Live data from Hacker News

The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

arstechnica.com

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

#31
post #5

I love the way that math reveals ultimate truths. We consider math to be some abstract thing that we're applying to help explain reality. Instead, it often appears that the abstraction is somehow the True Reality(tm), and our reality is really just an imperfect view of Math(tm). We view math about like we view electromagnetic waves with our eyes. We see effects of it and reflections and complex interactions of only s…

Math is but a medium for modeling. Any model can have predictive power.

The challenge is in determining which surprising aspects of the model have faithful correspondence to the domain and which are nonessential artifacts of the modeling medium.

Re: The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

#32
post #18

Ok, so, this doesn't mean I can have a light bulb that makes the room dark?

You don't need anything fancy like negative frequency light bulb for that, only a regular light bulb that emits light 180 degree phase shifted to the already existing light in the room. It's actually impossible to do with a light bulb because the light that emits is not coherent but you can do it with a laser if the incoming light is also from a laser, in fact negative and positive laser interference is the basis for several technologies such as holograms.

Re: The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

#33
post #5

I love the way that math reveals ultimate truths. We consider math to be some abstract thing that we're applying to help explain reality. Instead, it often appears that the abstraction is somehow the True Reality(tm), and our reality is really just an imperfect view of Math(tm). We view math about like we view electromagnetic waves with our eyes. We see effects of it and reflections and complex interactions of only s…

Math is but a medium for modeling. Any model can have predictive power. The challenge is in determining which surprising aspects of the model have faithful correspondence to the domain and which are nonessential artifacts of the modeling medium.

No.

The surprising thing is that the models generate predictions far beyond the domains they were designed for (and far beyond the original knowledge of the people making the models), and that the predictions are so mindbogglingly accurate that there seems to be Something Else going on.

See the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics link below.

Re: The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

#34
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Math is but a medium for modeling. Any model can have predictive power. The challenge is in determining which surprising aspects of the model have faithful correspondence to the domain and which are nonessential artifacts of the modeling medium.

No. The surprising thing is that the models generate predictions far beyond the domains they were designed for (and far beyond the original knowledge of the people making the models), and that the predictions are so mindbogglingly accurate that there seems to be Something Else going on. See the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics link below.

No?

Surprising thing: Math's not the only modeling medium that can be Unreasonably Effective.

Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics: Know; saw; upvoted apropos reference already.

Re: The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

#35
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The surprising thing is that the models generate predictions far beyond the domains they were designed for (and far beyond the original knowledge of the people making the models), and that the predictions are so mindbogglingly accurate that there seems to be Something Else going on. See the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics link below.

No? Surprising thing: Math's not the only modeling medium that can be Unreasonably Effective. Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics: Know; saw; upvoted apropos reference already.

I'm confused by your statement that "Math's not the only modeling medium that can be Unreasonably Effective", because it's not clear to me what the notion of a "non-mathematical model" means. (That is to say, it's not clear to me that you're even correct in the weaker assertion that "Math's not the only modeling medium.") Can you explain?

Re: The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

#36
post #5

I love the way that math reveals ultimate truths. We consider math to be some abstract thing that we're applying to help explain reality. Instead, it often appears that the abstraction is somehow the True Reality(tm), and our reality is really just an imperfect view of Math(tm). We view math about like we view electromagnetic waves with our eyes. We see effects of it and reflections and complex interactions of only s…

Since math is just the formalization used to describe quantitative patterns observed, you're already seeing math as purely as it will ever get. Really, it's the other way around--since math is an abstraction of observation, what you observe with your senses day to day is a much more direct and fundamental reality. Math is a language, and reality is what it talks about. Similarly, people who speak English will find that the most effective visualization and perception of what they speak about is to just directly see and perceive the thing that they talk about.

That's why I've never thought that there's any "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Describing the World". Math is derived from reality and describes it insofar as it can be observed to be given a description, and so it's unsurprising that math is effective at describing what it's designed to effectively describe. It's like saying that English is unreasonably effective at talking about things.

Re: The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

#37
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physics often uses the sign of a frequency to indicate the direction of travel with regard to a reference frame. E.g. 2 Hz is a wave oscillating two times per second and travelling to the right, -2 Hz is the same travelling to the left. In some cases direction isn't really meaningful (standing waves, or the height or pressure of a medium as seen by a stationary observer). In others, the direction of propagation can b…

Is a -2 Hz wave travelling to the right the same as a 2 Hz save travelling to the right, but going backwards in time? Could there be something to John G. Cramer's transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? Instead of probability waves collapsing instantaneously, could everything be mediated by photons going backwards in time?

No, in this case. The arstechnica isn't very clear, but the original article explain more details ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4429424 ).

They found a solution with a negative w and negative k, so it travels forward. They "neglect" the solutions that travel backward (with negative w and positive k, or positive w and negative k). The more clear parts about this is the Fig 1(a) (page 2) and the paragraph below it.

Re: The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

#38
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you be more condescending? More seriously, explain to me how making the wave travel backwards isn't the same as changing the sign of t. Wave movement is linearly based on t.

Are we talking about the same thing? I'm talking about particle waves, or wave functions of particles, not a function which satisfies the wave equation (a photon happens to satisfy the wave function, but I'm trying to be general here) and with frequency, I mean energy. Try changing the sign of t in Schrodinger equation and see if it simply amounts to changing the sign of your momentum vector or not.

