Light: particles or waves
Thijs Hollink
before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
waves, can someone explain this to me?
PS. Sorry for the bad English, it isn't my mother language.
--
Thijs Hollink
Go to http://www.getpaid4.com/cgi-bin/emailpanel.cgi?userid=78264 to receive
FREE newsletters via email!
Go to http://www.getpaid4.com?hollink to make $$$ using YOUR OWN computer
and sigining subscribers in YOUR OWN emails!"
Blind people don't bungee jump. It scares the dog too much."
"The USA have Bill Clinton, Johnny Cash, Stevey Wonder and Bob Hope.
The Dutch have Wim Kok, no cash, no wonder and no hope."
"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking like
an idiot."
"'To be is to do' (Sartre)
'To do is to be' (Casmus)
'Do be do be do' (Sinatra)"
Philip Mintz
A photon is neither a particle nor a wave, but it is matter.
The evidence is in the reaction between an electron and a positron. The
matter of the two particles combine to become a photon. The photon is not
a particle because it is 30 centimeters long.
I have just posted a somewhat longer account of this in the
alt.sci.physics group. Better still, visit my site and get the full
story.
--
Philip Mintz
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul Alan Cardinale
Thijs Hollink wrote:
>
> Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this question
> before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
> The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
> waves, can someone explain this to me?
>
No. The dual wave/particle behavior of light is not comprehensible to
humans (although we have an extremely accurate mathematical model).
The best simple explanation I've heard is that light acts like particles
when being absorbed or emitted, and acts like waves while traveling.
Paul Cardinale
Vertner Vergon
<th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this question
>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>
>PS. Sorry for the bad English, it isn't my mother language.
Vergon:
No need to apologise. You do just great. I've
seen Americans do worse.
Besides, you speak better english than we do Dutch. :-)
I speak only three languages, english, canadian, and australian.
As to the photon. It consists of electromagnetic waves that
form a Gaussian type group wave. This a tightly grouped wave.
Because of that, under certain circumstances it will act as a
particle -- or let's say it is particle-like.
Under other circumstances the wave characteristics will
take effect. Which is which depends on the circumstance or
application.
Hope this helps. Look up Gaussian wave groups. This will
clarify my meaning.
*****
Best regards
Vert
p.s. I have a great admiration and respect for the Dutch.
They have made an impact on the world far beyond
their number.
Frank Wappler
> Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves?
AFAIU: if a transition between states of one observer
is correlated to a transition between states of another observer,
and if they haven't exchanged any_particular_thing/charge/mass, too,
then they've exchanged (merely) a light signal.
One can consider pairs of correlated transitions individually
and thus speak of the exchange of light signals being "quantized",
as the exchange of individual photons.
> The part I understood was that light consist of particles
Hardly. For instance:
An individual electron has and remains constant rest mass
(or would you argue that it doesn't?). Therefore it cannot
(instantaneously) emit or absorb some particle, even
"a particle of zero restmass" - else (instantaneous)
conservation of energy were violated. Nevertheless, pairs
of individual electrons do interact/exchange light signals.
> behaving like waves, can someone explain this to me?
The similarity to waves are
- linear superposition: several light signals that are exchanged
"through the same region" don't affect each other at all
(unless of course they're exchange with _someone/thing in_
that region - that gives rise to non-linear optics).
That's not surprising: having identified several individual
exchanges of light signals, one might as well consider them
all together without any additional "effects"; and
- interference:
sufficiently many exchanges of light signal may be analyzed to measure
coordinate relations (such as pairwise distances of observers/charges
wrt. each other, conventionally based on Einstein's calibration
procedure and the associated distance definition).
Further the principle of stationary action can be applied:
using the measurements of coordinate relations (namely,
"interference patters" as constraints, one derives quantities that
can be expected not to "change a lot, soon" (i.e. compared with those
derived from measurements in prior or following trials); such as
"the number and coordinates of slits in a potential wall", "the value
and distribution of refractive index", or "gravitational potential".
While usually the rate of exchange of light signals "between lamp and
screen" is so large as to result in more or less instantaneous
"interference patterns", the same measurement/analysis procedure can
be applied if the rate is quite low, and only "one photon at a time"
is being exchanged. Therefore one says that ("even"?) "any one
individual photon can interfere with itself".
