. We need a high-speed camera say a standard high speed camera with exposure interval of 375 nanoseconds. We place a mirror about 100 meters away from a light source and place the camera behind the light source. Light will be required to travel 200 meters to reach the camera after getting reflected from the mirror placed 100 meters away. When we switch on the light source then the image of the lighted light source shall appear only in the next frame as the distance between the mirror is greater than 110 meters, the distance light travels in 375 nonoseconds.

The result will be quite interesting. Will it not be?

Thanks,

Sunil Thakur


User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5426
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby Xanthir » Tue Dec 16, 2008 10:43 pm UTC

explorer wrote:Absolutely, like everyone else this was also my idea until I read the double-slit experiment presented in the article. We all know that dark bands are formed due to destructive interference and no light is supposed to reach dark bands. Now, I am trusting the author's observation without conducting the experiment that we can see the light and all objects even from a slit made in the dark band. If this is so then either darkness does not mean absence of light which means trillons of photons are reaching the dark band but manifest themselves only when a slit is made in the dark band or it means that photons are not reaching the dark band and we see the light wherever it is (I checked again and author clarifies that provided light is in the observable range of our eyes). Since photons are not reaching the dark band therefore there is darkness in this area.

Or, is it that darkness is relative phenomenon? Is author right that darkness and light are relative phenomenon?

Blacksails hit it correctly.

First, the 'reciever' in the experiment (that is, the wall that you see the light and dark bands on) is not a perfect absorber. Think about it. You can *see* the light bands. That means that photons are coming from them. These photons are originally from the light source. They pass through the slits and hit the wall, then reflect off, making the wall appear to have light and dark bands on it.

If these photons reflect once, they can reflect again. Specifically, they can reflect off of the other pieces of the experiment, and fly into the dark areas.

Second, the dark areas are not a wide band that perfectly lacks photons. Again, think about it. When you set up this experiment, the light and dark bands smoothly blend into each other. This means that the number of photons hitting a particular area gradually goes up and down as you move across the wall. Cutting a decent-sized slit in the 'dark band' area may include an area that is completely without photons, but it will also include areas that simply have few photons.

Finally, we don't know if the author of that paper was in a perfectly dark room. If there were any other light sources, that stray light would fall across the wall without paying attention to the light and dark areas.

All of these things will contribute to the author's finding. None of them result in everything we know about light and optics being overturned.

I do not think any other possibility exists esp. with the properties of photons that we know and have discussed so far and esp. about the role of photons in sense of sight. I mean the role of photons discussed here confirms author's observation on the Double-slit experiment. We are being contradictory.

Incorrect. Nothing that we have said confirms the author's observation. If you believe so, you're seriously misunderstanding everything we have said.

Now, with what we have discussed thus far about the role of photons in the communication of information, with the mechanism explained thus far, multiple shadows in case of multiple shadows shall not be formed in case of multiple light source.

...

What?

I was shocked to see the images of pencil in the water. We have all read it in schools and yet we can see the original pencil exactly where it should be under water.

What are you talking about? Are you referring to how it looks like a pencil is 'bent' if you put it partially into water? Nothing special about this. It's been known about for thousands of years, and Newton worked out a lot of the numbers governing it. If you're trying to imply that it's somehow incorrect, you're, um, wrong. The math behind refraction is very simple.
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5426
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby Xanthir » Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:21 pm UTC

Sunil Thakur wrote:As far as detection of a single photon is concerned, it is an established scientific fact that dark-adopted human eye and even sensors can detect a single photon.

Yes, our eyes can detect a single photon. No, we can't see a single photon. Our nerves purposely ignore the signal until several of them hit in a very short period of time. We only 'see' a light source if we're receiving several thousand photons a second from it.

Several observers placed at different positions can track the movement of a single photon; obviously not all of them can absorb the photon, that too for an extended period because there is only one photon.

This is a lie. I'm not sure how the author expects this to go unchallenged. It's simply incorrect. There is no part of this that can ever be misconstrued to be correct.

I mean, how does he think we see things? By magic? We see things by absorbing the photons that bounced off of it. Bouncing a photon off of a photon is somewhat difficult for obvious reasons.

