Deeper than primes

[The Man]

It is corrent The Man.

“corrent” is not correct either.

This "just removes one possible history" is exactly the collapse of the wavefunction into a well positioned different and strict frequencies around a given peak that is larger than all these different and strict frequencies.

“a well positioned different and strict frequencies around a given peak that is larger than all these different and strict frequencies”? Just stringing words together in to nonsensical statements will not help you either.

Wrong again. For example look at the following spectrogram, taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram :

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/VariableFrequency.jpg[/qimg]

Where does that article assert that spectrogram is of a double slit experiment or even of a single frequency? In fact the caption under that spectrogram clearly asserts it is a…

Spectrogram of an FM signal. In this case the signal frequency is modulated with a sinusoidal frequency vs. time profile

So stop lying Doron

Did you just deliberately or accidentally confuse an explicitly sinusoidal modulated time varying “signal frequency” with a single frequency?

Either way, one is just as ridiculous and futile as the other and your attempts to posit this as representative of any double slit experiment is a simple and obvious lie.

and the two open silts case

[qimg]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/imgpho/mulsi2.gif[/qimg]

-------------------

Again Amplitude by position (in the double slit image linked) is not a spectrogram

In other words, you are cheating yourself.

You continue to lie expecting it to be as efficacious with everyone else as it is with just yourself. That you lie so blatantly, shamelessly effortlessly, as with the spectrogram from the Wiki article, leads to the inescapable conclusion that you are just a compulsive liar. Please tell us Doron why anyone should continue a conversation with someone who is just a compulsive liar? The fact is that if you can not stop yourself from such lies continuing a conversation with you can serve no purpose other than for you to validate to yourself that your lies are even remotely worth discussing. If you would actually like to have a discussion then just stop lying and please learn something.

 

[epix]

Did you just deliberately or accidentally confuse an explicitly sinusoidal modulated time varying “signal frequency” with a single frequency?

It's quite apparent from his previous related posts that Doron has problems to tell apart frequency, amplitude, wavelength and various distributive functions that tend to describe the effects of EMR diffraction.

 

[epix]

You continue to lie expecting it to be as efficacious with everyone else as it is with just yourself. That you lie so blatantly, shamelessly effortlessly, as with the spectrogram from the Wiki article, leads to the inescapable conclusion that you are just a compulsive liar.

We must subject our observations to the scientific rigor to make sure that our conclusions meet the latest standards.

Step 1. Record data:

Step 2. Subject data to the triple-slit diffraction process:

See it? LIE ---> L I E

The high degree certainty conclusion: Doron is lying to the extent of the piper not being able to lead him to reason. The consequences of breaching the laws that govern over the usage of the opposites False and Truth have been already described here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7473135

 

[doronshadmi]

“a well positioned different and strict frequencies around a given peak that is larger than all these different and strict frequencies”?

Yes, and you can't grasp it with your left-only hemisphere reasoning.

Did you just deliberately or accidentally confuse an explicitly sinusoidal modulated time varying “signal frequency” with a single frequency?

Either way, one is just as ridiculous and futile as the other and your attempts to posit this as representative of any double slit experiment is a simple and obvious lie.

Let's see

Again looking at through which slit each photon goes just removes the both slits path from the possible histories. The reaming possible histories must still be summed over (considered in superposition) in order to accurately calculate the resulting pattern on the screen, in other words (since your so fond of them) looking through which slit each photon passes does not eliminate the superposition of possible histories it just removes one possible history (going through both slits) from that superposition of (sum over) possible histories.

Wow, The Man's left-only hemisphere reasoning does not recognize history with time.

But this is his least problem about the considered subject.

The Man's major problem is his inability to grasp the superposition of identities (AB) and their collapse into well defined identities (A,B).

The Man's limited left-only hemisphere reasoning, which is limited only to form of strict ids like (A,B), can't grasp the following:

---------------------------
A=”Non-locality”
B=”Locality”

n=2

n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model, which shows exactly how a mixture of states in superposition (AB,AB) are collapsed into single outcomes (A,B):

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.

The universe of single outcomes is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree.

