# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment  (Read 8952 times)

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« on: 25/07/2007 13:59:15 »
Here is a light experiment that you mite say is opposite of the double slit

Experiment, but gives you the same conclusions.

I call it the double light and single mass experiment.

Conclusions:

The “Atomic-Systems Weak-Forces / Electromagnetic Fields” that are along

the edges of the mass of the double slits / and the single mass reach out and bends the

light as it is passing by them.

The experiment;

Take a small can and pant it a flat black.
Then set it on a table.
Then darken the room.
Then take two/2 laser pointers.
As in the first picture point the lasers
to the sides of the can and then slowly
move the lasers towards the can until
them just touch the outside of the can
on each side, as in the first picture.
At this time the two laser beams will
scatter out on the wall behind the can
and come together and even cancel some
of each other’s light.

As in the second picture you can do the
same experiment with two/2 cars out on
a dark road way from the city lights.
As you can see can #1 lights up the road.
But when car #2 turns on his bright lights
and engulfs car #1 the lights from car #2
are bent around car #1 and all but cancels
out car #1 dimmer lights.

Edward E. Kerls

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #1 on: 25/07/2007 18:27:56 »
If I understand right, this is an experimental example of diffraction, which doesn't lead to all the same conclusions as a double slit experiment.  It is an example of how the light interacts with the edge of the mass, and the light/particle does so in a double slit experiment as well (at each slit).

The double slit experiment allows you to say something further: how the same wave/particle will interfere with itself.  This experiment won't measure self-interference (unless the can is more thin than a single laser beam aimed at it).

You can do the same thing with a flashlight (or laser pointer if you have one) and a piece of aluminum foil.  If you shine the flashlight at the wall normally, it makes a spot of a certain size.  If you poke a small hole in a piece of aluminum foil and tape it to the end of the flashlight, you should see a much larger spot appear, which is the light being diffracted in all directions from the pinhole.  (This is even more dramatic with a laser beam, since you're dealing with such a small spot initially.)

Another way of interpreting this is with the uncertainty principle.  If you know that the position of a wave is confined to a pinhole (by forcing it to go through that pinhole), you can't know it's momentum (or direction) very well, so it goes off in many directions at once, making a much wider beam and a larger spot size.

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #2 on: 25/07/2007 18:54:21 »
What you have there is the same as a PIN HOLE CAMERA where the little round hole edges and the em-fields around the hole act as Magnifying Glass.

Ed

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #3 on: 25/07/2007 20:51:28 »
No, this isn't really a pinhole camera in any way aside from being a pinhole.  A pinhole camera involves putting the source far enough from the pinhole so that diffraction effects aren't very important (or else you get a blurry image), and light can be modeled as rays instead of waves.

What I described is putting the source really close to a pinhole so that diffraction effects are the dominant feature of the output, and you have to use waves instead of rays to model what's going on.

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #4 on: 26/07/2007 14:29:23 »
No, this isn't really a pinhole camera in any way aside from being a pinhole.  A pinhole camera involves putting the source far enough from the pinhole so that diffraction effects aren't very important (or else you get a blurry image), and light can be modeled as rays instead of waves.

What I described is putting the source really close to a pinhole so that diffraction effects are the dominant feature of the output, and you have to use waves instead of rays to model what's going on.

Yes but it is still the EM fields around the edeges of the hole that do the spreading of the light. Look;

Ed

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #5 on: 26/07/2007 15:57:24 »
That's an incorrect interpretation of how the pinhole camera works.

A pinhole camera assumes that you're set up properly to largely avoid that spreading effect (by placing the object of interest far from the slit and making the pinhole large enough).  Otherwise the light coming from a point on the object will spread out and form a blob instead of a focused image.

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #6 on: 26/07/2007 16:25:43 »
That's an incorrect interpretation of how the pinhole camera works.

A pinhole camera assumes that you're set up properly to largely avoid that spreading effect (by placing the object of interest far from the slit and making the pinhole large enough).  Otherwise the light coming from a point on the object will spread out and form a blob instead of a focused image.

The EM-fields do work as the Electromagnetic lens of the pin-hole camera and YES the distences in the box and the object from the box are very importent in this experiment.

The KEY in this experiment is EM-fields as the Lens.

Ed

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #7 on: 26/07/2007 20:01:37 »
Nothing acts as a lens in a pinhole camera.  A lens is something that bends light rays, and nothing is being bent in a pinhole camera (aside from the blurring effects, which you generally assume are negligible).