I think confusion here is between information and making sense of information. The fact that we cannot make sense of information without our mind having been trained to turn information into knowledge does not in any way cancels out the fact that we can sense the information.

As mentioned in one of the posts, a person watching a star for the first time will not be able to make sense of the information but he will still 'see' the star as clearly as everyone else.

He's using the word 'information' in a vastly different way than we are. In the way we're using it, a person seeing a star for the first time can make perfect sense of the image - it's a dim point of light in the sky. That's all the information that the photons impart. There's cultural information about stars and such, but that isn't communicated by photons, and has nothing to do with what we (or he) are talking about.

As far as double-slit experiment is concerned, there are only two possibilities; either the photons reach the dark bands or photons do not reach the dark bands. Take any of these cases at a time and explore all the possibilities and you will reach the same conclusion I have.

To be more precise, either photons that have not yet hit anything else reach the dark bands or they do not. The answer is clearly that they do not (or rather, that *less* of them reach the dark bands than the light bands). There are several extremely simple reasons why photons still reach the dark band, and they were explained in my previous post.

The double-slit experiment is not magical. It does not create areas of supernatural darkness which light cannot enter. All it shows is that light coming directly from the light source will destructively interfere and create dark bands. Light coming from elsewhere, or light that originally came from the light source and has bounced off of one or more things, can still enter the dark band perfectly fine.

The images of pencil speak for themselves. I do not think I even need to discuss it.

Indeed. There's nothing strange about it at all. Refraction has been fully understood for hundreds of years. I really don't understand what the author is getting at. (I finally read that part of the article where he talks about it.)


Also: OH. MY. GOD. I just looked at the section detailing the "mirror experiement". What. The. Fuck. Seriously, dude, if *that's* all you're talking about, go take a freshman physics course. This is basic, basic stuff. You'll learn all about how mirrors work. This is such a simple, stupid case that I can't believe the author is seriously talking about it. Damn.

I mean, jeezus christ. Okay, do this. Set up the experiment yourself. Put a mirror on the floor. Put an object in front of the mirror. Put a barrier between the object and the mirror. Now, take a ruler or something, something straight. Put one end one the object. Put the other end high up on the mirror. Look! The ruler can reach OVER THE BARRIER and still touch the mirror! Light does that too. This is a straight-line path between the object and the mirror, and at least some photons are following it. They then get reflected at an opposite angle. I'd draw a picture, but GBog already did. LOOK AT GBOG'S PICTURE. It explains the entire thing. The author was on peyote when he wrote this section.

Let us place an opaque screen between the mirrors and shoot a laser beam from the bottom. Let us have some smoke around so that we can track the movement of the laser beam. There is no way laser beam can reach mirror A after hitting the screen without encountering the screen again. But you will find that the image of the beam and the spot it hits the screen are clearly visible in the mirror A at the point right behind the original spot as shown by the straight arrow. You will also find only one spot where laser beam hits the screen and you will see the entire beam in the mirror ‘A’ until it hits the screen. It does not even matter how close we keep the screen to the mirror B. I mean, we can keep the screen quite close to the mirror B to avoid any possibility of laser beam reaching the Mirror A without hitting the screen more than once. We will still see only one spot and one beam from the source to the screen.

I'm not sure exactly what he's talking about, but I think it's something like this: (picture attached below)
I don't know why he's mentioning mirror B. Anyway, I think what he's saying is that we can see the laser hit Point A on the screen, but we dont' see it hit Point B, even though the path of the laser suggests that it *should* hit there.

Again, this is dead simple. The reason we dont' see the laser at point B is because the light isn't reflecting off of Point A as a coherent laser. The opaque screen isn't a mirror - it doesn't reflect light very faithfully. Sure, most of it *will* reflect off, but the photons will go in every which direction. If you shoot a laser beam at a mirror, they almost all reflect the exact same way, so you still have a beam of light afterwards. If you hit an average non-mirrored opaque surface, though, they reflect all differently, so now you just have light radiating from that spot, but it's no longer in a beam.

No beam means no concentration of light at point B.

[quoteThe image above shows it conclusively and even this experiment can be conducted at home by anyone.[/quote]
If I'm understanding his 'experiment' correctly, it only proves that the author failed freshman physics.