Best regards, Frank W ~@) R
"Don't walk in front of me, I may not follow;
don't walk behind me, I may not lead;
walk beside me, and just be my friend." ---A. Camus
Robert J. Kolker
Paul Alan Cardinale wrote:
> >
> No. The dual wave/particle behavior of light is not comprehensible to
> humans (although we have an extremely accurate mathematical model).
> The best simple explanation I've heard is that light acts like particles
> when being absorbed or emitted, and acts like waves while traveling.
That is one interpretation of quantum theory. The Bohm-DeBroglie theory
has BOTH particles and waves. It is the waves that guide the particles
and give the interference effects of the two slit arrangement. The Bohm
theory makes exactly the same predictions as the Copenhagen Interpretation
of quantum theory. The mathematics is virtually identical.
Bob Kolker
>
David Evens
says...
>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>
>>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this question
>>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>>
>
>Vergon:
>
>No need to apologise. You do just great. I've
>seen Americans do worse.
>
>Besides, you speak better english than we do Dutch. :-)
>
>I speak only three languages, english, canadian, and australian.
>
>As to the photon. It consists of electromagnetic waves that
>form a Gaussian type group wave. This a tightly grouped wave.
>Because of that, under certain circumstances it will act as a
>particle -- or let's say it is particle-like.
>
>Under other circumstances the wave characteristics will
>take effect. Which is which depends on the circumstance or
>application.
>
>Hope this helps. Look up Gaussian wave groups. This will
>clarify my meaning.
And if you then compare this to the behaviour of light, you will see that this
is clearly not a valid model, since light has purely particle properties, which
are simply not present in a pure-wave model.
Mark Samokhvalov
Philip Mintz пишет в сообщении <8cdjvm$ojq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> ...
>In article <8cde25$i58$2...@azure.nl.gxn.net>,
> "Thijs Hollink" <th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>> Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this
question
>> before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>> The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>> waves, can someone explain this to me?
>>
>> PS. Sorry for the bad English, it isn't my mother language.
>>
>> Thijs Hollink
>>
>> Go to http://www.getpaid4.com/cgi-bin/emailpanel.cgi?userid=78264 to
receive
>> FREE newsletters via email!
>> Go to http://www.getpaid4.com?hollink to make $$$ using YOUR OWN computer
>> and sigining subscribers in YOUR OWN emails!"
>>
>> Blind people don't bungee jump. It scares the dog too much."
>>
>> "The USA have Bill Clinton, Johnny Cash, Stevey Wonder and Bob Hope.
>> The Dutch have Wim Kok, no cash, no wonder and no hope."
>>
>> "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking
like
>> an idiot."
>>
>> "'To be is to do' (Sartre)
>> 'To do is to be' (Casmus)
>> 'Do be do be do' (Sinatra)"
>>
>>
>
The evidence is in the reaction between an electron and a positron. The
>matter of the two particles combine to become a photon. The photon is not
>a particle because it is 30 centimeters long.
The photon isn't matter - it's excitation of matter (physical vacuum =
ether), just like phonons are excitations of crystals. They're certainly
not particles, however, the particle concept accounts well for the RESULTS
of interaction of light with matter (absorbtion. emission, Compton effect,
light pressure, etc.). Experiments with individual quanta (photons) prove
that, in passing through sermi-transparent mirrors, they can be divided, so
that the parts are unable to activate matter by themselves, but retain the
wave properties of former photons and meeting together are able to interact
with matter and produce interference patterns. Thus, quantum properties
aren't those of the e/m excitation itself, but of the emitters/absorbers.
The particle/wave duality of photons is as sacred in QM, as c = const in SR,
so, despite experimental evidence and common sence, they won't be easily
discarded.
Ken H. Seto
<th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this question
>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>waves, can someone explain this to me?
A photon is a wave-packet. IOW a photon consists of many waves and
each wave is the result of an electron jumping from a higher energy
level to a lower energy level. This means that a photon is the
collective result of many electrons making these energy transitions.