--------------------------------

Again Amplitude by position (in the double slit image linked) is not a spectrogram

So stop talking about spectrograms, as you did hear

See what? You have shown no spectrogram. So you are either confused about what a spectrogram is or just simply lying. Amplitude by position (in the images linked) is not a spectrogram.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram

because they can't help to get the uncertainty and redundancy of superposition of ids, which is definitely not superposition collapse into well defined peak(s) that is (are) surrounded by well defined smaller frequencies.

A wave pattern is less positioned than a well defined peak (or well defined peaks) as observed in one open silt or two open slits + measurement's interruption.

the spectrogram from the Wiki article, leads to the inescapable conclusion that you are just a compulsive liar. Please tell us Doron why anyone should continue a conversation with someone who is just a compulsive liar?

Tell me The Man, why do you think that you are unable to compare forms and get their similarities?

I'll tell you why, because you have no spatial (right-hemisphere) reasoning.

So please tell us The Man why anyone should continue a conversation with someone who is just limited to left-only hemisphere reasoning? (for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7467300&postcount=16235 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7469302&postcount=16236 is beyond your left-only hemisphere reasoning).

By analogy: You are like a one-eyed observer which claims that two-eyed observers lie about 3D-vision.

 

[epix]

The Man's limited left-only hemisphere reasoning, which is limited only to form of strict ids like (A,B), can't grasp the following:

---------------------------
A=”Non-locality”
B=”Locality”

n=2

n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model, which shows exactly how a mixture of states in superposition (AB,AB) are collapsed into single outcomes (A,B):

The "problem" with left-hemisphere thinking is this: when it understands the difference between wavelength, amplitude and frequency, it would have a hard time to understand things that are of pure gibberish and lacking a bit of reason.

Btw, "a well-defined peak" doesn't mean symmetry, as your "left&right hemishpere thinking" leads you to believe.

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Genesis 3:1

It then curved north, went to En Shemesh, continued to Geliloth, which faces the Pass of Adummim, and ran down to the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben.
Joshua 18:17

But that particular light is useless without those see-thru-clothes-glasses available only in those biblical times.

 

[The Man]

It's quite apparent from his previous related posts that Doron has problems to tell apart frequency, amplitude, wavelength and various distributive functions that tend to describe the effects of EMR diffraction.

Certainly to some degree epix and I have no doubt that he posted that FM spectrogram image simply because it looked like the two slit interference pattern. However since he did find a reference to frequency domain on his own, apparently understand it had some relevance as well as remarked to distribution of frequencies around a large peak it is clear that at least some portion of these concepts cal get trough. Of course the complete disconnect comes when he associates his “local” to some “collapsed superposition” and singular value, while associating his “non-local” to some “superposition” indicated by the double slit interference pattern which has a single frequency or “in other words” a frequency of a, well, singular value. So it is all obviously just nonsense but Doron simply refuse to see it and apparently will do anything (even making addition non-associative just for him) to simply not admit it to himself.

 

[The Man]

Yes, and you can't grasp it with your left-only hemisphere reasoning.

Stop simply trying to posit your half brain notions onto others.

Let's see

Wow, The Man's left-only hemisphere reasoning does not recognize history with time.

Stop simply trying to posit your half brain notions onto others.


You should probably look up the meaning of the word “history”.

But this is his least problem about the considered subject.

The Man's major problem is his inability to grasp the superposition of identities (AB) and their collapse into well defined identities (A,B).

The Man's limited left-only hemisphere reasoning, which is limited only to form of strict ids like (A,B), can't grasp the following:

Stop simply trying to posit your half brain notions onto others and stop lying, you know that by your own assertions your “superposition” does not use superposition. So your problem with your “superposition” is simply yours by your own intent and assertions.

---------------------------
A=”Non-locality”
B=”Locality”

n=2

n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model, which shows exactly how a mixture of states in superposition (AB,AB) are collapsed into single outcomes (A,B):

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F.

The universe of single outcomes is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree.

--------------------------------

Repeating this nonsense doesn’t make it any less nonsense.

So stop talking about spectrograms, as you did hear

Nope, the fact that they show different aspects is the whole point, but you just don’t want to see the frequency domain do you.

because they can't help to get the uncertainty and redundancy of superposition of ids, which is definitely not superposition collapse into well defined peak(s) that is (are) surrounded by well defined smaller frequencies.

Again look at a spectrogram of a singular frequency.