I think my job is over with the presentation of my ideas in the article, if they represent truth then they will be accepted sooner rather than later, but if they do not then they will find their place in the dust-bean. Life is too short to stick to the past. It is over and done with and its fate will be determined by the sheer fact whether it is true reflection of nature or not. As such, I do not want appreciative comments; I am looking for constructive criticism.

They have, in fact, already found their place in the "dust-bean". Because they are absolutely false, and the average high-school graduate could tell you why.

If group is interested in a more complicated experiment then here is another experiment. We need a high-speed camera say a standard high speed camera with exposure interval of 375 nanoseconds. We place a mirror about 100 meters away from a light source and place the camera behind the light source. Light will be required to travel 200 meters to reach the camera after getting reflected from the mirror placed 100 meters away. When we switch on the light source then the image of the lighted light source shall appear only in the next frame as the distance between the mirror is greater than 110 meters, the distance light travels in 375 nonoseconds.

That would be a pretty cool experiment, actually. I'd like to do it. From a cursory google search, it appears we can get exposure intervals of 10 nanoseconds with really high-end stuff, which means we could potentially put the mirror a mere 5 meters or so away from the light source.

I don't see the purpose behind it, though. In the first frame, nothing is lit. In the second (after we light the bulb), the bulb shows as lit, but the mirror still shows an unlit bulb. In the third, the mirror shows a lit bulb. This is exactly what basic physics tells us. Is this supposed to disprove something? What does the author believe conventional physics will say?
(defun fibs (n &optional (a 1) (b 1)) (take n (unfold '+ a b)))

User avatar
Gammashield
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:41 pm UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby Gammashield » Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:56 pm UTC

Okay. I'm going to take one more stab at this before throwing my hands up in despair.

First, just to mention, you're making one of the classic frustrating moves of anyone getting a favorite pet theory disproved. When we disprove one of the arguments (the solar eclipse, the mirror-reflection, non-absorbed photons), you just throw up one of the other arguments (The multiple shadows, the two-slit thing, the diffraction in water). Really, the fact that *several* of this guy's points are this weak and easily disproved should make you go "... Huh. Maybe I need to be more skeptical about the rest." This is all turning what *should* be a relative simple matter (showing you your misconception) into an impossible task where we have to disprove ever-increasing numbers of misconceptions. Lots of *weak* arguments do not add up to a good argument.

But fine. Let's deal with the *new* situations you want to talk about.

As for the double slit. This guy writing the articles is *wrong*. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Let me make something perfectly clear. Real physics theory does *not* say that no photons should be in the dark band It says that *fewer* photons should reach the dark band. How many fewer? The distribution of photons should act like a sine-wave. Which means that any *actual*, *physical* slit cut will have small, but predictable, number of photons coming through from the light source, on top of any that are just bumping around the experiment. This guy is misrepresenting physics by saying 'it should be perfectly dark', that's not what physics says. "dark" doesn't mean 'no photons'. "Dark" means "fewer photons". Yes, setups exist that have no stray photons, and in those, you wouldn't see anything through the slits. But this guy's setup isn't a no-stray-photon setup!! Light's bouncing from the other parts of the setup, light's coming in from edge effects of the physical slit he cut, light's likely coming in from tiny sources around the room, there's plenty of light to see *everything*. What he saw through is slit is *exactly* what every physicist alive would expect him to see in a standard lightblub-behind cardboard setup, and the fact that he's implying anything else means he's either an idiot or intellectually dishonest.

As for 'is darkness relative?', again, realize, things with *fewer* photons look dark, even if they still have a bunch of photons. things with *very* few photons coming from them look black. Things with *no* photons coming from them also look black. "Dark bands" don't mean "Bands with zero photons!" when we're talking about *spots* on *cardboard*. We just mean "An order of magnitude less photons" or similar things.


And multiple shadows... Again. 'dark' doesn't mean 'no photons' in real-life situations. It means 'fewer photons.' So one shadow has, say "ten billion photons emitted per second per square centimenter" Another shadow has "Fifteen billion photons emitted per second per square centimeter". A normal spot on the floor has "twenty-five billion photons emitted per second per square centimeter". So some areas are darker than others. And each spot has less or more emission depending on how many lightsources have a direct line-of-sight to it, and how many other objects bounce light towards it. Normal physics expects multiple shadows, and I'm *dumbfounded* that the idiot who wrote this paper could think otherwise.