The particle aspect of a photon is the result of a wave packet hitting
the target coherently. The wave aspect of a photon is simply that it
is composed of waves--although I should point out that each wave
packet is confined to travel in specific direction as it is emitted.
This is what gives rise to the inverse square law as well as the
defraction phenomenon. For a more detailed description of the photon
please visit my website <http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>. It
is in the section "Past Experiment Detecting Absolute Motion" and
specifically the new interpretation of the Photoelectric Experiment.
Ken Seto
Paul Alan Cardinale
In his postings you will find virtually no intellect, knowledge, nor
logic.
For fun, see how many nonsense statements you can find in his posting (I
counted 8).
Paul Cardinale
Ken H. Seto
Of course Cardinale being the runt of the SR experts just don't know
what he's talking about.
Ken Seto
David Evens
>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>
>>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this question
>>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>
>A photon is a wave-packet. IOW a photon consists of many waves and
>each wave is the result of an electron jumping from a higher energy
>level to a lower energy level. This means that a photon is the
>collective result of many electrons making these energy transitions.
And you explain the fact that we can make light of single colours from single
energy level transitions by...?
>The particle aspect of a photon is the result of a wave packet hitting
>the target coherently. The wave aspect of a photon is simply that it
>is composed of waves--although I should point out that each wave
>packet is confined to travel in specific direction as it is emitted.
Which is, of course, a property which wave packets do not have.
>This is what gives rise to the inverse square law as well as the
>defraction phenomenon.
Defraction, of course, cannot avoid splitting the different wavelengths of
light apart, so it is not possible for Ken's notion of a photon to survive
being difracted.
>For a more detailed description of the photon
>please visit my website <http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>. It
>is in the section "Past Experiment Detecting Absolute Motion" and
>specifically the new interpretation of the Photoelectric Experiment.
Being stupidly wrong doesn't make you look correct, Ken.
David Evens
Well done, Paul! You've managed to reach the plateau of totally humiliating
Ken!
Bruce Richmond
--
Bruce Richmond
Mark Samokhvalov
David Evens пишет в сообщении <8cgrh8$nd4$2...@news.igs.net> ...
>In article <38eb4f64$0$29...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com says...
>>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
>><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this
question
>>>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>>>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>>>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>>
>>A photon is a wave-packet. IOW a photon consists of many waves and
>>each wave is the result of an electron jumping from a higher energy
>>level to a lower energy level. This means that a photon is the
>>collective result of many electrons making these energy transitions.
>
>And you explain the fact that we can make light of single colours from
single
>energy level transitions by...?
We know, that emission acts as individual, as we can make them, produce
waves, consisting of, at least, 10^4 wavelenghts. So there must be a very
high Q resonant structure, which absorbs the energy of electron transitions
and radiates it in the form of e/m energy.
>>The particle aspect of a photon is the result of a wave packet hitting
>>the target coherently. The wave aspect of a photon is simply that it
>>is composed of waves--although I should point out that each wave
>>packet is confined to travel in specific direction as it is emitted.
>
>Which is, of course, a property which wave packets do not have.
What's wrong with a wave packet retaining its form and direction of travel
in a medium withiut diffraction?
>>This is what gives rise to the inverse square law as well as the
>>defraction phenomenon.
>
>Defraction, of course, cannot avoid splitting the different wavelengths of
>light apart, so it is not possible for Ken's notion of a photon to survive
>being difracted.
You're right here. Diffraction is not sorting of particles by their momenta,
but the creation of new waves subject to definite rules, which may, or may
not be, in a particular case be interpreted as the former.
>
>>For a more detailed description of the photon
>>please visit my website <http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>. It
>>is in the section "Past Experiment Detecting Absolute Motion" and
>>specifically the new interpretation of the Photoelectric Experiment.
>
>Being stupidly wrong doesn't make you look correct, Ken.
I agree that Ken has made a name for himself for blunders, but I'd withhold
my opinion, on who's more stupidly wrong in this particular instance.
>
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <38eb82c5$0$13...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com says...
>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:17:22 -0700, Paul Alan Cardinale
>><pcard...@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>I suggest that you ignore kenseto (execept for entertainment purposes).
>>>In his postings you will find virtually no intellect, knowledge, nor
>>>logic.
