The following discussion is merely theory based on the knowledge of the author. The author does not claim that the below is fully factual in details, although the science that is quoted or referred to is factual. This is more a gedankenexperiment in that the electronic representations have been tried and proven, but some of the light versions have not, and can not, yet.
However, if we follow the principle of equivalence like Einstein did when explaining gravity as an acceleration since both are expressed as m/s2 (meters per second squared), then this principle claims that they are the same, or at least similar.
I too use this principle in what I am discussing. If light is an EM, and particles dislpay wave properties, and now even in electronics they are taking advantage of "resonances" of atoms to reinforce each other to make "quantium electronic" components, including laser, then the following should seem plausible, if nothing else. Even the electron is coming under much scrutiny as to its nature and whether it is even a "particle".
I invite the reader to keep an open mind and not be so concerned with the pedantia that the field of quantum physics can promote. We will assume all other theories about it are correct and we all know them.
For those that may make the claim that this issue has already been resolved, all I say is that that claim has been made before. Nothing but the Ten Commandments has been written in stone. We always learn new things and see things differently. This is just a different angle of view from the ones that have for hundreds of years been seen. We need not be biased by the age of the other ones, either.
In recent years there seems to have been an acceptance about the nature of light. But such has not always been the case. Before the final conclusion there were questions which arose. What is light? Is it a wave? Is it a particle? Is it a wavicle? What is it?
Recently, the consensus has been that it is a wave when measured one way, and it is a particle when measured another way, implying that the nature of light depends upon the observer. The Copenhagen Interpretation. That's it.
However, there is much mystery when trying to measure light as a both using the detection method of the wave property, Young's double slit experiment, in connection with one of the particle detection methods, a photosensitive film. The "particle", when sent out from the source, through the double slits, seems to defy all logic when thinking in terms of either definition of the nature of light.
It has been observed that when a "photon" is sent one at a time through the slits, instead of going through one or the other slit and forming a pattern typical of a single slit, as one would expect from "solid" particles, over time it forms the typical wave pattern of a double slit nature. It has therefore been ultimately hypothesized that the particle occupies two positions at the same time! Scientists have even gone to the point of saying that to the particle there is only one slit, since it bends space-time to the point of overlapping this space joining the two slits!
There is also the observation that since it is generally accepted that there is a duality to the nature of the photon, then when looking at it as a wave, it collapses, or causes the paricle to disappear. What happens to the particle? It may actually make a new universe along its own timeline and dimension.
This leads to the Many Worlds Interpretation, which many well known thinkers have actually accepted as reality, where the act of observing the particle creates a second "world" when observed as a particle, the other world getting it as a wave, and vice versa. This has led them to believe that because we look at a particle, it creates another world because we are causing it to happen, merely by observing it.
But what about the events before we even knew anything about the nature of matter? What about the accident that caused Young to actually see this interference pattern to begin with, namely the torn curtain through which two beams of light passed? If he never observed it, would the other world have been created? And if it doesn't require an observer, does this mean that until he replaced the curtain or patched the holes, that many worlds (millions upon millions) would continue to have been created every day?
What about photosynthesis, which occurred millions of years before we even came onto the scene, which "proves" particle theory of light? And the million millions of photons, possibly per second, which fall on the million millions of leaves in which this happens. Does this mean that it never happened before, this many worlds, or does it mean that there are literally millions on millions of these other worlds made over the hundreds of millions of years that the Earth began to support plant life? Mind you, just from the Earth alone. Not to mention the stars which explode causing the particles to become waves then back again, as can be seen in nebulae, where an exploding stars’ matter has given birth to new stars. Never mind the likelihood of other planets that support life, or don't support life, or binary star systems or other natural phenomena which cause these conditions that the testing scientists perform which could create "Many Worlds". There would be an infinite creation of such. fascinating stuff. It leads one deep into ones imagination. And into faith.