And, to pre-empt your question of "but shouldn't the shadow created *after* you turn on the second light be just as bright as the old non-shadow area was before the second light was turned on?" (I saw him mention that in the paper, I assume that's where you were headed next) It *is* just as bright. It hasn't changed. It's just that the rest of the room got even brighter, your brain adjusted, and your brain is good at spotting contrasts of color. Nothing is happening here that's unexplainable)

As for the pencil in the water... suffice it to say: refraction should happen at some angles, and should not happen at other angles. In known, predicable ways due to the geometry of the situation. Straight down into the water like in his pictures? It shouldn't happen. Normal physics predicts exactly what we see in his pictures. I could run through some mathematics to prove this to you, but, no offense intended, I'm fairly certain it would go right over your head, if you're still having issues with basic mirror reflection.



And, just to let you know... I really, *really* wouldn't bother emailing this dude. Everyone here knows *exactly* what he'll say more or less, physics cranks are a fairly regular sort of beast, and they all make the same mistakes. It's *impossible* to prove to him he's wrong. I'm discussing this with you because I get the sense you're still thinking about the matter. This dude? He stopped thinking about it *years* ago, he more or less says so himself. And you can't disprove someone who's stopped thinking about it.

Oh, and just so you know, his statement of "it is an established scientific fact ... Several observers placed at different positions can track the movement of a single photon; obviously not all of them can absorb the photon, that too for an extended period because there is only one photon. " That's just flat out wrong again. That is him MAKING SHIT UP. Every observation is an absorption. Fact. If he thinks science thus far has said *anything* different, he's wrong.

And *yes*, weve done experiments where we bounced light of mirrors with timing circuits. *Hell*, that's how most forms of fluorescent detection work. And he's just flat out wrong (again) about the situation.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby doogly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:26 am UTC

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

I didn't want to read through the whole of http://www.scribd.com/doc/8537121/Every ... t-is-Wrong, I get ~30 from the abstract. Anyone want to see how high it will go?
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

explorer
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:49 pm UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby explorer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:40 am UTC

Dear Explorer

Never mind the language because I am only looking at the arguments.

I draw your attention to following comment.

There's nothing strange about it at all. Refraction has been fully understood for hundreds of years. I really don't understand what the author is getting at. (I finally read that part of the article where he talks about it.)

Xanthir rightly believes that based on what he knows pencil has to bend and this fact is known for an eternity. Great news for me! As one can see, pencils do not bend in the experiment and that is precisely what makes it important.

Since, Xanthir has read the article, I have mentioned that images cannot be explained with any of the known properties of the light. Let him have a close look at the images.

Actually, images can only be explained after discussion on 'space-time'.

Obviously, the person has not even read the article because he does not know that I am not questioning bending of the pencil but ‘Non-bending of the pencil’ in the images. How can you argue with a person who wants to prove you wrong without taking the trouble of knowing what you are saying.

An article is not just a part and I have presented more than one experiment so I do not know what is the fuss about new argument coming up.

First, let us clear the double-slit experiment that I start with.

We have a setup and we have observations that allow us to draw certain conclusions. The people are arguing without first reading or reading with a closed mind. There are two possibilities – photons either do not reach dark bands or photons reach the dark bands. You can straight away reject the first case but for the sake of the people who would object on not having explored the first possibility, I have not excluded it.

Let us concentrate on the second possibility where fewer photons reach the dark band and put it to the test in the light of the comments of the group.

Group suggests,

A fewer Photons than the light band reach dark bands.

Absolutely right, fewer photons means there shall be a difference in the view from the dark band and the light band,

Exactly, it means that some areas in our view from the dark band must appear black! There shall be substantial difference in the two views we get from the dark band as well as light band.

If my argument were to be that no photons reach the dark band then I would not have a second slit in the light band. The fact that there is no difference in the two views is important!

This group appears to have some eminent physicists who are capable of conducting these experiments. Let them conduct the experiment and then let them analyze it.