A wave pattern is less positioned than a well defined peak (or well defined peaks) as observed in one open silt or two open slits + measurement's interruption.

Again look at a spectrogram of the interference patterns distribution frequency. You’ll find a very well defined peak.

Tell me The Man, why do you think that you are unable to compare forms and get their similarities?

I don’t think any such thing, so your “direct perception” has failed you yet again.

I'll tell you why, because you have no spatial (right-hemisphere) reasoning.

So please tell us The Man why anyone should continue a conversation with someone who is just limited to left-only hemisphere reasoning? (for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7467300&postcount=16235 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7469302&postcount=16236 is beyond your left-only hemisphere reasoning).

Stop simply trying to posit your half brain notions onto others.

By analogy: You are like a one-eyed observer which claims that two-eyed observers lie about 3D-vision.

No Doron I’m just someone who claims that you lie and can’t help yourself because you’ve been caught lying and apparently just couldn’t help yourself.

 

[epix]

Certainly to some degree epix and I have no doubt that he posted that FM spectrogram image simply because it looked like the two slit interference pattern.

I was refering to one of his previous statements. I can no longer navigate through it, coz the underlying issue is riddled with Doron's own conclusions studded by his own terms and that's too much for "only left-hemisphere" brain to handle.

I'm just curious about the inclusion of "frequency" when this parameter of EMR wave plays absolutely no role in the process that creates diffraction -- changing the frequency of the wave doesn't alter the specs of the recorded event.

 

[doronshadmi]

Certainly to some degree epix and I have no doubt that he posted that FM spectrogram image simply because it looked like the two slit interference pattern. However since he did find a reference to frequency domain on his own, apparently understand it had some relevance as well as remarked to distribution of frequencies around a large peak it is clear that at least some portion of these concepts cal get trough. Of course the complete disconnect comes when he associates his “local” to some “collapsed superposition” and singular value, while associating his “non-local” to some “superposition” indicated by the double slit interference pattern which has a single frequency or “in other words” a frequency of a, well, singular value. So it is all obviously just nonsense but Doron simply refuse to see it and apparently will do anything (even making addition non-associative just for him) to simply not admit it to himself.

The Man C is under superposition for you an expression like C=A+B.

But according to real superposition (which is not less than superposition of identities) an expression like C=A+B is based on already well defined identities.

A superposition of identities of, for example, 3 variables is (ABC,ABC,ABC) and it is under maximum symmetry that disallows the strict identities of the variables.

An expression like C=A+B is based on already well defined (strict) identities, which is based on superposition collapse of identities into 3 well defined variables of the form (A,B,C) ,which is actually the asymmetry of the identities of the variables.

 

[doronshadmi]

I’m just someone who claims that you lie

You are not in any position to say any meaningful thing about real superposition, which is not less than superposition of identities.

You linear superposition is nothing but expressions that are based on well defined identities, where well defined identities is nothing but some particular case of Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction Trees (URDT).

You can't get URDT because your reasoning is limited only to the left-hemisphere of you mind, which enables to deal only with well-defined identities.

Here is an example that you can't grasp:

2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model, which shows exactly how a superposition of identities (AB,AB) is collapsed into well-defined identities (A,B):

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F, where "AB" is a superposition of ids, and "B" is a strict id.

The well-defined ids, in this case, is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree.

 

[doronshadmi]

You should probably look up the meaning of the word “history”.

You should probably explain the meaning of the word “history” and how it is not related to time.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation ):

Feynman showed that Dirac's quantum action was, for most cases of interest, simply equal to the classical action, appropriately discretized. This means that the classical action is the phase acquired by quantum evolution between two fixed endpoints. He proposed to recover all of quantum mechanics from the following postulates:

1. The probability for an event is given by the squared length of a complex number called the "probability amplitude".

2. The probability amplitude is given by adding together the contributions of all the histories in configuration space.

3. The contribution of a history to the amplitude is proportional to e^{i S/\hbar}, where \hbar is reduced Planck's constant, and can be set equal to 1 by choice of units, while S is the action of that history, given by the time integral of the Lagrangian along the corresponding path.

As can be seen, by the traditional view each path is well-defined and it is involved with time.