>>>For fun, see how many nonsense statements you can find in his posting (I
>>>counted 8).
>>
>>Of course Cardinale being the runt of the SR experts just don't know
>>what he's talking about.
>
>Well done, Paul! You've managed to reach the plateau of totally humiliating
>Ken!
Hey you stupid jerk you think that Cardinale is humiliating me when I
called him the runt of the SR experts? This is sad you don't even know
the difference between insult and humiliation.
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <38eb4f64$0$29...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com says...
>>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
>><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this question
>>>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>>>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>>>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>>
>>A photon is a wave-packet. IOW a photon consists of many waves and
>>each wave is the result of an electron jumping from a higher energy
>>level to a lower energy level. This means that a photon is the
>>collective result of many electrons making these energy transitions.
>
>And you explain the fact that we can make light of single colours from single
>energy level transitions by...?
Hey you moron when the electrons (collectively) absorb from a single
energy level it will emit the same energy level and thus a single
color.
>
>>The particle aspect of a photon is the result of a wave packet hitting
>>the target coherently. The wave aspect of a photon is simply that it
>>is composed of waves--although I should point out that each wave
>>packet is confined to travel in specific direction as it is emitted.
>
>Which is, of course, a property which wave packets do not have.
Since you are a moron there is no validity to your stupid statement.
>
>>This is what gives rise to the inverse square law as well as the
>>defraction phenomenon.
>
>Defraction, of course, cannot avoid splitting the different wavelengths of
>light apart, so it is not possible for Ken's notion of a photon to survive
>being difracted.
This is another example of devens' ignorance of physics.
>
>>For a more detailed description of the photon
>>please visit my website <http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>. It
>>is in the section "Past Experiment Detecting Absolute Motion" and
>>specifically the new interpretation of the Photoelectric Experiment.
>
>Being stupidly wrong doesn't make you look correct, Ken.
This is hilarious. Devens the moron and the runt of the SR experts is
calling me stupidly wrong..
Ken Seto
>
Vertner Vergon
wrote:
>In article <38ea6d54...@news.earthlink.net>, ver...@earthlink.net
>says...
>>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
>><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this question
>>>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>>>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>>>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>>>
>>>PS. Sorry for the bad English, it isn't my mother language.
>>
>>Vergon:
>>
>>No need to apologise. You do just great. I've
>>seen Americans do worse.
>>
>>Besides, you speak better english than we do Dutch. :-)
>>
>>I speak only three languages, english, canadian, and australian.
>>
>>As to the photon. It consists of electromagnetic waves that
>>form a Gaussian type group wave. This a tightly grouped wave.
>>Because of that, under certain circumstances it will act as a
>>particle -- or let's say it is particle-like.
>>
>>Under other circumstances the wave characteristics will
>>take effect. Which is which depends on the circumstance or
>>application.
>>
>>Hope this helps. Look up Gaussian wave groups. This will
>>clarify my meaning.
>
>And if you then compare this to the behaviour of light, you will see that this
>is clearly not a valid model, since light has purely particle
Vergon:
"Purely particle propeties"?
Even a 12th grade student knows better, that a photon exhibits
both particle and wave characteristics.
Evens, you are so far out of your depth that you ought to
get off this NG and quit embarrasing yourself.
****
V.V.
properties, which
>are simply not present in a pure-wave model.
>
>>*****
>>Best regards
>>
>>Vert
>>
>>p.s. I have a great admiration and respect for the Dutch.
>> They have made an impact on the world far beyond
>> their number.
>>
>>
>>
Vertner Vergon
wrote:
>In article <38eb4f64$0$29...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com says...
>>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
>><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this question
>>>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>>>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>>>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>>
>>A photon is a wave-packet. IOW a photon consists of many waves and
>>each wave is the result of an electron jumping from a higher energy
>>level to a lower energy level. This means that a photon is the
>>collective result of many electrons making these energy transitions.
>
>And you explain the fact that we can make light of single colours from single
>energy level transitions by...?
>
>>The particle aspect of a photon is the result of a wave packet hitting
>>the target coherently. The wave aspect of a photon is simply that it
>>is composed of waves--although I should point out that each wave
>>packet is confined to travel in specific direction as it is emitted.