As for as multiple light sources, creating multiple shadows is concerned, the fact that darkness and brightness are relative phenomenon shows what?

The group is suggesting that all of us know that darkness and brightness are relative!
It is the relativity of the perception and then there are several other observations not just one that I have made concerning the experiment. When we increase the intensity of all the light source even then there will be some parts that will receive fewer photons then other parts but relativity disappears as all areas appear bright as shadows disappear but if we increase the intensity of only one light source then relativity of information increases.

The experiment only highlights relativity of information.

Let the group read all the arguments and counter each argument retaining consistency of the statements because by presenting all by arguments here I will just be reproducing the argument here.

If someone wishes to argue or prove me wrong then let them first understand what I am saying in the article. The reaction is typical. As soon as these guys see something new, they close their brain. These are like religious fanatics who assume the role of ‘defenders of faith’.

Now, let us move to the images of the pencil. A person who knows his physics will know that you do not even need mathematics to realize that the images cannot be explained with any of the known properties of light. If someone is interested then he can take the trouble of doing all mathematics and then explain all the images retaining the consistency of mathematical argument. Mathematics of the current theory can only explain bending of the experiment but not ‘non-bending’ of the pencil and that is why no mathematics is required because I am not questioning the angle of bending of the pencil, I am questioning ‘non-bending of the pencils’. One only need to have a close look at the images!!

You can see that these people are ‘assuming’ lots of things without examining the validity.

One such assumption is that in the last experiment with hi-speed camera things will happen as Xanthir has suggested. Xanthir correctly sums up what ‘should’ happen as per conventional physics without finding out what ‘actually’ happens.

Xanthir assumes that as per the conventional physics pencils ‘should’ bend but the images tell the other story. They are there for everyone to see. Same is the case with the ‘Double-Slit experiment. We know what ‘should’ happen but what happens is different.

So is the case with other experiments including multiple light sources creating multiple shadows.

This group knows well what ‘should’ happen and presents strong arguments as I would have done if I had not actually conducted the experiment and had found out that there is a difference in what ‘should’ happen and what actually happens.

Gammashield has suggested he had conducted the experiment with hi-speed camera but we all know he has not because if he had then he would find that results are not in-line with the theory.

Let me explain what he has seen and what is the difference between what I am suggesting and what conventional theory says!

The light (energy) from the sun still takes 8 minutes to reach the earth and that is what is confirmed through the normal experiment that he is talking about. The sun will be visible before 8 minutes. The problem is that light source in the mirror is lit ‘instantly’ and not after more than 700 nanoseconds a it ‘should’ happen.

Now, I expected the argument to be that with such less exposure time it is impossible for camera placed more than 100 meters to record the image of the light source in the mirror. One solution is to zoom the camera on to the mirror but then you cannot have the light source in the same frame. That is why, I say gammashield has obviously not conducted the experiment because conventional theory does not provide a solution that will allow the experiment to be conducted as suggested by me and yet it is possible to conduct the experiment!

The problem will be encountered only by the person who actually conducts the experiment not by the person who just assumes.

Nothing happens in nature by magic. Everything is scientifically analyzable and explainable and the mechanism that allows us to ‘see’ the object forms the basis of communication mechanism of the nature. It is explained in the book.

As explained by me in my theory, it is important to understand the difference between, ‘as it occurs’ and ‘at the same time’. It is important to understand the difference.

Actually, conventional physics does not even claim that it knows what ‘light’ is; it only claims to know how it behaves. This also comes out quite clearly in the arguments of the group.

I must thank the group because it makes me realize that I shall explain every small thing in detail and shall not assume that such clear difference between what should happen and what actually happens will not be noticed by even physicists.

User avatar
Gammashield
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:41 pm UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby Gammashield » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:27 am UTC

Shorter reply from me this time. Just, as, you know, a point of "He doesn't know what he's talking about" when he says "Gammashield's never done the experiment" and "people don't do the experiment" Well, glance below.

http://phenix.vanderbilt.edu/~velkovja/VUteach/PHY225a/writeups/speedl/speed_JV.pdf

That's a lab sheet. A description of a simple setup for second-year physics students to run, which they do, reguarly. You'll find that experimental setup and variations on it are fairly common in colleges all over America. It gets repeated *thousands* of times every year, to teach students about lab setups and light. And it's *exactly* what he's talking about: "Shine a light at a mirror. Measure how long until a photodiode picks up the reflection off the mirror. Divide by the distance travelled (the distance to the mirror times two!) to find the speed".

