Gamma ray bursts - a transmission effect (photon cohesion)?
z@z
1) the source
2) the transmission of the signal (transmission effect)
3) the dectecting system (instrumentation effect)
Typical INSTRUMENTATION EFFECTs can result e.g. from "improving" faint
signals by means of additional electronics and software.
A good example a TRANSMISSION EFFECT is a mirage (fata morgana, an image
produced by very hot air).
Because of cohesion forces between molecules, water molecules are not
homogeneously distributed in the atmosphere, but can often be found in
groups (droplets). Reasoning from analogy could suggest the hypothesis
of small cohesive forces between photons.
Such cohesive forces could explain why gamma rays are not always diluted
more and more with increasing distance from the source, but break apart
into fragments (which are currently interpreted as being a direct result
of bursts somewhere in the universe).
The separating force beween two photons side by side depends on the
angle between the propagation direction of each photon. If they travel
in exactly the same direction, then no force at all is necessary to
prevent them from drifting apart. If the angle is small, then the
separating force is proportional to the angle.
So only huge sources should be able to produce this gamma-ray cohesion
effect (leading to the apparent bursts), because the photons (or coherent
groups of photons) of rays emitted by smaller sources break ties with
each other long before the angles between neighbours become small enough
to be compensated by the cohesive forces.
The hypothesis entails that the occurence of "gamma ray bursts" must
have a strong statistical component, because it depends on chance
whether such gamma-ray fragments originating from far-away sources
hit detectors on the earth or not.
If the behaviour of photons is not as simple as those who claim the
completeness of QM want to make us believe, then also other (unexplained)
astronomical signals could depend on such transmission effects.
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=608044028
Uncle Al
"z@z" wrote:
[snip]
> Because of cohesion forces between molecules, water molecules are not
> homogeneously distributed in the atmosphere, but can often be found in
> groups (droplets). Reasoning from analogy could suggest the hypothesis
> of small cohesive forces between photons.
[snip]
So sad. Give the fellow four years' education and he might aspire to
deft sophistry. As is, it doesn't even approach a nadir of bilge.
Yo! BOZO! Repeat after me... "fine structure constant." Dont' even
mumble about gravity until you look at the exponent and units of Big
G.
You don't know crap about water, either.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/net2.htm
meteorology nucleation 648 hits
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Phil Henshaw
"z@z" wrote:
>
> Properties of a detected electromagnetic signal can originate from
>
> 1) the source
> 2) the transmission of the signal (transmission effect)
> 3) the dectecting system (instrumentation effect)
sure, all data is an accurate reflection of *something*, with lots of
possibilities
... clip
> Such cohesive forces could explain why gamma rays are not always diluted
> more and more with increasing distance from the source, but break apart
> into fragments (which are currently interpreted as being a direct result
> of bursts somewhere in the universe).
If you ever looked at the data I don't think you'd say that, or looked
with a mind to identifying the nature of the process that produced
them. They are utterly massive isolated events with very distinctive
developmental curve shapes (growth w/o climax, followed by sudden
collapse and decay). There is background texture that rides right
through the main spikes and decay, and sometimes double and triple
spikes, but isolated a whole day or week apart. To say that 10,000
photons, with few closer than a microsecond apart, exert some special
force on each other seems kind of nuts.
(http://idt.net/~ph/batse551.htm) or just the cleaned up data curve of
one (http://idt.net/~ph/BATSE3a.gif)
..clip
--
Phil Henshaw
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
167 W 87th St. NY NY 10024
tel: 212-579-2914
explorations: http://idt.net/~ph
Phil Henshaw
was 60 microsec, or at the speed of light, 18,000 meters apart!
--
Phil Henshaw
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
167 W 87th St NY NY 10024
z@z
:: = Phil Henshaw
::: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=611533182
::: Such cohesive forces could explain why gamma rays are not always diluted
::: more and more with increasing distance from the source, but break apart
::: into fragments (which are currently interpreted as being a direct result
::: of bursts somewhere in the universe).
:
:: If you ever looked at the data I don't think you'd say that, or looked
:: with a mind to identifying the nature of the process that produced
:: them. They are utterly massive isolated events with very distinctive
:: developmental curve shapes (growth w/o climax, followed by sudden
:: collapse and decay). There is background texture that rides right
:: through the main spikes and decay, and sometimes double and triple
:: spikes, but isolated a whole day or week apart. To say that 10,000
:: photons, with few closer than a microsecond apart, exert some special
:: force on each other seems kind of nuts.