Mathematically these may seem plausible. Since it is difficult to actually measure the properties, the theoreticians must make up theories as to what is happening, intelligently giving us an explanation for what they observe. But it can get real complicated, and even seemingly far fetched, allowing for infinity in the equation. However, I do not mock or ridicule these, since so many far fetched theories from "quacks" have proven to be true, or at least feasible or probable. And since right now it cannot be definitely proven or disproved, then I remain open to the possibilities.
I am not even going to get into string theory, currently known as p-brane (pea brain?) or membrane theory. This is well beyond the scope of this discussion. This opens up at least 6 additional dimensions, to this world universe, let alone the infinite number of other universes. Way too complicated. But I am not debating the possibilities. I enjoy the boundless universe of imagination as much as the next theorist.
Math is a wonderful tool. One can theorize just about anything and "prove" it with math. While it may seem to work on paper and in the mind, it doesn't necessarily have to follow that it must be true! After all, even in math there is such a thing as an imaginary number and even a way to make it real (the square root of minus one squared becomes minus one)! While the methods are nothing short of magical, does it really depict and represent reality? Just because 1+1=2, are there no other ways of arriving at 2? And which way faithfully represents reality? Of course, 1+1 does it for us every time. This is Occam's Razor.
I am going to point to a possible simple solution to the nature of light, and perhaps the nature of all subatomic particles, since in recent years it is being experimentally shown that all particles seem to display a wave nature. I am in no way the first person to speculate about this from this angle, but I present some practical and repeatable experiments that may support the theory.
A SINGULAR NATURE OF LIGHT?
What if the nature of light was only one of the two? What if light was simply an electromagnetic sinusoid radiation, the like of which we see in radio? Except that the EM forms "packets" made up of a group of waves of all the frequencies of light that the atom emits and the infra-red and ultra-violet EM propagated outward in a spheroid from one atom? And that this ever advancing spheroid wave front merely causes the necessary chemical reaction on the film on the other side of the double slit barrier giving the illusion of a particle? And that this superposed wave packet becomes a soliton in nature, as found in water solitons ("Taming the Atom" - Hans Christian von Baeyer, page 179.) or acoustic microbaroms ( Scientific American Wonders - Double Bass Doubled - Philip Morrison. Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks ), where the wave can travel for many miles with little or no dissipation or reduction of amplitude?
As any high school student knows about wave phenomenon, any wave can be added to another wave by superposing them (Fourier series, among others). What if the coincidence of all the waves was the 90-degree point? This would produce a large spike (theoretically it can be infinitely high). Now suppose that these waves formed a "standing wave". In other words, these waves remained superposed at the 90-degree point of the lowest frequency while traveling through space. The wave is a standing wave according to its perspective while in motion from our perspective (Relativity, frames of reference). This can also be considered a soliton. So now we have a "particle" made up of waves of a group of frequencies, which makes white light, but advancing from the excited source in the form of a spheroid wave front. Figure 1 illustrates this. Nikola Tesla had experimented with this, calling the waves he made "non-Hertzian" in nature due to their not reducing in intensity by the square root of distance. They are also called "standing" waves.
Some have speculated that the photon and even the electron are solitons, given their wave nature. One inventor has taken advantage of the ability of water to "magnetically" align creating beautiful water sculptures where the water remains in a seemingly solid form when spouted out, similar to laser. It is likely what happens to a water soliton. Only there are naturally occurring geomagnetic fields which is likely the cause. Let us suppose that this also happens with light.
If the "photon" were a single particle, then there may be emissions of millions of them before one actually leaves the source toward the intended destination through the slits. The mathematical fact that a sphere has an infinite number of points, hence angles, means that it may never reach our intended target. Therefore single photon "guns" need to be constructed to guide these individual photons. This is similar to laser techniques.