There can be infinitely many well-defined paths with well-defined histories from given point A to given point B, but this approach
is closed under well-defined identities, where real superposition is the inability to define strict identity of any amount > 0, and the superposition collapse of well-defined identities (as used by the traditional view) is some partial case of Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction Trees (URDT).

An example of URDT is shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7479082&postcount=16250.


( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition ):

For an equation describing a physical phenomenon, the superposition principle states that a combination of solutions to a linear equation is also a solution of it. When this is true the equation is said to obey the superposition principle. Thus if functions f1, f2 and f3 each solve the linear equation ψ, then ψ=c1f1+c2f2+c3f3 would also be a solution, in which each c is a coefficient. For example, the electrical field due to a distribution of charged particles can be described by the sum of the contributions of the individual particles.

As can bee seen, the traditional superposition principle is closed under well-defined identities, where well-defined identities is nothing but some particular case of URDT.

 

[The Man]

I was refering to one of his previous statements. I can no longer navigate through it, coz the underlying issue is riddled with Doron's own conclusions studded by his own terms and that's too much for "only left-hemisphere" brain to handle.

I'm just curious about the inclusion of "frequency" when this parameter of EMR wave plays absolutely no role in the process that creates diffraction -- changing the frequency of the wave doesn't alter the specs of the recorded event.

Actually diffraction is excluded from the interference patterns Doron has posted. The interference and diffraction patterns are the images you posted. The frequency goes to Doron’s ridiculous claim that a singular frequency is somehow not a singular value of frequency. Also the frequency (more specifically wave length) of the distribution pattern (most visible in the interference only images) over the screen directly relates to the frequency of the incident light.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/slits.html#c1


When diffraction is included it can be seen that the distribution pattern on the screen falls well within the single slit envelope.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/mulslid.html#c2

ETA:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/sindoub.html#c1

 

[The Man]

The Man C is under superposition for you an expression like C=A+B.

But according to real superposition (which is not less than superposition of identities) an expression like C=A+B is based on already well defined identities.

Really, please tell us exactly what “A” is “well defined” as?

Oh, and stop lying Doron you know by your own assertions your “superposition” does not use superposition.

A superposition of identities of, for example, 3 variables is (ABC,ABC,ABC) and it is under maximum symmetry that disallows the strict identities of the variables.

An expression like C=A+B is based on already well defined (strict) identities, which is based on superposition collapse of identities into 3 well defined variables of the form (A,B,C) ,which is actually the asymmetry of the identities of the variables.

Again please tell use exactly what those “well defined (strict) identities” of “A”, “B” and “C” are? Otherwise stop lying that they are “well defined (strict) identities”.

You are not in any position to say any meaningful thing about real superposition, which is not less than superposition of identities.

Doron you’re the one who said your “superposition” does not use superposition, not me. So it would seem that you are just not in any position to say anything about your “superposition” other than that it is specifically not superposition. As long as you continue to use the word superposition to try to identify your specifically non-superposition “superposition” you are just lying. Stop lying Doron.

You linear superposition is nothing but expressions that are based on well defined identities, where well defined identities is nothing but some particular case of Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction Trees (URDT).

The principle of superposition makes no such restrictions of, and expresses no such basis upon, “well defined identities” stop deliberately confusing your nonsense with principles that make no such nonsensical claims.

ETA (line):
(URDT)? Trees of Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction (TURD) seems a more appropriately descriptive acronym Doron.

You can't get URDT because your reasoning is limited only to the left-hemisphere of you mind, which enables to deal only with well-defined identities.

Here is an example that you can't grasp:

2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree is some particular example of a novel model, which shows exactly how a superposition of identities (AB,AB) is collapsed into well-defined identities (A,B):

(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (AB)    (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   (A)     (B)     ()

A * *   A * *   A * .   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   A * .   A . .   A . .
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B *_.   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   B ._.   B *_.   B ._.

(2,2) = (AB,AB)
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)
(2,0)=  (AB)
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
(1,0)=  (A),(B)
(0,0)=  ()

Any appearance of that tree is called Distinction State (DS), where any DS is under a structure called Frame (F), for example: (AB,B) is a DS that is under (2,1) F, where "AB" is a superposition of ids, and "B" is a strict id.

The well-defined ids, in this case, is the particular case of DS (A,B) under F (1,1) under the 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy Distinction-Tree.