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #8 on: 26/07/2007 20:21:18 »
Dear jpetruccelli;

Quote
“Nothing acts as a lens in a pinhole camera.  A lens is something that bends light rays, and nothing is being bent in a pinhole camera (aside from the blurring effects, which you generally assume are negligible).”

So you don’t think EM-fields can bend light or particles in motion within them,

Well have you ever see the yoke of magnetic wires on the neck of  a CRT-picture

tub of a TV or monitor.

Well this is at the Atomic level EM-fields, and the also bend light.

And if you say that the light is not being bent in a pinhole camera, then why is the picture reverst and upsidedown then???
Ed
« Last Edit: 26/07/2007 20:32:17 by G-1 Theory »

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #9 on: 26/07/2007 20:24:41 »
Also think of the electromagnet fields in a electron microcope.
ED

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8665
• Thanked: 42 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #10 on: 26/07/2007 20:50:20 »
Please don't talk rubbish G-1 theory. That's not what jpetruccelli said. He didn't say you cant bend particle beams. He said that a pinhole camera doesn't do so; which is perfectly correct. Here's how it works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera
Also, while I don't have 2 cars to play with, I did that experiment with a couple of torches and it simply doesn't do what you say it does. The bit lit by 2 lights gets brighter (of course)  but adding the second torch (or, presumably car) doesn't make the first one dimmer.

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #11 on: 30/07/2007 17:26:14 »
Please don't talk rubbish G-1 theory. That's not what jpetruccelli said. He didn't say you cant bend particle beams. He said that a pinhole camera doesn't do so; which is perfectly correct. Here's how it works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera
Also, while I don't have 2 cars to play with, I did that experiment with a couple of torches and it simply doesn't do what you say it does. The bit lit by 2 lights gets brighter (of course)  but adding the second torch (or, presumably car) doesn't make the first one dimmer.

Dear Bored Chemist;

If you go back to the site that you quote, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinhole_camera
You will read that it says that the pinhole doesn't have a conventional glass lens.

NOT that It doesn't have a lens at all.

The very small hole that it talks about allows the EM-fields to be the lens.

As a Chemist you do know about the weak forces that hold moicules together and by now you should know that the weak-forces area the same as the Electromagnetic forces or/ EM-fields.

These to forces was unifed by Prof. Steven Weindburg and he got a Nobel for this work here at UT.

Ed
« Last Edit: 30/07/2007 17:28:58 by G-1 Theory »

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #12 on: 30/07/2007 18:36:00 »
Ed, I've been to the website you link to in your profile and it's clear that you're trying to push this "G-1 theory," which isn't accepted physics and belongs in the "New Theories" section.  The theory of electromagnetic diffraction and the wave theory of light already exist in physics and adequately explain the effects discussed above without needing a new theory.

Regarding the pinhole camera, the fact is that there is no bending of light going on in an ideal pinhole camera, and any bending is unintentional and causes a blurry image.

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8665
• Thanked: 42 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #13 on: 30/07/2007 19:37:59 »
Oh boy! where to start.
I cited that page because it explains nicely how a pinhole camera works without having to dream up any new ideas in physics. I was answering your question "And if you say that the light is not being bent in a pinhole camera, then why is the picture reverst and upsidedown then???"

It's a simple enough idea- it would work if you were trying to image a group of people randonly shooting machine guns round the place. A small hole in a bullet proof screen with a witness plate behind it would show what direction the bullets had come from and so would tell you roughly where the shooters were. It works perfectly well with macroscopic massive particles so it's hardly suprising that it works with light. No reason to invent new stuff.
It does indeed say that it has no conventional lens. It doesn't say that it has any other sort of lens. It does however explicitly say "He uses a light-proof wooden box 4" square with a fixed-size pinhole in the front. Photographic paper is placed at the back of the box. There is no lens..."

If you make the hole in a pinhole camera too small it stops working, that's what happens when the interactions with the material from which the box is made become significant.
As a chemist I do indeed know about the forces that hold molecules together and they have little of any practical importance to do with the Weak force which is involved in nuclear decay. Certainly they are unified at high energies and there is great hope that the other forces may join them in a GUT. Nice, but of no importance whatsoever to pinhole cameras.
Dropping Nobel winners into the post doesn't detract from the fact that there isn't a lens in a pinhole camera and it doesn't need one.