However, if this were true, then one could not do this with any other wave phenomena. But, it has been done with EM waves of radio, called the MASER. It has been recently done with ultrasound( Acoustic analog of laser. - AIP weekly physics news. ). These wave phenomena do not also form particles or packets we call photons, do they? Not likely. Instead we call them standing waves, solitons and microbaroms. Why is a wave of a much higher frequency (particle length like electrons and photons, and any other particle for that matter) or superposition of frequencies not also called the same? One would think that we now have sufficient examples in nature and repeatable experiment to warrant calling the photon a soliton or standing wave that moves, like the microbarom. These natural phenomena maintain their strength for long distances. Photons do also. (Taming the Atom - Page 180). I, too, have seen water solitary waves.
This group of frequencies, remember, is radiating indefinitely from the source, traveling out as a wave front. This would imply that the front passes through the slits at the same time! In other words, as it passes through one slit, some of the EM from it can still pass through the other slit. On the other side of the barrier, they tend to join and interfere with each other. In effect, the "photon" is interfering with itself by this method (FIG 2.).
Remember classic physics would have us believe that the single particle photon should produce a pattern resembling one where the other side of the slits should be merely splotches corresponding to the location on the slits, as if passing light through only a single slit, or just covering over one of the two slits. But the reality is that the pattern of wave interference is what actually happens. To explain this, the claim is that the particle either 1) decoheres at the slit and becomes only a wave and then reconstructs on the other side. Once it interfered with itself at a random location it then becomes a particle again. Or 2) it actually bends space-time to join the two slits onto the same space-time frame. (Superstrings and the search for the Theory of Everything - F. David Peat, Taming the Atom - Hans Christian von Baeyer, A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking).
But, what if the "photon" is as described above, a bunch of energy eminating from the atom at superposed waves frequencies as a sphere, a growing bubble of energy if you will. Then the result should look like Fig 2.
In keeping with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, for now, the only thing we won't know at this juncture is where the concentration of energy is going to wind up when the wave interferes with itself on the other side of the barrier. Is it possible, though, that it simply "winds up" where the atom with the highest sensitivity to the energy level within the interference pattern reacts to it? It is then our perception that there is where the photon landed. But could it really be that there is where the EM radiation caused the atom to resonate and cause the chemical reaction necessary to make a dot?
I would suppose that if one could take a source of light where one can actually control the emission of photons one at a time without resorting to "guns", and this element could be placed in the middle of a box where five of the walls (all the sides and the top) were a film, then at the emission of a photon, the walls should have a dot exactly in the center of each wall, the concentrations of energy being the highest at those points since they are the closest to the source.
Interestingly, in support of the above picture, there has been two experiments thus far displaying the action at a distance of a particle on itself. The experiments took a photon and split them, then sent them in different directions through fiber optic cable. The experimenter manipulated one "half" of the photon on one end and the other photon was instantly as affected. It displayed the same change by itself. The photons were somehow linked (Discover Magazine - 1/98 pg 53 "Score one more for the spooks").
Imagine if you would that the photon, even from a gun, once emitted, resent its origin's wave front. When the photon was split, it would still share the same wave front that it was sent out with (guiding wave? Taming the Atom - Hans Christian von Baeyer, Pg. 203). Now we have two bundles that still have a wave front that binds them. Therefore, the EM wave that carries them both becomes the "transmission line" if you will that allows the information of change on one half of the photon to be sent instantaneously to the other. Action at a distance. It happens every day with radio and T.V.
Consider another point: What if when energy is first introduced into a source of light, slowly raising from nothing, and as the energy grows, before visible light is emitted, the atoms within the source are actually emitting EM radiation? One can consider the fact that as one increases energy, or voltage level, that the emitter, in this case for the sake of argument the tungsten in an incandescent bulb, the first light one sees is red, then orange, then yellow, then white. If the tungsten could stand more energy, I would presume that the color would advance to blue then indigo then violet, much like the different stars seen in the cosmos. Do we see a pattern here? (Fig. 3) This can easily be, and has been, demonstrated by experiment.
It is a fact that blue stars are hotter than red
ones and yellow ones (except under certain circumstances), hence supporting
the higher energy for color argument. (Einstein also proved it. It is why
he won the Nobel prize! Although Tesla demonstrated it about 40 years earlier.