God only knows what the fellow would find wrong with this one. Maybe he'll say "A photodiode isn't like a camera!". It is. Maybe he'll say "A laser isn't like a normal light source in this setup!" It is. Maybe he'll say "That's just light travelling when it's bouncing off the mirror, that's not the image in the mirror" which would be both nonsensical *and* wrong (A two-fer! I bet he'd say this one, just because it would make my head hurt more due to absurdity of his answer). Maybe he'll say "The systematic error by the timing circuits can't be discounted!" or "The multiple measurements made at different lengths are because the setup is bad!" (sigh, also both wrong, but harder to explain without writing yet *another* set of paragraphs, and I'm done doing that)

But honestly? I don't care *What* he'd say. Because I know he'll find an objection, however wrong-headed. That's what cranks do, they never admit your setup is right, for one illogical reason or another. That's why I don't argue with them anymore. If this is going to turn into you posting his responses to posts, then I don't see the point here. If I wanted to argue with people utterly convinced their own pet theory is the only way the universe could work, I'd go on crank.net, pick a site, and yell at them until I ran out of breath. If you'd like to argue the point, explorer, do it with your *own* mind, not his. Because in your case, I *do* like to believe you just haven't heard the right arguments yet, and might actually change your mind if presented with the right wedge-argument. In his case? I *know* that's not going to happen.

If you're willing to argue the case *yourself*, explorer, I'm willing to keep trying to pound these ideas into your head. I need the practice for when I intend to teach. But I've got *better* things to do than yell at the brick wall that is the physics-based crank.

(Oh, and a side-point, since I just can't let things lie? His refraction argument *still* makes no sense. Lateral refraction happens from some angles of viewing. Doesn't happen from others. By known optical laws. He's choosing pictures at views that don't have lateral refraction and that physics says *shouldn't* have lateral refraction. Namely, from vectors in-plane with the angle between the long axis of the pencil and the vector normal to the surface of the water. On such in-plane vectors, refractive effects can only bend lightpaths such that they remain in-plane, producing only a 'shortening' or "lengthening" of the pencil, rather than an obvious visual displacement. More intuitively, these views have no lateral optical refraction due to the symmetry of the arrangement. I'm hoping that didn't go over your head... but if it did, well then, you're apparently going to have to educate yourself a bit more on the topic of diffraction before arguing against it. Until you do, you're going to have to take my word, and everyone else's, word on it that his pictures show *Exactly what we expect to see for a pencil in water, from those viewpoints*)

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby Tass » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:45 am UTC

explorer wrote:The light (energy) from the sun still takes 8 minutes to reach the earth and that is what is confirmed through the normal experiment that he is talking about. The sun will be visible before 8 minutes. The problem is that light source in the mirror is lit ‘instantly’ and not after more than 700 nanoseconds a it ‘should’ happen.


That is plain wrong. Distances are usually and routinely measured by reflecting ligth of a mirror.

Gammashield wrote: Maybe he'll say "A photodiode isn't like a camera!". It is.


And to forestall the counter argument to this one: I do flourescent microscopy imaging every day. I use a ccd camera. It makes images by recording the the ligth recieved on a 512 by 512 pixel ccd chip. Basically that is an 8mm chip with 262144 small (16 micrometer) photodetectors arranged in a grid. It can even be used as a single photodetector if one wants.

In a typical experiment I get 300-400 photons per pixel in the dark areas of my picture and 800-1000 in the ligth ones.

explorer
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:49 pm UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby explorer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:46 am UTC

Explorer,

I am resisting your invitation to join the discussion simply because people are just assuming and concluding what I am stating.

Explorer, I think you are getting unnecessarily worked up by the discussion. As u have mentioned in one of your posts, is spite of the language being used, it is still a constructive discussion that has just started to assume the serious proportions that it deserves. If I am wrong on any of the observations then I would be first to admit it provided the person tries to at least understand what I am saying.