:: (http://idt.net/~ph/batse551.htm) or just the cleaned up data curve of
:: one (http://idt.net/~ph/BATSE3a.gif)
A quote from the site:
"One of the most astonishing events in the heavens is a release of energy
many times that produced by a sun in its lifetime, but within a few
seconds, seen as bursts of high energy gamma rays. Gamma ray bursts are
the largest explosions in the universe, producing the energy of 1000
supernovae at once, in a period of a few seconds to a few hundredths of a
second. They remain nearly a complete mystery, observable from earth once
or twice a day from apparently random directions. Where they come from
and what process produces them in unknown, and only a few have been
tentatively associated with any continuously visible object. This study
of one such event is based on the counts of gamma rays recorded per
second from a gamma ray observing satellite."
http://idt.net/~ph/drpage.htm#batse
Two main reasons prompted me to propose the photon cohesion hypothesis:
1) Within my world view (in the tradition of Kepler and Einstein)
behaviour patterns of photons which cannot be completely described
by rather simple mathematical equations make sense.
2) Gamma ray bursts are still "nearly a complete mystery".
Your counterarguments only suggest that (most) photons of so-called
bursts have lost contact with each other in the meanwhile, but your
arguments do not exclude the possibility of fragmentation of dense
continuous gamma ray fields into shreds (i.e. our bursts).
Take the case of fullerenes. Nobody would have been able to predict
their existence from our physical theories. Under certain conditions
however, hollow balls consisting of each 60 carbon atoms emerge with
ease.
In the same way, certain conditions (e.g. photon densities) may lead
to cohesive forces between neighbouring photons. So instead of a
continuous increase of the mean distances beween photons, continuously
increasing strain leads to fissures in the gamma ray field.
Photons of the same fragments have therefore adjusted their directions
to each other (by exchanging lateral momentum) so that they continue to
constitute a detectable unity, even long after the cohesive forces
(having led to fragmentation) have disappeared. Nevertheless, in the
end the fragments are lost more and more in the normal gamma background
noise.
Am I right in assuming that during gamma ray bursts the gamma density
(from the corresponding direction) is generally not more than several
times higher than in the absence of such bursts?
: P.S. Checking one of my burst records, the most frequent photon spacing
: was 60 microsec, or at the speed of light, 18,000 meters apart!
What is the area of the detector used? How many gamma photons belonging
to the same burst can be found in a square meter? What is the angular
resolution of these detectors?
According to the photon-cohesion hypothesis the shape of gamma ray
bursts results not only from the fragmentation process of originally
continuous fields but also from the behaviour of the photons after
fragmentation.
The existence of coherent sun light consisting of more than one photon
(in the same way as induced emission in general) is strong evidence that
also photons are "social" particles, interacting with each other.
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
Uncle Al
"z@z" wrote:
[snip]
> In the same way, certain conditions (e.g. photon densities) may lead
> to cohesive forces between neighbouring photons. So instead of a
> continuous increase of the mean distances beween photons, continuously
> increasing strain leads to fissures in the gamma ray field.
>
> Photons of the same fragments have therefore adjusted their directions
> to each other (by exchanging lateral momentum) so that they continue to
> constitute a detectable unity, even long after the cohesive forces
> (having led to fragmentation) have disappeared.
[snip]
We have generated terawatt photon pulses. Anybody claiming
photon-photon coalescence would have his proposal returned covered
with drool - from the uncontrollable laughter of every reader. You
are an untutored imbecile.
[snip]
> According to the photon-cohesion hypothesis the shape of gamma ray
> bursts results not only from the fragmentation process of originally
> continuous fields but also from the behaviour of the photons after
> fragmentation.
Like a bullet fired through a helical barrel has a helical
trajectory? One presumes you buy Acme photon generators.
> The existence of coherent sun light consisting of more than one photon
> (in the same way as induced emission in general) is strong evidence that
> also photons are "social" particles, interacting with each other.
>
> Wolfgang Gottfried G.
"Coherent sunlight?" Do you even know what "coherent" means in space
or time? Repeat after me, "scattering cross-section," "fine structure
constant," "something icky in my belly button."
Paul Lutus
> their existence from our physical theories.
Nonsense. No one bothered. Now that c60 is known to exist, anyone can show
they meet the requirements of physics. It was always true, it just lacked
relevance.