He was able to light up lamps filled with different gases by using "Tesla"
coils of different frequencies. The diferent bulbs would light up with
different frequencies.) It would stand to reason then that atoms can "transmit"
many different frequencies depending on the energy level. What if the jump
an electron makes actually does so in an oscillatory way based on the energy
input, much like a capacitor timing circuit?
In a typical timer circuit where a capacitor and
resistor are involved, the size of the capacitor and the resistor value
dictate the time and subsequently the frequency at which the capacitor
charges and discharges. One can change this by either changing the resistor
value, changing the capacitor value, or changing the voltage level.
The simple Ohms Law equation dictates that an increase in one value changes
the value of one of the other two while the third remains fixed. The equation
V=I*R (Voltage equals Current times Resistance) shows
that the voltage level is the result of resistance times current. If one
were to increase the voltage level, while the resistor remains the same,
the current must increase proportionately.
If V=10 and R=10, then I=1.
V=R x I, or 10=10 x 1
If V increases to 15, then I must be 1.5, while R remains 10.
15=10 x 1.5
The increase in current and voltage causes the time circuit to charge and discharge at a faster rate, since more current flows through the resistor. It effectively lowers the resistor's time constant for the capacitor. Hence a decrease in the time constant and an increase in frequency. A similar thing can be done with a device called a varactor. It is a diode that with increase in voltage decreases its capacitance, which decrease in capacitance causes the frequency of the circuit that it is in to increase. It is used in most receivers today. Remember, for a very small instant of time, as the capacitor is charging up, the capacitor looks like a direct connection to the other side of the battery. So what we have for a time is the voltage and the resistance. Hence why it can be factually said that the current will be higher when the voltage is increased. This is how and why the capacitor will charge up quicker, hence reducing the time constant.
A complete timer circuit is shown below, using a timer Ic chip and the typical resistor-capacitor timing circuit. In this case, the wave output will be a square wave, but the wave used internally is actually a sawtooth that looks like a ramp where the capacitor charges slowly, then discharges quickly through a transistor. (Fig. 4) The slow charge could be like the atom in a source which emits one photon at a time, which builds up charge then in a burst of release of the charge sends out a photon wave packet, the energy being bundled up within it. Which atom actually reacts is random. This randomness can also affect where the photon will "land" on the film, it sending a different radiation pattern from another atom, therefore concentrating the wave slightly different from its predecessor on the film at the other side of the double slit barrier.
If Fig. 4 were a VCO (Voltage Controlled Oscillator), the voltage would be what determines the frequency based on a fixed R-C. The values are determined by this formula - T = R X C. This determines the time it takes for the capacitor to charge through the resistor. A threshold detector in the IC discharges the capacitor at 2/3's charge. If one could use larger voltages, the charge rate can also change, because the effective resistance lowers. To repeat myself here, if I had a larger voltage the current through the resistor will increase. If 10 volts made 1.5 milliamps across 10,000 ohms (because the capacitance at an instance before full charge may look like a much smaller resistance. This is a subject for another paper), then the effective resistance would be 10/.0015, or 6666 ohms. Therefore the time constant which would be 10,000 times the capacitance value will now be 6666 times the capacitance value.
It is true that the capacitor value changing will also determine frequency, but for a different reason. It takes less time for a smaller value capacitor to charge up due to the size of its plates. Less area needs less time to charge up.
Perhaps the time constant of an atom can be determined
the same way. One way to determine time constant is by obtaining the reciprocal
of the frequency or 1/f. The above capacitor-resistor circuit could, say,
have a time constant of .2 seconds. This means that the frequency is 1/t,
or 5 hertz. The frequency of light is much higher than this, in the thousands
of gigahertz or more (or 1 with at least 12 zero's in front of it).
So the time constant would be in the femto region (10^-15, or a one with
fourteen zeros before it approaching the decimal point i.e. 0.000...0001).
One could in essence use this equation of Ohms law, or Newtons law of motion, and insert the atomic properties of energy, frequency of light and Plank's constant. If one substitutes resistance with Plank's constant, voltage with energy input, and current with frequency, then one could formulate this as E=fh. Plank's constant remains just that, constant, as the resistor in the above example does. The atom as a whole is as the capacitor, which remains constant also. The energy input is like the voltage. The higher the voltage the higher the energy input. The atom absorbs more energy and releases it quicker. This is like the current increase. The quicker release of the energy is therefore detected as a higher frequency of light. This is purely an analogy. However, the formula, E=fh, works, and it is what is found in textbooks! (Physics the Easy way - Barrons, and many other good textbooks on quantum physics).
THE SPECTRUM OF LIGHT
What if this were the same as for the atom, that each atom has a certain time constant? Both these, the emission of different frequencies per energy input and the sawtooth burst wave nature of the energy buildup has been experimentally proven. What if this time constant is its main frequency, where it also has harmonics? Then each atom would have certain frequencies which have higher levels than the rest, or a signature spectrum. In other words, certain frequencies will be higher in amplitude than the rest, or peaks in the bandwidth, the bandwidth being from infrared to ultraviolet, and be of sufficient energy to radiate and be detectable.
This is in fact what each elemental atom has, a specific spectrum. This can be seen using spectral analysis, where an element in gaseous form has white light pass through it. The light is then passed through a prism where it is broken up into the "rainbow" or separated colors. Within the colors one finds lines where the color is missing. These missing colors are absorbed by the atoms of the element and "retransmitted", but out of phase with the original, canceling it out, hence showing the specific frequencies of the atom's spectral signature, where it was most sensitive to the incoming light's energy levels. The rest of the colors just pass through, unaffected. However, the cause for these frequencies is due to the distances of the valence shell levels from one to the other.
Conversely, if the gaseous element is infused with a different energy, say heat (electrical or EM will also cause some gasses to emit light, hence the neon and fluorescent light sources), it will emit light. If one were to take a walkie talkie and hold down the transmit key and hold the antenna next to a fluorescent light with it off, the fluorescent gas will light up around the area of the antenna. Nikola Tesla has shown this over 100 years ago( Many Tesla sites ). Also remember that he had already demonstrated that different gasses will emit light at different frequencies of EM.
The resultant light it will emit will be the specific colors which exactly correspond to the dark lines in the previous method of spectral identification, hence why I believe that the atom absorbs the specific frequencies then retransmits them out of phase, thus canceling out the color. In the first case the source of light acts as both the light source and the energy source to the atoms in the gas. This makes the atoms in the gas emit light according to the second method! The atom sort of acts like a delay line. In electronics, delay lines are used to absorb a wave and then release it at a different phase or at a later time.
The gas chromatograph uses this principle. One takes a compound and superheats it. This causes the compound to become gaseous, and separated. The atomic weight of the elements allows for an orderly passage through a thin tube, where the elements are carried through it using an inert gas like helium so as to avoid a recombination of the gaseous, and consequently in an excited state, elements. On the other end of the tube the gases, which now come out in atomic weight order, are "fingerprinted" by the light signature the elements produce. A light is passed through the gas then through a prism and the lines identify the elements. That is how they identify a compound and its purity.
This is the basis for Quantum Mechanics. Unfortunately, the reality of Quantum mechanics, where energy is transferred from sources at the atomic level (and likely at the macro level) in bursts called quanta, and what it has become, has in a way turned into a sort of scientific religion, where a large amount of faith is needed to believe in the theories which, although some of them may seem provable in the lab, the results may actually be misleading.
In radio, the action of reception is done by what is known as a tuned circuit, also known as a tank circuit. This circuit consists of a coil of a certain value in Henries, named after the discoverer of self-inductance in coils, Joseph Henry, and a capacitor of a certain value in microfarads, or picofarads, the farad named after Faraday, where the inductive and capacitive reactances become equal at a particular frequency called resonance. But a strange thing happens at resonance. The overall reactance creates infinite impedance, theoretically.
This is said to be theoretical because in reality
an inductor has resistance as well. This resistance causes the coil to
have a dampening effect, where the reactance to a certain frequency could
be greater or lesser depending on the resistance. This is known as the
Q of the coil. The higher the resistance the higher the reactivity to that
particular frequency. In other words, the higher the Q, the higher the
sensitivity. Therefore no two tuned circuits for the same frequency are
necessarily equally sensitive. A tuned circuit with a high Q coil will
be more sensitive to a distant source of EM than one with a low Q coil.
In microwave reception, the receivers are immersed in liquid nitrogen to cool them so as to accomplish two purposes. One is to minimize noise in the electronics. The second is to keep the wire in the receiving coil from also creating noise and to decrease resistance for the purpose of making it sensitive to the extremely low currents of such weak radio signals as would be encountered, hence keeping the coil at a high Q.
What is the point? Suppose that we have a film of some composite chemicals, or molecular structure, which is photosensitive. These molecules will be made up of different types of atoms. Each of these atoms can be likened to a tuned circuit. In this case, we will say that all of the atoms are tuned to the frequencies of light. However, some atoms will have higher Q's than others. When bombarded by a sufficient amount of EM light radiation, they react to rearrange themselves to retain the memory of the intensity of light. Hence the image one sees in a picture.
Getting a little more technical, the EM causes the electrons to raise their energy level pushing them to a higher valence shell. The reaction of the other atoms is also to do this but at different rates. The rates at which they do this will dictate which atoms will be likely to share electrons at this point and which won't, hence the chemical reaction that causes the lighter or darker areas on film.
When sending a very low intensity of light, where one "photon" is emitted at a time, as it strikes the photographic material, the molecules absorb it. Whichever atom within the molecule is the most sensitive will be the one that reacts to it to cause the chemical reaction we see as a dot on the film.
Also, the pattern seen, being random, can easily be explained. A compound solution such as a film has, it being actually an emulsion of several chemicals, is not smooth as we see it. The surface, if magnified with an electron microscope, would look like a mountain range, with peaks and valleys, some being higher than others would. The molecules themselves are also spinning, making the probability factor that the reactive atom will be at the right location (on the source side of the molecule) that much less likely at the time of photon emission, or more accurately, at the peak level of resonance/signal level.
Therefore there is a (or perhaps not) random selection
based on four factors, namely, closeness to the source, sensitivity, position
on the molecule (or rate of spin AKA angular momentum), and position within
the interference pattern. (Fig 6.)
I believe that that is the same thing that happens in the film. Color film makes it even more intriguing and logical that this is what is occurring within the molecules, since light is made up of the band of frequencies which are the colors, and each color on the film corresponds to which frequency of light caused the chemical reaction in the molecule and atoms that were most resonant at those color frequencies. This is supported by the fact that some scientists have used the resonant frequency of atoms to create laser. This science is known as Quantum Electronics.
As a matter of fact, it is certain metals used in the film that determines the colors, even the tint of black and white film. It can be said that the metal elements (atoms) have the highest "Q", then the minerals, then gasses. I can get into much more about the intriguing differences among the elements but it would be beyond the scope of this paper, and I am sure that the reader has sufficient knowledge to follow this analogy.
In ceramics, when one paints the ceramic structure with a particular glaze, after it has been fired, the color comes out to be whatever was desired. The glaze is made with particular metals that react chemically in the heat to make the color. One can see that this is true by simple chemistry. Take a penny and either burn it and it emits green light, or let it rust and it turns green. Copper is the main ingredient for green glaze. Take a piece of iron and do the same and one gets red. Basically, these atoms are particularly sensitive to those colors of light. When they are excited by energy of one sort or another, including light, they emit those frequencies.
In essence, each atom, while being overall tuned to the frequency of light, may be peaked at a particular color frequency. It can be thought of as a wide bandwidth tuned circuit. But even in electronics, the wide bandwidth amplifiers such as those that are found in television antenna amplifiers tend to be most sensitive at a particular frequency, although this sensitivity may be a small amount above the rest. Yet at the atomic level, it may be sufficient to cause the kind of reaction we observe as color.
