May 23, 2013

Discussion thread for "The Light of Paradox"

This is the post for discussing "The Light of Paradox."

Greetings, readers of Analog Science Fiction and Fact Magazine, and others interested in the unexpectedly paradoxical physics of "wigglers" and undulators. This is my blog post dedicated to discussing issues raised in my [proposed, waiting on updates] Analog article "The Light of Paradox." I presume it is acceptable to pre-publish the Abstract for the article, (which may or may not appear in the published version if Analog accepts the article.)

We discuss three paradoxes deriving from interactions in devices (such as undulators) that simulate illumination by electromagnetic radiation. The major cause of the paradoxes is the lack of actual photons striking the targets exposed to this simulated light (SL.) The first paradox develops from the problematical nature of the additional momentum correction required when energy from SL is absorbed in a compound target. The second paradox concerns the light pressure from SL differing from that exerted by ordinary light. The third paradox concerns the difficulty of accounting for all momentum and energy when SL interferes with ordinary light. Attractive solutions are not evident.

As readers here can imagine, I can't provide or send you the whole article until finding out whether my submission was accepted. Best.


Blogger Kay zum Felde said...

What do you exactly mean by illuminated light simulated by electromagnetic radiation ?

21/7/13 08:21  
Blogger Kay zum Felde said...

I've been thinking further; as I believe now, simulated light is just light which is build by the wiggler.

21/7/13 09:41  
Blogger Kay zum Felde said...

Simulated light coming from an undulator is classical but the definition formula contains the wavelength of a photon besides the mass and the charge of an electron. Is that a hint for the photon to be a quantum mechanic entity ? Not easily to say as I think.

21/7/13 09:59  
Blogger Kay zum Felde said...

Are there experiments underway to understand the nature of the SL ?

21/7/13 10:02  
Blogger Neil Bates said...

Hello Kay, I apologize profusely for not realizing you commented here - I am supposed to get comment notifications but something went wrong. Still, I should have checked. So: simulated light means, there are fixed sources of magnetic (and possibly electric field as well) that moving targets pass by at high speed. In the target reference frame, there is changing B and E field which can (depending on circumstances) closely resemble the fields of light radiation that are free propagating in space. So this special "light" is relative, not made of "real" photons, and does not propagate beyond the wiggler etc - *not* to be confused with the real photons stimulated to be emitted by the target, in turn.

Experiments: I am not aware of any to test the specific issues I raise in the proposed article. The tiny push of the required "coupling momentum" on the wiggler/undulator is so small it likely can't be measured. This will sadly remain a theoretical toy for awhile. (?)

BTW I should be hearing from the Editors in a few weeks. I've been reworking the article and had to include an illustration inside the file, which caused delays. Please keep fingers crossed for me, thanks.

29/9/13 20:20  
Blogger Kay zum Felde said...

Hi Neil,

Let's get me straight to understand your description of SL: "Fixed sources of magnetic fields (and possibly electric fields as well) that moving targets pass at high speed." I should assume, that the moving targets are electrons protons or some other loaded elementary or atomic particles; furthermore these moving target's reference frame is existing a changing B- and E-field. This can (under some circumstances) closely resemble the fields of light radiation, which are free propagating in space. Not so easy to understand.

Take care Kay

Keep my fingers crossed for the publication ;-)

2/10/13 10:26  
Blogger Neil Bates said...

Kay: Yes, the targets are in practice, electrons etc. but that is not required in principle. Furthermore, the fields transform relative to the abstraction of a moving "reference frame" per se. So let's say we have simple alternation of sign of N and S poles facing each other, and the RF moves past:

N S N S N S ...
S N S N S N ...

So we use the transformation rules for E and B (I left out of the article to avoid loading up with tech background) to find the new relative fields E' and B'. In terms of cross products, we find

B' = γB
E' = γv X B.

Here γ is the factor
(1 - v²/c²)^-1/2. As v --> c, B' and E' are almost equal, and their orientations, relative magnitudes, and alternation are very much like that of propagating electromagnetic radiation. We can add fixed electrostatic charges and add E fields, with further complications and variations.

So does that act like EM radiation, ie "light"? Well, as I explain in the article: yes and no. The "no" part is a challenge to simple consistent physics.

2/10/13 21:56  
Blogger Neil Bates said...

Thanks for your hopes about publication. I want to think, the Editors appreciate the importance of the points I am making.

2/10/13 21:57  
Blogger Kay zum Felde said...

I think it is quite not so easy to follow your Gedanken experiment, but I understood its basics, I guess. That it is, or acts, as light is quite a philosophical question.

12/10/13 05:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, I am from Australia.
Please find two references on the paradoxical nature of Quantum Light (Reality)

3/11/13 20:04  

Post a Comment

<< Home