Saying "no one would *have been able* to predict ..." is nonsense. In a soap
opera, all right. In scientific or technical writing, nonsense.
--
Paul Lutus
www.arachnoid.com
z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote in message news:8di3ac$ieq$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net...
> : = Phil Henshaw
> :: = Phil Henshaw
> ::: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=611533182
>
<snip>
Steinn Sigurdsson
> > Take the case of fullerenes. Nobody would have been able to predict
> > their existence from our physical theories.
> Nonsense. No one bothered. Now that c60 is known to exist, anyone can show
> they meet the requirements of physics. It was always true, it just lacked
> relevance.
Harry Kroto DID predict the existence of C60
from physical theories, that is why he motivated
the search for it - that and the thought that
it could explain broad IR absorption in
astronomical sources.
Phil Henshaw
"z@z" wrote:
>
> : = Phil Henshaw
> :: = Phil Henshaw
> ::: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=611533182
>
> ::: Such cohesive forces could explain why gamma rays are not always diluted
> ::: more and more with increasing distance from the source, but break apart
> ::: into fragments (which are currently interpreted as being a direct result
> ::: of bursts somewhere in the universe).
could explain..., but don't without some plausible means. Al says it's
just science fiction and I tend to agree, though I see no reason not to
explore.
clip..
> :: (http://idt.net/~ph/batse551.htm) or just the cleaned up data curve of
> :: one (http://idt.net/~ph/BATSE3a.gif)
> A quote from the site:
> "One of the most astonishing events in the heavens ...
..clip...
> This study
> of one such event is based on the counts of gamma rays recorded per
> second from a gamma ray observing satellite."
> http://idt.net/~ph/drpage.htm#batse
> Two main reasons prompted me to propose the photon cohesion hypothesis:
> 1) Within my world view (in the tradition of Kepler and Einstein)
> behaviour patterns of photons which cannot be completely described
> by rather simple mathematical equations make sense.
> 2) Gamma ray bursts are still "nearly a complete mystery".
fine, they might be something weird, but they might not either. Where's
the evidence? Just having an undisprovable notion about the unknowable
isn't enough.
> Your counterarguments only suggest that (most) photons of so-called
> bursts have lost contact with each other in the meanwhile, but your
> arguments do not exclude the possibility of fragmentation of dense
> continuous gamma ray fields into shreds (i.e. our bursts).
you can always find an explanation for things that is more complicated
than necessary
> Take the case of fullerenes. Nobody would have been able to predict
> their existence from our physical theories. Under certain conditions
> however, hollow balls consisting of each 60 carbon atoms emerge with
> ease.
but purely arguing from analogy falls apart. Just because lots of
discoveries have a big gee whiz component doesn't give any validity to
the reverse.
> In the same way, certain conditions (e.g. photon densities) may lead
> to cohesive forces between neighbouring photons. So instead of a
> continuous increase of the mean distances beween photons, continuously
> increasing strain leads to fissures in the gamma ray field.
"In the same way", what same way? I'm sure a universe composed only of
photons would still have form and substance, of some sort, but I don't
see you describing any feature of physics that would suggest what
properties it might have.
> Photons of the same fragments have therefore adjusted their directions
> to each other (by exchanging lateral momentum) so that they continue to
> constitute a detectable unity, even long after the cohesive forces
> (having led to fragmentation) have disappeared. Nevertheless, in the
> end the fragments are lost more and more in the normal gamma background
> noise.
"therefore"? You only have a proposition, no evidence, no support.
'could be' is not a demonstration, 'is' is a demonstration.
> Am I right in assuming that during gamma ray bursts the gamma density
> (from the corresponding direction) is generally not more than several
> times higher than in the absence of such bursts?
I can't answer firmly, the analytical tools are weak, and the angle of
sensitivity of the collector is very wide, essentially 180 degrees.
What I see is that bursts display highly recognizable transient
dynamics. Given that the detectors are looking across all sources with
roughly 1/2 full sky sensitivity one would expect the background in the
direction of the burst to be reduced by 180/a where 'a' is the angle of
the burst, 'maybe' 10^-10, for a source 1000 lightyears away. The gain
in the direction of the burst may be quite large.
> : P.S. Checking one of my burst records, the most frequent photon spacing
> : was 60 microsec, or at the speed of light, 18,000 meters apart!