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #14 on: 31/07/2007 13:27:04 »
Ed, I've been to the website you link to in your profile and it's clear that you're trying to push this "G-1 theory," which isn't accepted physics and belongs in the "New Theories" section.  The theory of electromagnetic diffraction and the wave theory of light already exist in physics and adequately explain the effects discussed above without needing a new theory.

Regarding the pinhole camera, the fact is that there is no bending of light going on in an ideal pinhole camera, and any bending is unintentional and causes a blurry image.

Dear jpetruccel;

Yes my web page is on my NEW G-1 Theory;

But if you go throgh it as you said that you did, you will not see anything there on a pinhole cameras.

What I am trying to get accross to you and Bored chemist is some of the new findings from the studies of Prof. Weindberg here at UT on the actions of the weak-force and electromagnetics, and has nothing to do with my G-1 Theory.

And by the way just what do you think bends the light as it goes through a glass lens,
it is the em-fields of the glass. See the em-fields of glass are pollerized to alow most light go right through, but in a lens's curviture the last em-fields bend the light to a focus point.

Bored chemist;

If you do not have the means to set up the two car experiment then just you get two very cheep laser pointers and see for yourself that the em-field can and will bend the light in that experiment.

Ed

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #15 on: 31/07/2007 16:11:44 »
Yes my web page is on my NEW G-1 Theory;

But if you go throgh it as you said that you did, you will not see anything there on a pinhole cameras.

What I am trying to get accross to you and Bored chemist is some of the new findings from the studies of Prof. Weindberg here at UT on the actions of the weak-force and electromagnetics, and has nothing to do with my G-1 Theory.

And by the way just what do you think bends the light as it goes through a glass lens,
it is the em-fields of the glass. See the em-fields of glass are pollerized to alow most light go right through, but in a lens's curviture the last em-fields bend the light to a focus point.

You don't mention the pinhole camera explicitly on your site, but you do mention that you view every atom as "spinning out" electromagnetic force which you equate to the weak force.  And it's that force that you're claiming here is responsible for diffraction and the "lens" in a pinhole camera.  That's a new theory and not accepted physics.

Light bends through lenses because the lens interacts with light in such a way that it slows light down more in some places than others, and therefore changes its direction.  If you want to get technical, the light interacts with the molecules making up the lens by pushing electrons in the atoms around in such a way that the light is forced to slow down.  The EM fields of the glass have nothing to do with bending the EM fields of the light.  All the effects you mention can be explained by the EM field of light pushing around charged particles (electrons), which causes the EM field to change as a result of giving up energy and momentum.

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #16 on: 31/07/2007 17:19:39 »
Yes my web page is on my NEW G-1 Theory;

But if you go throgh it as you said that you did, you will not see anything there on a pinhole cameras.

What I am trying to get accross to you and Bored chemist is some of the new findings from the studies of Prof. Weindberg here at UT on the actions of the weak-force and electromagnetics, and has nothing to do with my G-1 Theory.

And by the way just what do you think bends the light as it goes through a glass lens,
it is the em-fields of the glass. See the em-fields of glass are pollerized to alow most light go right through, but in a lens's curviture the last em-fields bend the light to a focus point.

You don't mention the pinhole camera explicitly on your site, but you do mention that you view every atom as "spinning out" electromagnetic force which you equate to the weak force.  And it's that force that you're claiming here is responsible for diffraction and the "lens" in a pinhole camera.  That's a new theory and not accepted physics.

Light bends through lenses because the lens interacts with light in such a way that it slows light down more in some places than others, and therefore changes its direction.  If you want to get technical, the light interacts with the molecules making up the lens by pushing electrons in the atoms around in such a way that the light is forced to slow down.  The EM fields of the glass have nothing to do with bending the EM fields of the light.  All the effects you mention can be explained by the EM field of light pushing around charged particles (electrons), which causes the EM field to change as a result of giving up energy and momentum.

Yes and this is how the glass inertacts with the light.

And this is NOT a new theory. The last EM-fields sends/bends the light to the foucs point, just as the leasr light goes by the post in the first that isent to this site.

Edward E. Kerls

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8665
• Thanked: 42 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #17 on: 31/07/2007 20:11:32 »
The second picture is simply wrong. The light bends at both the first and second sufaces ie both where it enters and where it leaves the glass. Most glass has tiny imperfections in it so you can see the path of the beam by scattering. I remember doing this as a school experiment when I was about 13. Once again, some kind soul has drawn up a Wiki page with nice diagrams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_%28optics%29

The explanation of how a lens works is easy enough to understand. The glass slows the light down (I accept that the extent of the slowing down ie the refractive index can be calculated from the electrical and magnetic properties of the glass but that's Maxwell's work from the 19th century(iirc) so it's not anything new to Prof. Weindberg).
Again, the explanation works perfectly well for macroscopic objects- a column of soldiers marching in step through a lens shaped sand pit would be "focussed" to some extent.