Let me clarify to gammashield that I am not trying to score a point or something, I am expressing my views so that if there is any problem with my thinking then I must correct it.

As I had mentioned, that gammashield is conducting an experiment that is routinely conducted and is getting the expected results even as per my theory so there is no need to argue on that front.

There no need for gammashield to assume what I will say because I have already said what I had to but obviously gammashield has not read it.

Let gammashield at least read this,

“What I am suggesting is that there is difference in the mechanism that transfers energy from one place to another place and the manifestation of information in the form of the image of the object”.

Energy of the sun takes time to reach the earth and illuminate the earth or any other place depending on the distance. You light a bulb and the light (energy) from the bulb will reach an observer placed at 110 meters away after 375 nanoseconds but observer will see the event of lighting of the bulb instantly. The experimental setup he is talking about is activated only on the absorption of energy.

I am talking about two different mechanism, one that transfers energy and other that makes the object visible. Gammashield’s observations and experimental results are perfectly fine and as he has mentioned, are matter of routine.

You can see that gammashield is already facing problems in explaining the images in the pencil. He has changed his stand wherein he had said that he can explain the images through mathematics.

It is good to exchange views with gammashield because he knows what he is talking and he understands the subject but only problem is that he does not want to give a single minute to understand what I am saying.

I have not presented one image of pencil, I have presented four images that shows distortion of information in the form of either bending or shrinking or different effects. My point is that these images cannot be explained by any known properties of the light. Now, gammashield suggests that I have selected images that should not have lateral refraction. Without getting into further argument, let gammashield look at the images again and test the images against his own arguments. I repeat, I have not selected one image. I have presented four images and retaining the consistency of argument based on conventional physics as explained by gammashield, these images cannot be explained.

I and gammashield both know that mathematics of the images is impossible to work out unless we have a supercomputer at our disposal so let us discuss theoretical arguments, Gammashield observes,

More intuitively, these views have no lateral optical refraction due to the symmetry of the arrangement.”

There is not need for intuition here. Images are there in front of gammashield so he can see whether his argument applies to the four images or not. One does not have to be precise with the angles here as they are quite apparent from the images. I only expect him to retain the consistency in his argument with all the four images.

Now, at present and in this forum, I do not want to discuss the experiment with the hi-speed camera further because there is an appropriate forum, appropriate time, and appropriate audience to discuss such issues and that is already planned. These are not matters of casual discussions.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby BlackSails » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:22 pm UTC

Yes explorer, you have disproved all of modern physics. You are smarter than Newton, Einstein and every scientists to ever make use of a telescope or mirror. We bow before your immense genius.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:28 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:Yes explorer, you have disproved all of modern physics. You are smarter than Newton, Einstein and every scientists to ever make use of a telescope or mirror. We bow before your immense genius.


I don't think comments like this are particularly helpful, I have not read anything at all that he or others have been saying... but it'd be better to address what he is saying then strawmanning with sarcasm.

Given that it sounds like (from this post) that he is posting some sort of minority view opposing mainstream physics I'd be inclined to say he is probably wrong given how well established everything else is right now. Of course, the possibility exists that he is right, in which case we'd have to rethink what we're doing.

I think the most important question right now is - why was this thread necro'd, srsly.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby Tass » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:43 pm UTC

explorer wrote:Explorer,

I am resisting your invitation to join the discussion simply because people are just assuming and concluding what I am stating.

Explorer, I think you are getting unnecessarily worked up by the discussion. As u have mentioned in one of your posts, is spite of the language being used, it is still a constructive discussion that has just started to assume the serious proportions that it deserves. If I am wrong on any of the observations then I would be first to admit it provided the person tries to at least understand what I am saying.


Still waiting.

explorer wrote:Let me clarify to gammashield that I am not trying to score a point or something, I am expressing my views so that if there is any problem with my thinking then I must correct it.

As I had mentioned, that gammashield is conducting an experiment that is routinely conducted and is getting the expected results even as per my theory so there is no need to argue on that front.

There no need for gammashield to assume what I will say because I have already said what I had to but obviously gammashield has not read it.

Let gammashield at least read this,

“What I am suggesting is that there is difference in the mechanism that transfers energy from one place to another place and the manifestation of information in the form of the image of the object”.