>
> What is the area of the detector used? How many gamma photons belonging
> to the same burst can be found in a square meter? What is the angular
> resolution of these detectors?
The 8 detectors on the now retired CGRO, were NaI scintillation crystal
20 inches in diameter (~.2 m^2 each)and one-half inch thick, oriented in
different directions with full sky view, having directional sensitivity
only because of being disks. You can look up some of the detail at
http://www.batse.msfc.nasa.gov/batse/ or
http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cossc/nra/contnts.htm for more technical
stuff.
As to how many photons per m^3, hard to say. My prior estimate of 18,000
meters apart was for three detectors in the two (of four) high energy
bands having the best signal to noise ratio, a filtering of the total.
For those photons a one m^3 column in front of the 3 detectors would be
~1.7 m tall, or one photon per 10600 m^3. Say I was off by a factor of
10 considering much of the energy might be in other frequencies, still
one photon per 1000 m^3.
> According to the photon-cohesion hypothesis the shape of gamma ray
> bursts results not only from the fragmentation process of originally
> continuous fields but also from the behaviour of the photons after
> fragmentation.
>
> The existence of coherent sun light consisting of more than one photon
> (in the same way as induced emission in general) is strong evidence that
> also photons are "social" particles, interacting with each other.
I've never heard of coherent sunlight, but plasma mechanisms for lazing
in the sun would seem a much more likely source than photon
interaction...
My own marginally supportable impression is that gamma ray bursts are
something like thunder claps, something rushing into a void and
colliding with itself..just speculation based on the relative durations
of the signal growth phases.
Uncle Al
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>
> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> writes:
>
> > > Take the case of fullerenes. Nobody would have been able to predict
> > > their existence from our physical theories.
>
> > Nonsense. No one bothered. Now that c60 is known to exist, anyone can show
> > they meet the requirements of physics. It was always true, it just lacked
> > relevance.
>
> Harry Kroto DID predict the existence of C60
> from physical theories, that is why he motivated
> the search for it - that and the thought that
> it could explain broad IR absorption in
> astronomical sources.
Smalley and Kroto were eventually drawing bonds on a soccerball after
the anomalous C60 peaks from laser-ablated graphite came through the
mass spec. They had no idea what they had at the start. Look at the
original JACS communication. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. If granting
agencies were more vigilent this sort of crap would never happen.
David Evens
>Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>> "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> writes:
>>
>> > > Take the case of fullerenes. Nobody would have been able to predict
>> > > their existence from our physical theories.
>>
>> > Nonsense. No one bothered. Now that c60 is known to exist, anyone can show
>> > they meet the requirements of physics. It was always true, it just lacked
>> > relevance.
>>
>> Harry Kroto DID predict the existence of C60
>> from physical theories, that is why he motivated
>> the search for it - that and the thought that
>> it could explain broad IR absorption in
>> astronomical sources.
>
>Smalley and Kroto were eventually drawing bonds on a soccerball after
>the anomalous C60 peaks from laser-ablated graphite came through the
>mass spec. They had no idea what they had at the start. Look at the
>original JACS communication. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. If granting
>agencies were more vigilent this sort of crap would never happen.
I had thought that the only person who might have predicted C60 was Buckminster
Fuller (who did do a lot of theoretical work on compounds of this type), which
is known as Soccerene (the name I heard it called by more than a decade ago
when I first heard of it) amd the general class is often called
Buckminsterfullerenes (or Bucky-balls).
Phil Henshaw
> Take the case of fullerenes. Nobody would have been able to predict
the burst, 'maybe' 10^-10, for a source 1000 light years away. The gain
in the direction of the burst may be quite large.
> : P.S. Checking one of my burst records, the most frequent photon spacing
> : was 60 microsec, or at the speed of light, 18,000 meters apart!
>
> What is the area of the detector used? How many gamma photons belonging
> to the same burst can be found in a square meter? What is the angular
> resolution of these detectors?
The 8 detectors on the now retired CGRO, were NaI scintillation crystal
20 inches in diameter (~.2 m^2 each) and one half inch thick, oriented
in
different directions with full sky view, having directional sensitivity
only because of being disks. You can look up some of the detail at
http://www.batse.msfc.nasa.gov/batse/ or
http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cossc/nra/contnts.htm for more technical
stuff.
As to how many photons per m^3, hard to say. My prior estimate of 18,000
meters apart was for three detectors in the two (of four) high energy
bands having the best signal to noise ratio, a filtering of the total.