>
>Which is, of course, a property which wave packets do not have.
>
>>This is what gives rise to the inverse square law as well as the
>>defraction phenomenon.
>
>Defraction, of course, cannot avoid splitting the different wavelengths of
>light apart, so it is not possible for Ken's notion of a photon to survive
>being difracted.
>
>>For a more detailed description of the photon
>>please visit my website <http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>. It
>>is in the section "Past Experiment Detecting Absolute Motion" and
>>specifically the new interpretation of the Photoelectric Experiment.
>
>Being stupidly wrong doesn't make you look correct, Ken.
>
Vergon:
I notice Mrs. Evens' little boy's favorite expresion is
"stupidly wrong". He uses it everywhere.
This is the result of teaming a dim mentality with an arrogant
ego. The poor lad doesn't realize who it really is that is stupid, so
we must forgive him.
Ever notice that when a pedestrian carelessly walks in front
of your car, you slam on the brakes -- and are angry, maybe even curse
him?
But when a dog trots out in front of your car, and you slam on the
brakes, you are happy you didn't hit him. You know why the
difference?
Because the pedestrian knows better -- and the dog doesn't.
You might say the dog (when it comes to traffic) is stupid --
like Evens is when it comes to physics.
Maybe, if we're patient, he just might crawl back in the
hole from whence he came (if we're lucky).
****
V.V.
Vertner Vergon
wrote:
>On 6 Apr 2000 02:07:36 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <38eb4f64$0$29...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com says...
>>>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
>>><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this question
>>>>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>>>>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>>>>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>>>
>>>A photon is a wave-packet. IOW a photon consists of many waves and
>>>each wave is the result of an electron jumping from a higher energy
>>>level to a lower energy level. This means that a photon is the
>>>collective result of many electrons making these energy transitions.
>>
>>And you explain the fact that we can make light of single colours from single
>>energy level transitions by...?
>
>Hey you moron when the electrons (collectively) absorb from a single
>energy level it will emit the same energy level and thus a single
>color.
>
>>
>>>The particle aspect of a photon is the result of a wave packet hitting
>>>the target coherently. The wave aspect of a photon is simply that it
>>>is composed of waves--although I should point out that each wave
>>>packet is confined to travel in specific direction as it is emitted.
>>
>>Which is, of course, a property which wave packets do not have.
>
>Since you are a moron there is no validity to your stupid statement.
>>
>>>This is what gives rise to the inverse square law as well as the
>>>defraction phenomenon.
>>
>>Defraction, of course, cannot avoid splitting the different wavelengths of
>>light apart, so it is not possible for Ken's notion of a photon to survive
>>being difracted.
>
>This is another example of devens' ignorance of physics.
>>
>>>For a more detailed description of the photon
>>>please visit my website <http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>. It
>>>is in the section "Past Experiment Detecting Absolute Motion" and
>>>specifically the new interpretation of the Photoelectric Experiment.
>>
>>Being stupidly wrong doesn't make you look correct, Ken.
>
>This is hilarious. Devens the moron and the runt of the SR experts is
>calling me stupidly wrong..
>
>Ken Seto
Vergon:
Ken, if you're wise, you will just quit talking to him.
If a scroungy little poodle dog starts yapping and slobbering
at your heels, do you get down on your knees and start yapping back?
No. So be it with Mrs. Evens' poor little incompetent.
****
Vertner Vergon
wrote:
>In article <8cgrm8$nd4$4...@news.igs.net>,
> dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) wrote:
>> In article <38eb82c5$0$13...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com
>says...
>> >On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:17:22 -0700, Paul Alan Cardinale
>> ><pcard...@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >>I suggest that you ignore kenseto (execept for entertainment
>purposes).
>> >>In his postings you will find virtually no intellect, knowledge, nor
>> >>logic.
>> >>For fun, see how many nonsense statements you can find in his
>posting (I
>> >>counted 8).
>> >
>> >Of course Cardinale being the runt of the SR experts just don't know
>> >what he's talking about.
>>
>> Well done, Paul! You've managed to reach the plateau of totally
>humiliating
>> Ken!