Stop trying to simply posit your half brain notions onto others.

You should probably explain the meaning of the word “history” and how it is not related to time.

Why? I never claimed that history was not related to time. As it is simply your claim you explain it. Now that we know that you do understand that history is explicitly related to time, any assertion on your part that anyone but you claims history is not related to time (without such an explicit statement by them) is simply a lie.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation ):


As can be seen, by the traditional view each path is well-defined and it is involved with time.

There can be infinitely many well-defined paths with well-defined histories from given point A to given point B, but this approach
is closed under well-defined identities, where real superposition is the inability to define strict identity of any amount > 0, and the superposition collapse of well-defined identities (as used by the traditional view) is some partial case of Uncertainty x Redundancy Distinction Trees (URDT).

Stop lying Doron, you know by your own assertions that your “superposition” does not use superposition.

An example of URDT is shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7479082&postcount=16250.


( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition ):


As can bee seen, the traditional superposition principle is closed under well-defined identities, where well-defined identities is nothing but some particular case of URDT.

The superposition principle makes absolutely no claims about requiring “well-defined identities”, stop lying Doron.

 

[epix]

Actually diffraction is excluded from the interference patterns Doron has posted. The interference and diffraction patterns are the images you posted. The frequency goes to Doron’s ridiculous claim that a singular frequency is somehow not a singular value of frequency. Also the frequency (more specifically wave length) of the distribution pattern (most visible in the interference only images) over the screen directly relates to the frequency of the incident light.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/slits.html#c1

The posted link documents once again that frequency is not a factor. It's like a fat guy who decides to go through a freshly-painted opening that is a bit smaller for his body size (wavelength). It doesn't matter if the guy goes around and squeezes through the same way once, twice or more times per minute -- his pants and shirt would be stained by the fresh paint exactly where his body makes contact with the walls of the opening. In other words, the number of passages (frequency) doesn't affect the location of the paint stains and the location of the smears on the walls.

 

[epix]

You should probably explain the meaning of the word “history” and how it is not related to time.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation ):

You don't need to get quantum mechanics involved. It suffices to set

history = recorded past

and prove a meaningful relationship between "past" and "time."

I would never venture as far as to ask you to go out and bring me a pack of cigarettes . . . .

 

[The Man]

The posted link documents once again that frequency is not a factor. It's like a fat guy who decides to go through a freshly-painted opening that is a bit smaller for his body size (wavelength). It doesn't matter if the guy goes around and squeezes through the same way once, twice or more times per minute -- his pants and shirt would be stained by the fresh paint exactly where his body makes contact with the walls of the opening. In other words, the number of passages (frequency) doesn't affect the location of the paint stains and the location of the smears on the walls.

Distance/cycle λ (wavelength) is related to cycles/second f (frequency) by the wave velocity V (λ * f = V). For some waves a different frequency through a different media will result in a wave velocity that will give the same wavelength at that different frequency. However, with light the wave velocity is constant (C) and so is the relation between frequency and wavelength. The only way to get a different frequency (of the light itself) is when it has a different wavelength. Think of it as a room of a fixed size and the only way you can fit more guys in that room (a higher frequency) is if they are thinner (smaller wavelength). To be more precise light travels one light second in distance for each one second of time. The more cycles you have spanning a one light second distance (shorter wavelength) the more cycles you have in that one second of time (higher frequency). This is all ancillary by the way to Doron's ridiculous assertion that a single frequency is not a singular value of frequency.

 

[epix]

Distance/cycle λ (wavelength) is related to cycles/second f (frequency) by the wave velocity V (λ * f = V). For some waves a different frequency through a different media will result in a wave velocity that will give the same wavelength at that different frequency. However, with light the wave velocity is constant (C) and so is the relation between frequency and wavelength. The only way to get a different frequency (of the light itself) is when it has a different wavelength. Think of it as a room of a fixed size and the only way you can fit more guys in that room (a higher frequency) is if they are thinner (smaller wavelength).

Well, if you pack a room with some guys and let them just stand there, then the time (frequency = cycles per second) doesn't enter the example, as it should. But if you count how many fat guys and how many skinny guys walked per unit of time at the same speed V through a hall, then you found out that there were more of the skinny guys, coz a fat guy takes more space than a skinny guy. It's all here:

To be more precise light travels one light second in distance for each one second of time. The more cycles you have spanning a one light second distance (shorter wavelength) the more cycles you have in that one second of time (higher frequency).