For those photons a one m^3 column in front of the 3 detectors would be
~1.7 m tall, or one photon per 10600 m^3. Say I was off by a factor of
10 considering much of the energy might be in other frequencies, still
one photon per 1000 m^3. A further correction for the number of gamma
rays not detected, I have no idea, but say 1 in 1000, still leaves you
with one pre m^3. Not a real dense pack!
Martin Hardcastle
David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote:
>I had thought that the only person who might have predicted C60 was
>Buckminster Fuller (who did do a lot of theoretical work on compounds
>of this type)
And there was I thinking that Buckminster Fuller was an architect and
the name was a joke.
Martin
, which is known as Soccerene (the name I heard it
>called by more than a decade ago when I first heard of it) amd the
>general class is often called Buckminsterfullerenes (or Bucky-balls).
--
Martin Hardcastle Department of Physics, University of Bristol
`Innocent light-minded men, who think that astronomy can be learnt by
looking at the stars without knowledge of mathematics, will become birds...'
Please replace the xxx.xxx.xxx in the header with bristol.ac.uk to mail me
Steinn Sigurdsson
> Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
> > "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> writes:
> > > > Take the case of fullerenes. Nobody would have been able to predict
> > > > their existence from our physical theories.
> > > Nonsense. No one bothered. Now that c60 is known to exist, anyone can show
> > > they meet the requirements of physics. It was always true, it just lacked
> > > relevance.
> > Harry Kroto DID predict the existence of C60
> > from physical theories, that is why he motivated
> > the search for it - that and the thought that
> > it could explain broad IR absorption in
> > astronomical sources.
> Smalley and Kroto were eventually drawing bonds on a soccerball after
> the anomalous C60 peaks from laser-ablated graphite came through the
> mass spec. They had no idea what they had at the start. Look at the
> original JACS communication. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. If granting
> agencies were more vigilent this sort of crap would never happen.
It wasn't an accident - though you are right, Kroto didn't
realise about the possibility of fullerenes before he found them.
Kroto was looking for long carbon chain molecules in large
part motivated by IR absorption lines in the ISM,
and he went to Smalley to make small carbon clusters
to see what if their properties would match.
C60 was predicted on theoretical grounds by a number
of authors, arguably the first being David "Daedalus" Jones
back in 1966!
Ref. Kroto's Nobel lecture in RMP 1997
Steven B. Harris
<M.Hard...@xxx.xxx.xxx> writes:
>
>In article <8dj95q$4va$5...@news.igs.net>,
>David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote:
>
>>I had thought that the only person who might have predicted C60 was
>>Buckminster Fuller (who did do a lot of theoretical work on compounds
>>of this type)
>
>And there was I thinking that Buckminster Fuller was an architect and
>the name was a joke.
>
>Martin
It is a joke. Fully popularized the geodesic dome along these lines,
but I doubt he ever did any chemistry.
BTW, there exist also "Bucky tubes," which are hollow cylinders with
the same carbon-diamond latice wall structure as C60. You can even buy
them in chem catalogs.
z@z
:: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=612748636
:: Two main reasons prompted me to propose the photon cohesion hypothesis:
::
:: 1) Within my world view (in the tradition of Kepler and Einstein)
:: behaviour patterns of photons which cannot be completely described
:: by rather simple mathematical equations make sense.
:: 2) Gamma ray bursts are still "nearly a complete mystery".
:
: fine, they might be something weird, but they might not either. Where's
: the evidence? Just having an undisprovable notion about the unknowable
: isn't enough.
Do you really think that the standard hypotheses (e.g. huge explosions
producing the energy of 1000 supernovae in a period of a few seconds
to a few hundredths of a second) are less "undisprovable" and less
speculative? Is there really more evidence for such (IMAO science-fiction-
like) super-superexplosions than for the simple hypothesis that high
energy photons can under very special conditions show properties similar
to those we know from ordinary matter?
The conclusion of incredibly high energies involved in gamma ray bursts
depends on the following premises:
1) The sources are far away.
2) The released energy becomes continuously distributed on an increasing
surface (proportional to the distance square from the source).
Based on the second premise one concludes that one "gamma ray burst" could
be detected in a huge region of the universe. Nevertheless, one should not
forget that this certainly reasonable assumption is not necessarily valid
without exception in all possible situations.