>>
>>
>And that is something one should be proud of?
>--
>Bruce Richmond
Vergon:
Cheer up, Bruce.
It looks like Mrs. Evens has dropped a little stink bomb
in our midst. If we are patient, maybe the air will clear.
****
V.V.
Robert J. Kolker
"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
> A photon is a wave-packet. IOW a photon consists of many waves and
> each wave is the result of an electron jumping from a higher energy
> level to a lower energy level.
Not so. A photon is a particle. The wave model cannot in anywise
explain the photo-electric effect. The Bohm-DeBroigle theory is
on the right track when it postulates * both * particles and waves.
Bob Kolker
Ken H. Seto
<bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Ken H. Seto" wrote:
>
>> A photon is a wave-packet. IOW a photon consists of many waves and
>> each wave is the result of an electron jumping from a higher energy
>> level to a lower energy level.
>
>Not so. A photon is a particle.
No so a photon is a wave-packet that has the properties of a particle
when it is interacting with other particles such as an electron.
>The wave model cannot in anywise
>explain the photo-electric effect.
The wave-packet model will explain the photoelectric effect nicely.
>The Bohm-DeBroigle theory is
>on the right track when it postulates * both * particles and waves.
A wave-packet has both particle and wave properties.
Ken Seto
David Evens
>>>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
>>><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this
>question
>>>>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>>>>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>>>>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>>>
>>>each wave is the result of an electron jumping from a higher energy
>>>collective result of many electrons making these energy transitions.
>>
>>And you explain the fact that we can make light of single colours from
>single
>>energy level transitions by...?
>
>waves, consisting of, at least, 10^4 wavelenghts. So there must be a very
>high Q resonant structure, which absorbs the energy of electron transitions
>and radiates it in the form of e/m energy.
And you explain the fact that this assumed structure has no properties of its
own by...?
>>>The particle aspect of a photon is the result of a wave packet hitting
>>>the target coherently. The wave aspect of a photon is simply that it
>>>is composed of waves--although I should point out that each wave
>>>packet is confined to travel in specific direction as it is emitted.
>>
>>Which is, of course, a property which wave packets do not have.
>
>What's wrong with a wave packet retaining its form and direction of travel
>in a medium withiut diffraction?
The fact that waves of different frequencies are diffracted by measurably
different ammounts. Because of this, the wave packet would automatically be
spread out across space ny each refraction.
>>>This is what gives rise to the inverse square law as well as the
>>>defraction phenomenon.
>>
>>Defraction, of course, cannot avoid splitting the different wavelengths of
>>light apart, so it is not possible for Ken's notion of a photon to survive
>>being difracted.
>
>You're right here. Diffraction is not sorting of particles by their momenta,
>but the creation of new waves subject to definite rules, which may, or may
>not be, in a particular case be interpreted as the former.
The waves also have a different fequency distribution in space than the
originating waves. This alone is enough to demolish Ken's 'idea'. Mind you,
it WAS nice to see him post something he is pretending to be physics, instead
of his feeble attempts at personal abuse.
>>>For a more detailed description of the photon
>>>please visit my website <http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>. It
>>>is in the section "Past Experiment Detecting Absolute Motion" and
>>>specifically the new interpretation of the Photoelectric Experiment.
>>
>>Being stupidly wrong doesn't make you look correct, Ken.
>
David Evens
>In article <8cgrm8$nd4$4...@news.igs.net>,
> dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) wrote:
>> In article <38eb82c5$0$13...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com
>says...
>> >On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:17:22 -0700, Paul Alan Cardinale
>> ><pcard...@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> >>I suggest that you ignore kenseto (execept for entertainment
>purposes).
>> >>In his postings you will find virtually no intellect, knowledge, nor
>> >>logic.
>> >>For fun, see how many nonsense statements you can find in his
>posting (I
>> >>counted 8).
>> >
>> >Of course Cardinale being the runt of the SR experts just don't know
>> >what he's talking about.
>>
>> Well done, Paul! You've managed to reach the plateau of totally
>humiliating
>> Ken!
>>
>>
>And that is something one should be proud of?