There are at least 2 uses of the word polarise in physcs and only one is really relevant- the normal sense ie talking about polarised light isn't important here. The electrical propety of the glass that(together with the magnetic properties)gives rise to the refractive index is related to how easilly the molecules in the glass are polarised.

There's no question that lenses bend light. The way in which they do so is well enough documented. The point is that pinhole cameras don't bend light at all. They explicitly rely on it traveling in straight lines. To the extent that diffraction ensures that the light doesn't follow a perfectly straight line, the image gets blurred.
I'm not going to waste my time or money with 2 lasers. It's practically impossible to get interference effects from any 2 light sources. The coherence lengths and times are much too short.
As I said I have tried the other experiment (the car one) using torches and it simply doesn't work.
« Last Edit: 31/07/2007 20:15:17 by Bored chemist »

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #18 on: 01/08/2007 13:20:51 »

Quote of Bored Chimist;

Quote 1
“There are at least 2 uses of the word polarise in physcs and only one is really relevant- the normal sense ie talking about polarised light isn't important here.”

Quote 2
“The electrical propety of the glass that(together with the magnetic properties)gives rise to the refractive index is related to how easilly the molecules in the glass are polarised.”

Dear Sir;

It is “Not,  polarized light” that the picture of a lens is talking about.

It is the polarizing of the glass’s Atomic-System’s Weark-Electromagnetic Fields, it’s EM-Fields that allows light to pass through the glass.

As you should be able to see, this explains the second half of your own quote.

About a year are so back a team was able to polarize the atomic-strong forces fields of a gas. The polarizing of these fields farmed an accelerator and this allowed them to send light pluses through the gass at 311 times the speed of light.

Ed

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8665
• Thanked: 42 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #19 on: 01/08/2007 19:55:04 »
You seem to have repeated my points. As I said, the common use of "polarised" when talking about light isn't the one that's important here, so my statement "'There are at least 2 uses of the word polarise in physics and only one is really relevant- the normal sense ie talking about polarised light isn't important here.'"
and yours
'It is “Not,  polarized light” that the picture of a lens is talking about.'
mean the same thing.

The refraction is, indeed as I said, due to EM polarisation of the molecules in the glass, so again my statement “The electrical property of the glass that(together with the magnetic properties)gives rise to the refractive index is related to how easily the molecules in the glass are polarised.”'

and your statement 'It is the polarizing of the glass’s Atomic-System’s Weark-Electromagnetic Fields, it’s EM-Fields that allows light to pass through the glass.'
mean the same thing too.

I still say your original diagram was, and remains, wrong. And I still don't see why you keep mentioning the weak force- I accept that at high energies it's unified with the EM force but we simply are not talking about those energies.

Please could you include a reference for the 311 times  the speed of light stuff. Thanks
« Last Edit: 01/08/2007 19:58:40 by Bored chemist »

#### G-1 Theory

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 231
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #20 on: 06/08/2007 13:48:41 »
Dear Bored chemist;

Here is one of the sites that talk about breaking the ligh seed.
From BBC News.