Energy of the sun takes time to reach the earth and illuminate the earth or any other place depending on the distance. You light a bulb and the light (energy) from the bulb will reach an observer placed at 110 meters away after 375 nanoseconds but observer will see the event of lighting of the bulb instantly. The experimental setup he is talking about is activated only on the absorption of energy.

I am talking about two different mechanism, one that transfers energy and other that makes the object visible. Gammashield’s observations and experimental results are perfectly fine and as he has mentioned, are matter of routine.


So there are things visible to the eye, but not to cameras?

explorer wrote:You can see that gammashield is already facing problems in explaining the images in the pencil. He has changed his stand wherein he had said that he can explain the images through mathematics.


Eh? No he didn't.

explorer wrote:I and gammashield both know that mathematics of the images is impossible to work out unless we have a supercomputer at our disposal


Is is not that hard

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby BlackSails » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:49 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:
Given that it sounds like (from this post) that he is posting some sort of minority view opposing mainstream physics I'd be inclined to say he is probably wrong given how well established everything else is right now. Of course, the possibility exists that he is right, in which case we'd have to rethink what we're doing.


The possibility exists that Gene Ray is right and we are all evil for denying the Timecube. I dont lose sleep over this, or any other crackpot theory.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby Gelsamel » Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:51 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:
Gelsamel wrote:
Given that it sounds like (from this post) that he is posting some sort of minority view opposing mainstream physics I'd be inclined to say he is probably wrong given how well established everything else is right now. Of course, the possibility exists that he is right, in which case we'd have to rethink what we're doing.


The possibility exists that Gene Ray is right and we are all evil for denying the Timecube. I dont lose sleep over this, or any other crackpot theory.


Who said you should lose sleep over it?
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
Tass
Posts: 1909
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby Tass » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:00 pm UTC

I know the tread has moved on from the mirror stuff, but I just want to post this extension of Gbogs picture.

The image you see of the object is not where the ligth reflects but where your brain would think it came from if it had traveled as far in a straigth line.
Attachments
mirror3.JPG
mirror3.JPG (12.3 KiB) Viewed 1394 times

User avatar
GBog
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:57 pm UTC

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby GBog » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:10 pm UTC

I shouldn't do this but...
So we have got images of a pencil in a glass of water. Looking from some angles, the pencil appear to be bent, from others not. Through the curved glass, the pencil even looks thicker. All of these effects are explained by Snell's law. You claim todays physics can't explain them. Frankly, I think it is your understanding of physics that is flawed, not physics itself. Since you clearly misunderstand how today's physics explain reflection*), it is not surprising that you have misunderstood its explanation of the more complex phenomenon refraction. You don't say why you think these images conflict the regular theory of refraction, so it is hard to say what you've misunderstood.

We've got a piece of glass illuminated from behind. You claim physics can't explain this, but again, frankly, it can.

Your double-slit experiment:
There are no specifications. Which lightsource was used? What is the slit separation distance? What is the slit width? What is the distance between the lightsource and the slits? Between the slits and the screen? The slits you are peeking through, where are they placed? To be honest, I think you this time have misunderstood interference. I have conducted double-slit experiments. Several times. The theory predicts what happens just fine.

In short: don't claim your experiments disprove today's physics, when you have absolutely no clue about what today's physics say.

Your experiment with the highspeed camera and the mirrors I won't do. Why? Because based on your other claims, I think the only thing it would illuminate is another of your misconceptions. Apart from that, it would be an utter waste of time. But since this experiment is conducted, perhaps there are some stills from the movie available? Of course, the effect you're claiming would be laughably simple to fake. But I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and think you're not trying to fake effects, you simply have a flawed understanding of physics.

*)
As long as some part of the
mirror has the object in its line of sight, the object
will be in visible in the mirror.

This is correct, with a small addendum: The object will be visible in the mirror when looking at it from some angles.
This is correct, and it is exactly what optics, as understood by physicists, as thought in colleges and at universities, predict. Look at the picture I made. That is how physics say mirrors work. They reflect light.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Dual nature of light, my mind is melting

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:29 pm UTC

As I said, if this "discussion" continues for a few more days with no decline in the level of crackpottery, I'm locking it.

So...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests