re: The integrity of the evidence supporting EM wave interference.

[DraftPhysics]

I would argue that the evidence that "photons" interfere with each-other, or themselves, is extremely week. In all experimental cases the CAUSE of "the pattern" is not proven, or made obvious beyond reasonable doubt. The only truth established by evidence, or prediction, is the EFFECT and its probabilistic certainty.

Case #1: Radio interference:
conditions:

2 antennas a small distance apart are engineered to transmit a same in-phase frequency carrying an audio signal.

A much grater distance away a receiving antenna is moved parallel to the alignment of the transmitting antennas.

Observed effect: The receiving antenna detects no audio signal in locations where the distance difference to the transmitting antennas is an amount consistent with a 1/2 phase wavelength inconsistency.

Assumed and asserted cause: Wave Interference.

Alternative reasoning: Radio Signal Jamming -- The energy/photons evenly spread across the receiving area, but in a location where the two signals are out of phase the signals are superimposed and the resulting combined, higher frequency, is not one the receiver is tuned to receive.

video on subject:

 

[swansont]

What about interference where there is a single photon in the device at any time?

[DraftPhysics]

This case #1 example is on the subject of using radio photons to illustrate "wave interference" ...this experiment has not been done with single photons.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

This case #1 example is on the subject of using radio photons to illustrate "wave interference" ...this experiment has not been done with single photons.

Goggle disagrees with you.

[DraftPhysics]

 

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Goggle disagrees with you.

How about a link? single photon radar or radio ;-P I don't think so.

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said:

 

How about a link? single photon radar or radio ;-P I don't think so.

Oh, no you don’t. You said the evidence for single-photon interference is weak, and you don’t get to move the goalposts by limiting this to RF.

It’s your claim. It’s wrong. Go do your homework. 

[MaximalIdeal]

There is one argument that can be made, assuming you accept that the constructive peaks in the radio experiments are 4x in energy.

If you have two sources, you would expect the energy to be 2x as large, not 4x, so the other extra 2x factor must come from somewhere. In this case, it comes from the dead spots, which means the dead spots must have zero energy received by conservation of energy.

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by MaximalIdeal

[DraftPhysics]

"You said the evidence for single-photon interference is weak"

No I say the evidence for all/any EM interference is weak.

"and you don’t get to move the goalposts"

No I rationally choose to discuss the vary different experiments individually as they have vary likely different causes and effects.

"It’s your claim. It’s wrong."

You have not demonstrated that with any evidence reasoning or logic.

"Go do your homework"

When you did homework were you instructed that jamming is the same as interference?

11 minutes ago, MaximalIdeal said:

assuming you accept that the constructive peaks in the radio experiments are 4x in energy.

The 4x increase is in audio volume, and it is a manifestation of amplification. There is no increase in the carrier signals energy beyond that provided by having two sources.

[MaximalIdeal]

15 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said:

The 4x increase is in audio volume, and it is a manifestation of amplification. There is no increase in the carrier signals energy beyond that provided by having two sources.

There are experiments with oscilloscopes that show that the voltage is 2x, and since power is P = V^2/R, the power associated with the voltage is 4x.

What are you talking about when you say it is a "manifestation of amplification"?

[DraftPhysics]

Quote

There are experiments with oscilloscopes

I haven't seen any radar, microwave, or radio slit experiments measuring received "energy" with an oscilloscope. Do you have a link?

"the power associated with the voltage is 4x"

The transmitters produce Watts of photons ...are you suggesting that the receiving antenna can magnify that wattage?

What are you talking about when you say it is a "manifestation of amplification"?

In the experiment it can be observed that the audio volume decreases by 4x when one of the transmitters is blocked. It is my understanding that this is a consequence of dubbing the peek amplitude of the audio frequency "sign" wave. 

[MaximalIdeal]

4 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

I haven't seen any radar, microwave, or radio slit experiments measuring received "energy" with an oscilloscope. Do you have a link?

Sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO2yFC7_k2s

I should have posted it to begin with, sorry.

Quote

In the experiment it can be observed that the audio volume decreases by 4x when one of the transmitters is blocked. It is my understanding that this is a consequence of dubbing the peek amplitude of the audio frequency "sign" wave. 

Ideally, an amplifier should give a linear relationship between power_in and power_out. A linear relationship means that if power_in is doubled, then power_out is doubled, and if power_in is 4x, then power_out is 4x, and so on.

At higher power, the linear relationship deteriorates, but the problem is that the out/in curve grows less than the linear relationship, which means that you can't get quadruple power_out out of a doubling of power_in. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_compression.

Based on these points, I don't think you can say the audio has to do with amplification (although if anyone disagrees, please let me know). As far as I know, for any wave, the intensity is related to the square of the amplitude. This means that the amplitude doubles in constructive interference, but the energy has to quadruple (and that energy should come from the destructive interference).

Edited December 31, 2018 by MaximalIdeal

[Strange]

19 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

Alternative reasoning: Radio Signal Jamming -- The energy/photons evenly spread across the receiving area, but in a location where the two signals are out of phase the signals are superimposed and the resulting combined, higher frequency, is not one the receiver is tuned to receive.

You would need to explain (1) why a higher frequency is produced and (2) why a receiver tuned to that higher frequency does not detect a signal.

Interference is such a simple mathematical fact that can be observed in water waves, acoustic waves, light waves, etc. that it seems a bit silly to pretend it doesn't happen.

19 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

This case #1 example is on the subject of using radio photons to illustrate "wave interference" ...this experiment has not been done with single photons.

Normally we have physics crackpots coming up with their own crazy theories to explain these experiments. Now we have one saying the experiments don't exist.

Kudos for novelty, I suppose. It doesn't make you any less wrong.

10 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

No I say the evidence for all/any EM interference is weak.

Perhaps you are mistaking your ignorance of the evidence as lack of evidence?

10 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

You have not demonstrated that with any evidence reasoning or logic.

Given that it is standard physics supported by centuries of research and evidence, I'm not sure he needs to.

It is up to you, the one proposing a new "theory" to provide the mathematics and evidence to support it.

6 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

"the power associated with the voltage is 4x"

The transmitters produce Watts of photons ...are you suggesting that the receiving antenna can magnify that wattage?

It seems you knowledge of basic theory is severely lacking. 

Do you understand the relationship between voltage and energy? Or between amplitude and energy? Do you even know the wave equation you are discussing?

[swansont]

11 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

"You said the evidence for single-photon interference is weak"

No I say the evidence for all/any EM interference is weak.

Here is the first sentence of your first post: "I would argue that the evidence that "photons" interfere with each-other, or themselves, is extremely week"

But if you want to expand that to all interference, fine. How do diffraction gratings work? How does thin film interference work?

11 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

"and you don’t get to move the goalposts"

No I rationally choose to discuss the vary different experiments individually as they have vary likely different causes and effects.

"It’s your claim. It’s wrong."

You have not demonstrated that with any evidence reasoning or logic.

You are the one making the claims here. The burden of proof is on you.

11 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

"Go do your homework"

When you did homework were you instructed that jamming is the same as interference?

The claim that jamming is not interference does not support the notion that interference itself doesn't happen. It's like claiming the color red doesn't exist by pointing to a single blue object.

 

[John Cuthber]

21 hours ago, DraftPhysics said:

where the two signals are out of phase the signals are superimposed and the resulting combined, higher frequency, is not one the receiver is tuned to receive.

The addition of two sine waves of the same frequency only gives a sine wave of the same frequency.

There is no "combined higher frequency".

Also, if the combination gave rise to the "wrong" frequency for the receiver, how come you ever get a signal?

 

And how do you explain the fact that the pattern of peaks and troughs- both in position and intensity-  exactly matches that expected for interference?

 

[MaximalIdeal]

5 hours ago, MaximalIdeal said:

Sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO2yFC7_k2s

Nevermind, this does not show what I claimed because the signal is amplified to the maximum whether or not he is blocking one of the transmitters. This is a bad link.

Consider this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHU-TIZvJTI&t=29m25s When he removes one antenna, the signal (this time shown in terms of current) drops by about 2 (not quite exactly though). 

All my other arguments still stand though, so they shouldn't be dismissed.

I'd be interested if someone tried to do the MIT demo but with the purpose to read the voltages accurately, and then accurately compare them when one transmitter is blocked vs when it is unblocked.

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, MaximalIdeal said:

All my other arguments still stand though, so they shouldn't be dismissed.

Your idea can be trivially dismissed because the mathematics of waves shows that it is wrong. They can also be trivially dismissed because observations and experiments are consistent with that mathematics.

You also need to provide better arguments than videos. I certainly won't watch them.

You need to provide your mathematical model and some evidence to support your claims.

[MaximalIdeal]

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

Your idea can be trivially dismissed because the mathematics of waves shows that it is wrong. They can also be trivially dismissed because observations and experiments are consistent with that mathematics.

You also need to provide better arguments than videos. I certainly won't watch them.

You need to provide your mathematical model and some evidence to support your claims.

I think you're confusing me for DraftPhysics. I am arguing why DraftPhysics is wrong based off of the fact that the intensity is proportional to the square of the amplitude of a wave. If this is not true, please tell me.

Edit: Ok, I saw the reply. No worries. lol

Edited December 31, 2018 by MaximalIdeal

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, MaximalIdeal said:

I think you're confusing me for DraftPhysics. I am arguing why DraftPhysics is wrong based off of the fact that the intensity is proportional to the square of the amplitude of a wave. If this is not true, please tell me.

Oops. You are right. I apologise. I think your arguments were good!

[DraftPhysics]

 

Sorry if you don't like that I have posted my response in video form. Some of the side subjects are quite complex and need some detailed explanation. I will attempt to post a bullet point summery of the points made in the video. 

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said:

Some of the side subjects are quite complex and need some detailed explanation.

Which is why video is the worst possible medium. (Well, apart from interpretive dance, perhaps.)

Just show us the math. And the experimental data. This is a science site, not a film club.

[DraftPhysics]

46 minutes ago, Strange said:

Which is why video is the worst possible medium.

I wonder how many physicists would agree with that statement? There are lots of smart people doing podcast ...do you think they all should shut-up?

Just show us the math. And the experimental data.

I am not disputing any math, and there is "video" of the experimental data in my video.

This is a science site.

From the attitude you interject  that seems another weakly evidenced claim.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said:

I am not disputing any math

Yes you are. You are saying that adding two sine waves does not produce interference and that it changes the frequency. Neither of these are supported by the mathematics.

So, either you don't understand the math that you are "not disputing" or you need to tell us what math you are using. (It is easier to type the math here rather than create a video.)

6 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said:

I wonder how many physicists would agree with that statement?

Well, we could gather some data on this by comparing the number of peer-reviewed videos there are compared with peer-reviewed papers. 

[DraftPhysics]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes you are.

No, I am not disputing any mathematics. Math is just formalization of effects, and in most cases physics has that right. The problem with your attitude is you think proving effects is proving causes.

You are saying that adding two sine waves does not produce interference

The radar frequency is not necessarily a sine wave ...it may be pulsed.

and that it changes the frequency.

yes that is how radio jamming works

Neither of these are supported by the mathematics. ... you need to tell us what math you are using.

Jamming mathematics is the same mathematics as interference. We are arguing causes not effects. The wave eq is an angle and phase eq and both theorys of cause use the same geometry.

Well, we could gather some data on this by comparing the number of peer-reviewed videos there are compared with peer-reviewed papers. 

Both ligo and the LHC have used video presentations to support there papers. You think the world would be a lesser place if all papers where submitted with the added value of video support and explanation?

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said:

The radar frequency is not necessarily a sine wave ...it may be pulsed.

How does that change things?

How does adding two pulsed sine waves (or any mixture of frequencies) produce a higher frequency? And what can't that higher frequency be detected?

You see, this is how science works: you produce a model (you have not done this) and then you test the expected results (you haven't done that).

So, again, show us your math that describes how adding two signals produces a higher frequency.

And then show us this higher frequency being detected.

5 minutes ago, DraftPhysics said:

and that it changes the frequency.

yes that is how radio jamming works

Citation needed.

(Or, to put it another way: no it isn't.)

EDIT

OK, here is how jamming works:

"Intentional communications jamming is usually aimed at radio signals to disrupt control of a battle. A transmitter, tuned to the same frequency as the opponents' receiving equipment and with the same type of modulation, can, with enough power, override any signal at the receiver. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_jamming

Nothing there about changing the frequency.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Strange

[DraftPhysics]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

How does that change things?

How does adding two pulsed sine waves (or any mixture of frequencies) produce a higher frequency? And what can't that higher frequency be detected?

You keep implying that all energy at a frequency is in the form of a "sine wave". I am objecting to any obligation to agree that is true. As to how overlapping frequencies, that are out of phase, effectively dubble the frequency I illustrated that in the videos.

why can't that higher frequency be detected?

I assert it can be --unfortunately no one who has done the experiment has tried.

You see, this is how science works: you produce a model

I am challenging the evidence for your model.

and then you test the expected results

Effects are not causes.

So, again, show us your math that describes how adding two signals produces a higher frequency.

just as there is no huygens math, there is no jamming formula, just the simple phase geometry.

And then show us this higher frequency being detected.

You have to tune to a frequency to detect it...show me the experiment where anyone tried.

OK, here is how jamming works:

The wikipedia article has few details. This webpage also has few details but a nice animation. https://phantom-technologies.com/wave-interference-jamming/

In order to jam any cellphone / mobile phone, one must create a destructive interference pattern with that cell phone’s radio waves. RF jamming devices actually saturate space in a given radius, with a radio wave that exactly fits the mobile phone’s frequency. The only difference between the two waves, is that they are out of phase (reverse wave – see again above images).

The product of this activity is a “white noise” RF wave, which destructively interfere with the mobile phone’s waves. Hence any mobile phone in the affected radius, will show a “no signal” announcement.

Think of two radio antennas equal distance from a receiver exactly between them. Perhaps you can understand that the if the transmitters transmit the same frequency out of phase the receiver in the middle will not be able to resolve any signal. CLEARLY IN SUCH A CASE  "wave interference" could not be blamed for the nul signal as the to "waves" would not interact till AFTER they passed the antenna.