Edward E. kerls

low graphics version | feedback | help

You are in: Sci/Tech

Front Page

World

UK

UK Politics

Sci/Tech

Health

Education

Entertainment

Talking Point

In Depth

AudioVideo

Wednesday, 19 July, 2000, 18:09 GMT 19:09 UK
Beam smashes light barrier

By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse
Scientists have seen a pulse of light emerge from a cloud of gas before it even entered.
This astonishing and baffling observation was made by researchers from the NEC Research Institute in Princeton, US.
They conducted an experiment that involved lasers, a chamber containing cold caesium atoms and a super-fast stopwatch.
The end result was a beam of light that moved at 300 times the theoretical limit for the speed of light.
It was Einstein who said nothing physical could break this barrier because, among other things, to do so would also mean travelling back in time.
Dramatic demonstration
But the NEC scientists believe their work does not violate Einstein's theory.
Writing in the journal Nature, Dr Lijun Wang and colleagues say their light beam raced through the atom trap so quickly that the leading edge of the pulse's peak actually exited before it had entered.
If this sounds confusing, then do not worry. Many physicists are uncomfortable with it too despite their explanations that it is a natural consequence of the wave nature of light.
Although the work of Dr Wang's team is remarkable, it is not the first time that this sort of "trick" has been performed - but it is certainly the most dramatic demonstration.
Earlier this year, a team of physicists made a microwave beam travel 7% faster than light speed. Last year, they announced that they had even slowed light down to almost a crawl.
Anomalous refractive index
To achieve their peculiar effect, Dr Wang's group fired laser beams through a trap of caesium atoms.
By adjusting the frequency of the laser beams to match those of the energy levels in the atoms, the researchers were able to achieve an effect called "anomalous refractive index." This boosts the pulses' so-called "group velocity" to a speed faster than what we understand to be the speed of light - just short of 300 million metres per second.
The group velocity of a light pulse depends upon the mixture of frequencies within the pulse and the medium through which it travels. It need not be the speed of the pulse itself.
The important thing, however, is that whilst the group velocity can be manipulated to be faster than the speed of light, it is not possible to use this effect to send information faster than the speed of light.
Because of the fast group velocity, the leading edge of the pulse appears to leave the caesium-filled chamber 62 billionths of a second before it arrives.
Causality principle
And according to Dr Wang, this strange result does not threaten Einstein's theories - in particular, the causality principle, which states that a cause must precede its effect.
Or so almost all physicists think - for now. Privately, some admit that experiments such as Dr Wang's may force a reassessment of some cherished ideas.
According to Dr Guenter Nimtz, of the University of Cologne, who has carried out similar experiments, the NEC work is very exciting.
He told BBC News Online: "The effect cannot be used to go back in time, only to reduce the time between cause and effect a little bit.
"The reason for this," he said, "is because the light pulse has a finite length of time, much longer than any gain obtained by a faster-than-light speed."

Search BBC News Online

BBC ONE TV NEWS

WORLD NEWS SUMMARY

BBC NEWS 24 BULLETIN

PROGRAMMES GUIDE

07 Jun 00 | Sci/Tech
Faster than a speeding light wave
24 Feb 00 | Sci/Tech
Putting the brakes on light

Dr Lijun Wang
NEC Research Institute
Nature
Faster than light experiments

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Top Sci/Tech stories now:

Astronomy's next big thing
Ancient rock points to life's origin
Mobile spam on the rise
Giant telescope project gets boost
New hope for Aids vaccine
Device could detect overdose drugs
Wireless internet arrives in China

Links to more Sci/Tech stories are at the foot of the page.

E-mail this story to a friend

Links to more Sci/Tech stories

News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© MMIII | News Sources | Privacy

#### Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8665
• Thanked: 42 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #21 on: 06/08/2007 19:55:53 »
Thanks
I think this is the important bit.
This boosts the pulses' so-called "group velocity" to a speed faster than what we understand to be the speed of light - just short of 300 million metres per second.
The group velocity of a light pulse depends upon the mixture of frequencies within the pulse and the medium through which it travels. It need not be the speed of the pulse itself.
The important thing, however, is that whilst the group velocity can be manipulated to be faster than the speed of light, it is not possible to use this effect to send information faster than the speed of light".

The group velocity isn't really a measure of the velocity of the pulse
Imagine I point a laser at the moon (and say I can get a big enough, bright enough, well focussed enough beam to do this and make a spot visible from earth).
If, rather than pointing the laser directly at the moon I bounce the beam off a mirror then I can "scan" the spot back and to across the moon by moving the mirror. The moon is roughly 3000Km across so if I can scan the spot across it in less than a milisecond I can make the spot move at faster than the speed of light. Mirror galvanometers that fast are perfectly commonplace, so it wouldn't be any technical challenge to move it that fast (in fact, the challenge would be keeping it still) so I can move a spot across the moon faster than the speed of light.
So what? nothing really moved that fast.

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #22 on: 06/08/2007 22:58:58 »
About a year are so back a team was able to polarize the atomic-strong forces fields of a gas. The polarizing of these fields farmed an accelerator and this allowed them to send light pluses through the gass at 311 times the speed of light.

Moreover, this effect relies the tuning of lasers to the specific (quantized) energy levels of the electrons in the atoms of the gas.  It's a tuning of the external fields to match and interact with the electrons in the atoms, and has nothing to do with the strong force (which governs how the quarks and gluons interact in the nucleus of atoms).

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### The opposite of the Double Slit Experiment
« Reply #22 on: 06/08/2007 22:58:58 »