The peak may be equivalent to the frequency of resonance.
The other smaller peaks would be upper and lower harmonics of this fundamental
main peak, hence the pattern one sees when passing the light through. Figure
7 shows the different frequency response curves
that a tuned circuit may have based on Q for the same frequency and same
The above charts are not drawn for acuracy, but to
scale to display the differences when three different resistor values are
used. This is merely to demonstrate that the circuit with the higher resistor
value has a higher sensitivity to the frequency for which it is designed
to resonate. The curves are the response of the tuned circuit with resistor
when a sweep of frequencies are passed across it. Each of these circuits'
responses have useful purposes. But that can be found in the electronics
section, or any good basic AC circuit analysis books.
The one with the lower Q may have a wide bandwidth but it is still highest in response to the signal at its normal resonance. The resistor in the circuit is purposely installed to lower the Q in order to make the circuit a wide bandwidth. Imagine that this is the case for the atom.
Suppose I have a wide bandwidth source. Let's say that it is ten television stations spaced out across the entire bandwidth. Let us also say that I am five miles away from all of them, or that they all transmit from the same tower, as they do in New York City, with the same power output. Then there will be virtually no change in response when I change the channel from my wide bandwidth circuit, it being between my antenna and channel selector.
When I move out to the "fringe" area, past the 50
mile clear reception point, then the signal which is closest to the most
sensitive part of the range of the tuned circuit will be the clearest,
in spite of the line of sight nature of those frequencies. also, if there
happened to be a signal at the harmonic above (the frequency times two)
it will also be a bit clearer than the rest, because the tuned circuit
will be reacting to the harmonic.
The atoms in a film, when receiving energy sufficient from a light source, react evenly through the entire spectrum. Or if it receives sufficient energy in another form, such as heat or electricity, then "transmits", emits, expels, whatever, energy in the form of white light. As the source gets weaker, or further away, only the atoms that are most sensitive to the light at that level will react. In the case of color film, only those atoms that are most sensitive at the particular color will react, these atoms being most sensitive to the particular color. This is like the wide bandwidth tuner, although the atom may under higher energy conditions emit white light, but with the tint of its main color. Hence the yellowish hue of incandescent bulbs, the amber hue of street lights, stars spectra, etc.
IS THE RESPONSE PREDICTABLE?
With all of the above considered, assuming that white light is merely a very high frequency equivalent of the ten television stations coming at us at once, and the atom is a wide band receiver with its highest sensitivity at a particular frequency, combined with the other atoms into the molecules which is in the film, in the positions that they are on that mountain range, the molecules spinning, what would the likelihood of predicting the molecule which would react be?
Imagine if you would another possible factor. It is well known in Newtonian physics that a spinning body can slow down or speed up when impacted by another object, or even a force. This happens all the time in the cosmos when planets slow down or speed up by the impact of a meteor or the gravametric force of a passing body. (I know, Newtonian physics doesn't apply at the quantum level, but please bear with me. There may be a quantum analogy.) It is known that the molecules spin, or have angular momentum. Suppose that as I alluded to above that the atom which is accumulating the energy leading to the emission of the "photon" is also gaining weight. This I had alluded to with the example of increasing energy being proportional to increasing frequency. This effect is what the theory of relativity predicts. The E=MC^2 makes the supposed statement that in order for the energy level to be whatever it is, both sides need to remain equal. If energy increases on the left side of the equation, then mass must also inrease, C^2 remaining constant.