I guess not. I had an impression of you talking about particles from the start of your comment, but then you went into "read about waves" and said to make a plot, which made it sound like you were talking about basic math. I only understand a few of the effects of altering time on physics so I'll shut up.

Re: The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

#39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No? Surprising thing: Math's not the only modeling medium that can be Unreasonably Effective. Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics: Know; saw; upvoted apropos reference already.

I'm confused by your statement that "Math's not the only modeling medium that can be Unreasonably Effective", because it's not clear to me what the notion of a "non-mathematical model" means. (That is to say, it's not clear to me that you're even correct in the weaker assertion that "Math's not the only modeling medium.") Can you explain?

Modeling media besides math: digital electronic circuits, analog electronic circuits, legos, quantum mechanical phenomena, gears, computer simulation, wetware, mythology, clocks, BZ reactions, ...

Re: The dark side of light: negative frequency photons

#40
I read the original article that is much clearer about the details ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4429424 ).

My explanation of the effect is long a bit technical. I hope that it is intelligible.

(To keep this simple, I will ignore the phases of the waves.)

* * * Complex notation:

First, the equation for the electric field of the light is

  E = A cos(kz-wt)
It's more convenient to write it as a sum of complex exponentials

  E = A [exp(i(kz-wt)) + exp(i(-kz-(-w)t))] /2
  E = Re( A [exp(i(kz-wt))])
By the linearity of the equations, the exp(i(kz-wt)) part and the exp(i(-kz-(-w)t)) have the same behavior, so you usually write simply

  "E" = A exp(i(kz-wt))
and solve everything as if it where a complex function, but just before writing the final version or going to the laboratory you must remember that the other part was there, and that the real physical object is the real part of the function.

* * * Standard non linearity effects:

If the media is linear but not uniform, there appear other waves that travel in other direction z' (reflection/refractions). All of them have the same w.

  "E_tot" = A exp(i(kz-wt)) + A' exp(i(kz'-wt)) 
Really all of them have two parts, one with w and the other with -w,

  E_tot = A/2 [exp(i(kz-wt))+ exp(i(-kz-(-w)t))] + A'/2 [exp(i(k'z-wt))+ exp(i(-kz-(-w)t))]
but usually you simply ignore that details, and only put a +cc (complex conjugate) or Re at the last minute.

If the media is no linear there can appear waves with a different frequency w'.

  "E_tot" = A exp(i(kz-wt)) + A' exp(i(k'z-w't)) 
(There can appear more than two exponentials.)

Again they have two parts, and the real thing is the real part. It's more clear to choose w' as a positive number, because (-w') will appear in the hidden part of the equation.

  E_tot = Re("E_tot")
* * * New non linearity effects in this article:

In this article they use a very sharp pulse in a very non linear material. So, from the

  "E" = A exp(i(kz-wt)) 
part they get two new exponentials

  "E_tot" = A exp(i(kz-wt)) + A' exp(i(k'z-w't)) + A'' exp(i(k_n''z-w_n''t))
where k' and w' are positive numbers as expected. But k_n'' and w_n'' are negative numbers!! They get this numbers from the same equation that has k' and w' as a solution, so all of them appear from the same mathematical term. They call this negative solution "NRR".

But it is important to remember that the original E has two exponentials, so you must repeat all the computations with the other part

  "E*" = A exp(i(-kz-(-w)t))
everything is equivalent, so after some recalculations you get

  "E*_tot" = A exp(i(-kz-(-w)t)) + A' exp(i(-k'z-(-w')t)) + A'' exp(i(-k_n''z-(-w_n'')t))
where every k and every w has an additional "-". They call this part "NRR* ". But now -k_n'' and -w_n'' are positive numbers. We can change the names, and call

  k'' = - k_n''
  w'' = - w_n''
and now k'' and w'' are positive numbers. So the first part of the solution is now

  "E_tot" = A exp(i(kz-wt)) + A' exp(i(k'z-w't)) + A'' exp(i(-k''z-(-w'')t))
and the second part is

  "E*_tot" = A exp(i(-kz-(-w)t)) + A' exp(i(-k'z-(-w')t)) + A'' exp(i(k''z-w''t))
And the real physical object is

  E_tot = ("E_tot"+"E*_tot")/2
So we can regroup the term. We exchange the terms with k'' and w'' that have the wrong signs from on part to the other, because the sum doesn't change.

  "E_totx" = A exp(i(kz-wt)) + A' exp(i(k'z-w't)) + A'' exp(i(k''z-w''t))
and the second part is

  "E*_totx" = A exp(i(-kz-(-w)t)) + A' exp(i(-k'z-(-w')t)) + A'' exp(i(-k''z-(-w'')t))
and as before

  E_tot = ("E_totx"+"E*_totx")/2
Now the interpretation of "E_totx" is straightforward. From the original field "E" you get three waves, with frequencies w, w' and w'', all of them positive. And in "E* _totx" is the complex conjugate part, so the final result is real.

And they can measure the three waves.

* * * Notes:

Usually, the A'' coefficient is so small that all this strange part can be ignored, but they were able to measure it in the laboratory.

One important detail is that k/w, k'/w' and k_n''/w_n''= k''/w'' are all positive, so they represent waves that travel in the same direction.

Post reply on HN