It means that Ken has REALISED how humiliating it is to have his errors exposed
by you. This means you have gotten through to him about how wrong he is.
David Evens
>On 6 Apr 2000 02:10:16 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>wrote:
>>In article <38eb82c5$0$13...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com says...
>>>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:17:22 -0700, Paul Alan Cardinale
>>><pcard...@mail.arc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>>I suggest that you ignore kenseto (execept for entertainment purposes).
>>>>In his postings you will find virtually no intellect, knowledge, nor
>>>>logic.
>>>>For fun, see how many nonsense statements you can find in his posting (I
>>>>counted 8).
>>>
>>>Of course Cardinale being the runt of the SR experts just don't know
>>>what he's talking about.
>>
>>Well done, Paul! You've managed to reach the plateau of totally humiliating
>>Ken!
>
That is what you have been observed to do when you realise that you have been
humiliated.
>This is sad you don't even know
>the difference between insult and humiliation.
Actually, your invariant response to being humiliated is a string of feeble
attempts at personal abuse.
David Evens
>On 5 Apr 2000 01:38:31 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>wrote:
>>In article <38ea6d54...@news.earthlink.net>, ver...@earthlink.net
>>>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
>>><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this
question
>>>>before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't understand.
>>>>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>>>>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Vergon:
>>>
>>>No need to apologise. You do just great. I've
>>>seen Americans do worse.
>>>
>>>Besides, you speak better english than we do Dutch. :-)
>>>
>>>I speak only three languages, english, canadian, and australian.
>>>
>>>As to the photon. It consists of electromagnetic waves that
>>>form a Gaussian type group wave. This a tightly grouped wave.
>>>Because of that, under certain circumstances it will act as a
>>>particle -- or let's say it is particle-like.
>>>
>>>Under other circumstances the wave characteristics will
>>>take effect. Which is which depends on the circumstance or
>>>application.
>>>
>>>Hope this helps. Look up Gaussian wave groups. This will
>>>clarify my meaning.
>>
>>And if you then compare this to the behaviour of light, you will see that
this
>>is clearly not a valid model, since light has purely particle
>
>Vergon:
>
>"Purely particle propeties"?
>
>Even a 12th grade student knows better, that a photon exhibits
>both particle and wave characteristics.
And, as you would know had you been able to PASS grade 12 physics, it is
possible to COMPLETELY SEPERATE the behaviour of light into purely particle and
purely wave components. It is ALSO possible to show (in a fairly simple
experiment) that light can show purely particle and purely wave properties at
different places in the same experiment.
>Evens, you are so far out of your depth that you ought to
>get off this NG and quit embarrasing yourself.
Why are you pretending that I am you?
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
No more time to waste on devens the runt of the SR experts.
Ken Seto
David Evens
>On 7 Apr 2000 04:36:30 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>wrote:
>
>No more time to waste on devens the runt of the SR experts.
What's the matter, feeling stupid?
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>In article <38ede979$0$25...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com says...
>>On 7 Apr 2000 04:36:30 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>>wrote:
>>
>>No more time to waste on devens the runt of the SR experts.
>
>What's the matter, feeling stupid?
No you are brain damaged.
>
David Evens
And you conclude this from your repeated humiliations?
Bilge
>>Not so. A photon is a particle.
>
>No so a photon is a wave-packet that has the properties of a particle
>when it is interacting with other particles such as an electron.
>
>>The wave model cannot in anywise
>>explain the photo-electric effect.
>
Why isn't a photon just a "thing" that has the attribute
that one can use whichever less flexible description best
fits the situation? Why is it necessary to continue to force
it into a category that doesn't describe it in the conven-
tional use of those categories. It's a lot more sensible to
think of a bowling ball as a "thing" with too much rest
mass to have any obvious wave-like behaviour.
The so-called "odd" behaviour of photons isn't
confined to photons. You can get diffraction patterns
with electrons and in nuclear scattering. In fact,
much of nuclear physics is the studdy of just that
-- diffraction. It just gets called things like
angular distribution and the like.
Vertner Vergon
wrote:
>In article <38eca1c3...@news.earthlink.net>, ver...@earthlink.net says...