That's what the pic strongly implies.
The problem is that all the renditions of EMR propagation don't match the reality -- it's just an idealization subordinate to the given descriptive task. Looking at the pic, someone may assume that EMR travels as

~~~~~~~ --->

but these "packets of energy" actually travel this way

SSSSSSSS --->

when the diffraction is the topic, where the wavelength is proportional to the size of upper-case 'S' and lower case letter 's'. Diffraction occurs when upper case 'S' is squeezing through lower-case o, where in case of visible light the size of the font is measured in micrometers. Since the wavelength of hard X-rays or gamma rays is so small, it can go trough less dense molecular structures. But it is the wavelength, or the "size of the energy pocket" that makes such travel through stuff possible -- not the frequency, which Doron decided to manipulate, coz the effect of diffraction is described with the help of distributive functions where the range, such as the one of the normal distribution that Doron pasted, is associated with frequency of occurrence defined in the domain of the function. So Doron grabbed a spatula and began mixing two different concepts, or at least that's what I think he did just looking at his goulash splattered all over the walls of his "right/left hemispheres" kitchen.

This is all ancillary by the way to Doron's ridiculous assertion that a single frequency is not a singular value of frequency.

Doron loves to redefine terms to suit his needs of across-the-board discombobulation of a given topic. If someone says "single frequency," within the given context, I would think in terms of this: http://www.laserglow.com/S53 The prospectus doesn't mention any "singular value" of that single-frequency that the laser operates on, but it mentions the wavelength, which is the beef of the laser technology -- to sneak through some obstacles without diffracting the beam.

 

[doronshadmi]

Really, please tell us exactly what “A” is “well defined” as?

It is well defined as a variable of identity "A".

The rest of your reply is the result of your inability to get something like "AB" that can't be a variable with well defined identity.

 

[The Man]

Well, if you pack a room with some guys and let them just stand there, then the time (frequency = cycles per second) doesn't enter the example, as it should. But if you count how many fat guys and how many skinny guys walked per unit of time at the same speed V through a hall, then you found out that there were more of the skinny guys, coz a fat guy takes more space than a skinny guy. It's all here:

Standing waves have frequency and wavelength just as any other wave.

[qimg]http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem2/A3/electromagnetic-spectrum.jpg[/qimg]

That's what the pic strongly implies.
The problem is that all the renditions of EMR propagation don't match the reality -- it's just an idealization subordinate to the given descriptive task. Looking at the pic, someone may assume that EMR travels as

~~~~~~~ --->


but these "packets of energy" actually travel this way

SSSSSSSS --->

Technically quanta or wave packets. With the Schrödinger equation describing the time evolution of such packets and systems involving them it is the best match to reality (experimental evidence) that we currently have. Stationary states (standing waves) would be described by the time independent Schrödinger equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-independent_Schrödinger_equation#Time-independent_equation

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html#c1

when the diffraction is the topic, where the wavelength is proportional to the size of upper-case 'S' and lower case letter 's'. Diffraction occurs when upper case 'S' is squeezing through lower-case o, where in case of visible light the size of the font is measured in micrometers. Since the wavelength of hard X-rays or gamma rays is so small, it can go trough less dense molecular structures. But it is the wavelength, or the "size of the energy pocket" that makes such travel through stuff possible -- not the frequency, which Doron decided to manipulate, coz the effect of diffraction is described with the help of distributive functions where the range, such as the one of the normal distribution that Doron pasted, is associated with frequency of occurrence defined in the domain of the function. So Doron grabbed a spatula and began mixing two different concepts, or at least that's what I think he did just looking at his goulash splattered all over the walls of his "right/left hemispheres" kitchen.

Again wavelength is directly related to frequency by phase velocity, the product of frequency and wavelength and with light (traveling through a vacuum) that relation is constant. The velocitty at which a wave pakeckt travels is the group velocity. Both dependent upon the bulk properties of the media through which it is traveling. For light (photons) traveling through a vacuum the group and phase velocities are the same. I don't think we are really disagreeing all that much though it does seem we may be just talking past each other.


http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot.html#permot




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

Please see also...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)

And for anyone interested ...