My thought here is that as the molecule is spinning, the atom mainly responsible for the chemical reaction, the metal atom, gets exposure to the increasing EM from the source of light. As it comes around to the side facing the source, it absorbs more energy by its reactance and the increase of energy EM from the source though not yet at the light frequencies. As the energy absorption increases its (the atom's) mass increases. the other atoms also gain energy, but not as much due to their "Q". However they also gain weight. The molecule is now forced to compensate for this extra mass by slowing down, the way the metal atom is also slowing down. Classical physics dictates this. F=MA. When force increases, then one of the other two need to increase. The equation can also be looked at this way, if mass increases, and force remains unchanged (no additional force has been imposed), then acceleration must decrease in order for the equation to remain balanced. When it slows down sufficient for the metal atom to be on the side of the source of light at the moment the source of light reaches its peak output, what we see as a photon, then the molecule reacts to form the dot on the film, since now the metal atom has absorbed the most energy, and the other atoms have gained just enough energy to move their respective outer electrons into the conduction band, or the band that allows them to share electrons.
According to Taming the Atom, Professor Hans Christian von Baeyer has written about an experiment he witnessed where using two sources of laser that are a very small amount out of phase to make a beat frequency pulse in the femtosecond (10^-15 seconds!) range has witnessed a chemical reaction in slow motion. The result was astounding. At the instant of reaction all of the atoms became one molecule before separating into the intended molecules and by-products (Chapter 8).
In Nature magazine, when speaking of the Bose-Einstein condensate, they site the use of lasers to cool the atoms down, In the article there is a very interesting statement. I provide the entire article below. Please note in particular the highlighted sentence:
1) The energy in the form of electricity is creating the build up in the photon source, which appears as an increasing of EM frequency (infrared to red to yellow etc.).
2) The atom responsible for the signal is sending a signal in increasing frequency in proportion to the energy built up. In fact all of them are. Only one atom will be the first to "fire" a photon, or as I would call it an "energy wave front sphere".
3) The atom within the molecule on the film on the other side of the double slit barrier is closest to the source, based on the "mountain range" surface viewing it from the atomic perspective.
4) The molecule's spin is slowing down due to the influx of the energy from the atom from the source. (This seems to be a paradox according to the article above. The same energy that heats up the emulsion and causes the chemical reaction can also eventually cool it down, because it is slowing down its momentum.)
It is the last statement which is the most intriguing. If one can, before the experiment, determine the surface variation, namely, which is/are the highest peak or peaks using an STM, then determine the spins speed, then determine their position within the interference pattern, then determine the angle which the energy wave is striking the molecules, then one should be able with a probability of perhaps 80% accuracy, determine where the "photon" will land. Or more accurately, which molecule will react first.
Remember, all of the molecules have been receiving various amounts of this same energy. Therefore they have also slowed down, likely because the energy they absorbed temporarily increased their "mass" slowing them down in the process. The next molecule to react to make the next dot on the film is the one that slowed down most from the last burst. Therefore it is ready to react to this next burst.
Imagine that! Predictable quantum mechanics! This goes totally against the Heisenberg principle. This means also that God does indeed NOT play dice as Einstein said. He does know what is going to happen next and more importantly for this discussion, WHERE!
Our problem is not that we don't or can't know, but that we can't yet measure it. We might be looking in the wrong direction. We might be interpreting what we see incorrectly. What would be needed is an atomic level detector of angular momentum (that does not infuse its own energy), to measure molecular spin, caused by increased atomic mass, an STM which can give us a picture of the rough surface of the film, with measurements as to the relative height of each molecule with respect to each other, a predefined location of the double slit interference pattern which can be determined mathematically based on wavelength, distance between slits, width of the slits and distance to the surface of the film from the slit barrier (or merely passing light through the slits without the film there). The slowness of a particular molecule’s spin should allow one to predict that that is the molecule that will react first. Then the rest of the energy absorbed by the surface of the film within the pattern should determine where the next molecule will react to cause a dot on the film, or merely dissipate away as infrared heat (EM?).
The same can be true for the pattern as seen on "non-reactive"
surfaces. The thing that makes them non-reactive is only that the energy
is insufficient to change the nature of the surface. However, I believe
that the same principle applies as to its reflecting the light.
What do you think?
Return to Home
Copyright 1998, Gabe Velez