:: Your counterarguments only suggest that (most) photons of so-called
:: bursts have lost contact with each other in the meanwhile, but your
:: arguments do not exclude the possibility of fragmentation of dense
:: continuous gamma ray fields into shreds (i.e. our bursts).
:
: you can always find an explanation for things that is more complicated
: than necessary
We instinctively consider new explanations more complicated than even
the most complicated explanations we have digested.
I do not know enough to conclude that the photon cohesion hypothesis
is involved in gamma ray bursts, but I know that it is a simple and
logically consistent hypothesis.
:: In the same way, certain conditions (e.g. photon densities) may lead
:: to cohesive forces between neighbouring photons. So instead of a
:: continuous increase of the mean distances beween photons, continuously
:: increasing strain leads to fissures in the gamma ray field.
::
:: Photons of the same fragments have therefore adjusted their directions
:: to each other (by exchanging lateral momentum) so that they continue to
:: constitute a detectable unity, even long after the cohesive forces
:: (having led to fragmentation) have disappeared. Nevertheless, in the
:: end the fragments are lost more and more in the normal gamma background
:: noise.
:
: "therefore"? You only have a proposition, no evidence, no support.
Read again. I only have drawn a simple logical conclusion from a simple
premise. Normally the distance between two objects, emitted at the same
time with the same speed in slightly different directions from a point-
like source, increases continuously. If the two objects are tied with
a string of a given length, then instead of drifting apart further they
exchange momentum when their distance has reached the length of the
string.
:: The existence of coherent sun light consisting of more than one photon
:: (in the same way as induced emission in general) is strong evidence that
:: also photons are "social" particles, interacting with each other.
:
: I've never heard of coherent sunlight, but plasma mechanisms for lazing
: in the sun would seem a much more likely source than photon
: interaction...
Coherence is one of the most interesting properties of light. But
interestingly it is rather neglected by modern physics. At least in the
case of lasers and masers it is almost impossible to deny that coherent
wave trains consist of huge numbers of mutually coherent photons. To
explain a coherence length of light of e.g. 3 m with a photon length of
3 m seems nonsensical to me.
Also small enough regions of normal light sources emit coherent wave
trains. Because I'm not able buy the orthodox QM or QED interpretation
of Einstein's photon concept, I assume that the well-known inference
experiment of Young of 1801 would not have worked (at least as well at
it has) without mutually coherent photons in the sunlight.
Wolfgang Gottfried G.
Phil Henshaw
"z@z" wrote:
>
> : = Phil Henshaw in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=612980217
> :: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=612748636
>
..clip
> Do you really think that the standard hypotheses (e.g. huge explosions
> producing the energy of 1000 supernovae in a period of a few seconds
> to a few hundredths of a second) are less "undisprovable" and less
> speculative? Is there really more evidence for such (IMAO science-fiction-
> like) super-superexplosions than for the simple hypothesis that high
> energy photons can under very special conditions show properties similar
> to those we know from ordinary matter?
Say every explanation offered seems to require suspending conventional
understanding. That fact alone has no bearing on the scientific
questions. I think your physics is probably very faulty, though I
don't really know enough to say. You certainly don't seem to be using
physics to model the odd behavior at the extremes you say could exist.
Why not? I think at best you've got an interesting thought puzzle, like
a riddle. Riddles aren't science though.
>
> The conclusion of incredibly high energies involved in gamma ray bursts
> depends on the following premises:
>
> 1) The sources are far away.
> 2) The released energy becomes continuously distributed on an increasing
> surface (proportional to the distance square from the source).
>
> Based on the second premise one concludes that one "gamma ray burst" could
> be detected in a huge region of the universe. Nevertheless, one should not
> forget that this certainly reasonable assumption is not necessarily valid
> without exception in all possible situations.
So, why not hypothesize chaotically wobbling narrow beam laser galaxies,
implying a dazzling array of spinning beacons all over the universe,
that only seem to hit us once a day. Perfectly plausible given a
simple minded concept of the universe. Where's the physics in that
though?
..clip
> : "therefore"? You only have a proposition, no evidence, no support.
>
> Read again. I only have drawn a simple logical conclusion from a simple
> premise.
You've drawn only a wild hypothesis you can't disprove, and for which
you have no evidence. If you want to talk about it here you should at
least go to the trouble to assert that the known physics of photons
would allow for such a thing, showing how. Then the guys who know that
stuff can help you sort it out.
--
Phil Henshaw
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
167 W 87th St. NY NY 10024