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm

The description of diffraction relies on the interference of waves emanating from the same source taking different paths to the same point on a screen. In this description, the difference in phase between waves that took different paths is only dependent on the effective path length. This does not take into account the fact that waves that arrive at the screen at the same time were emitted by the source at different times. The initial phase with which the source emits waves can change over time in an unpredictable way. This means that waves emitted by the source at times that are too far apart can no longer form a constant interference pattern since the relation between their phases is no longer time independent.

The length over which the phase in a beam of light is correlated, is called the coherence length. In order for interference to occur, the path length difference must be smaller than the coherence length. This is sometimes referred to as spectral coherence, as it is related to the presence of different frequency components in the wave. In the case of light emitted by an atomic transition, the coherence length is related to the lifetime of the excited state from which the atom made its transition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)#Spectral_coherence

Spectral coherence

Waves of different frequencies (in light these are different colours) can interfere to form a pulse if they have a fixed relative phase-relationship (see Fourier transform). Conversely, if waves of different frequencies are not coherent, then, when combined, they create a wave that is continuous in time (e.g. white light or white noise). The temporal duration of the pulse Δt is limited by the spectral bandwidth of the light Δf according to:
,
which follows from the properties of the Fourier transform (for quantum particles it also results in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
If the phase depends linearly on the frequency (i.e. ) then the pulse will have the minimum time duration for its bandwidth (a transform-limited pulse), otherwise it is chirped (see dispersion).

Doron loves to redefine terms to suit his needs of across-the-board discombobulation of a given topic. If someone says "single frequency," within the given context, I would think in terms of this: http://www.laserglow.com/S53 The prospectus doesn't mention any "singular value" of that single-frequency that the laser operates on, but it mentions the wavelength, which is the beef of the laser technology -- to sneak through some obstacles without diffracting the beam.

Indeed he does, so much so that his "superposition" does not (by his own assertions) mean superposition.


Ok so that prospectus mentions a singular value of a singular wavelength and temporal coherence, most people familiar with lasers understand what that means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser

Spatial coherence typically is expressed through the output being a narrow beam which is diffraction-limited, often a so-called "pencil beam." Laser beams can be focused to very tiny spots, achieving a very high irradiance. Or they can be launched into a beam of very low divergence in order to concentrate their power at a large distance.

Temporal (or longitudinal) coherence implies a polarized wave at a single frequency whose phase is correlated over a relatively large distance (the coherence length) along the beam.[3] A beam produced by a thermal or other incoherent light source has an instantaneous amplitude and phase which vary randomly with respect to time and position, and thus a very short coherence length.

Most so-called "single wavelength" lasers actually produce radiation in several modes having slightly different frequencies (wavelengths), often not in a single polarization. And although temporal coherence implies monochromaticity, there are even lasers that emit a broad spectrum of light, or emit different wavelengths of light simultaneously. There are some lasers which are not single spatial mode and consequently their light beams diverge more than required by the diffraction limit. However all such devices are classified as "lasers" based on their method of producing that light: stimulated emission. Lasers are employed in applications where light of the required spatial or temporal coherence could not be produced using simpler technologies.

Again frequency and wavelength are directly related.

 

[doronshadmi]

The superposition principle makes absolutely no claims about requiring “well-defined identities”, stop lying Doron.

Your superposition principle is nothing but some particular case of real superposition that is not less than superposition of identities (a "white noise" of variables' identities).

You can't get real superposition by using the particular case of well defined identities.

In other words, instead of get things "beyond the box" you continue to be limited to your closed box by quoting articles that fit to your closed box.

By doing that you are cheating yourself, and you are doing it all along this thread.

Stop trying to simply posit your half brain notions onto others.

My notions are based on the ability to use Spatial (right-hemisphere) AND Verbal (left-hemisphere) skills as a one comprehensive framework.

Your Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills can't get the notions of this comprehensive framework.

Furthermore, the scholars that stand behind your equated articles belong to a community that communicates by using mostly (if not only) Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills, and define "Rigor" only in terms of Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills.

it is the best match to reality (experimental evidence) that we currently have.

It is the best match to reality as it is observed by community of Verbal (left-hemisphere) only skills.