>>On 5 Apr 2000 01:38:31 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>>wrote:
Vergon:
You poor jerk, :-)
You just proved my point with your own decalration.
I said photons show *both* particle characteristics and
wave characteristics. You just confirmewd that (above).
Of course you like to attach the adjective "purely" to
the reactions -- so that's how you choose to regard it.
****
V.V.
Vertner Vergon
Vergon:
I suggest as a follow up, those interested in this subject
should bone up on the work of Nobel Prize winner Prince
Louis de Broglie. There you will find the definitive answer.
I recomend his book, "Matter and Light, The New Physics",
Dover Pub.
****
V.V.
RAM LIMN
David Evens <dev...@technologist.com> wrote in message
news:8cgrh8$nd4$2...@news.igs.net...
> In article <38eb4f64$0$29...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com says...
> >On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
> ><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
> >
> >>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this
question
not a new question..at all...only if one observes or measures it with some
"device"...one source claims "God is light and in him is no darkness"..a
strange statement...if he is light one could easily understand that "there
is no darkness"...further a source states that "in the beginning (we all
wonder when , how and where) the heavens and earth , I guess Earth meaning
"stuff" not the actual ball we inhabit, was" without form"....hummm..no form
at all? ..".and void".....no form ,and void? that just about excludes
everything..even our measurements......what next...well I'll be darned
..light was invented........what next?...that damnable knowledge....
Comes now
Ram Limn
solarman_jc
*********** LIGHT: PARTICLES OR WAVES ***************
THE ANWSER IS BOTH! A PHOTON IS A PARTICLE THAT TRAVELS IN A
SPIRAL WAVE NOT IN A UP-DOWN LEFT-RIGHT MOTION AS EVERY ONE IS
LEAD TO BELEAVE .. THE PHOTON IS MADE UP OF EIGHT (8) SUB-
PARTICLES OF VERRING FREQUENICES
SOLARMAN_JC.....
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
David Evens
>On 6 Apr 2000 02:07:36 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>wrote:
>>In article <38eb4f64$0$29...@news.voyager.net>, ken...@erinet.com says...
>>>On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:53:51 +0200, "Thijs Hollink"
>>><th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this
question
>>>>The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving like
>>>>waves, can someone explain this to me?
>>>
>>>each wave is the result of an electron jumping from a higher energy
>>>level to a lower energy level. This means that a photon is the
>>>collective result of many electrons making these energy transitions.
>>
>>And you explain the fact that we can make light of single colours from single
>>energy level transitions by...?
>
>energy level it will emit the same energy level and thus a single
>color.
And you explain the fact that you cannot have a wavepacket consisting of only
ONE frequency away with...?
(Incidentally, we normally don't use the frequency we want to excite the atoms
in a lasing material into the population inversion condition. The lasing
frequency is a property of the material being used as the lasing source (and,
in the case of the types that are able to lase in more than one frequency, the
particular way that the equipment is set up and operating) and so anything that
can get the atoms into the correct excited state will do. Some lasers pass a
currentthrough the lasing material, some use essentially conventional (but very
bright) lights. You can use a source of the lasing frequency in a maser (radio
laser) but that's the special case of it being quite easy to build a non-laser
pure colour source, which isn't generally possible in other parts of the
spectrum.)
>>>The particle aspect of a photon is the result of a wave packet hitting
>>>the target coherently. The wave aspect of a photon is simply that it
>>>is composed of waves--although I should point out that each wave
>>>packet is confined to travel in specific direction as it is emitted.
>>
>>Which is, of course, a property which wave packets do not have.
>
>Since you are a moron there is no validity to your stupid statement.
Thanks for admitting that oyu don't know that a coherent light pulse cannot
have multiple frequencies, since coherent light has to be in PHASE.
>>>This is what gives rise to the inverse square law as well as the
>>>defraction phenomenon.
>>
>>Defraction, of course, cannot avoid splitting the different wavelengths of
>>light apart, so it is not possible for Ken's notion of a photon to survive
>>being difracted.
>
>This is another example of devens' ignorance of physics.
Thanks for admitting that you don't know WHAT difraction does to light.
>>>For a more detailed description of the photon
>>>please visit my website <http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>. It
>>>is in the section "Past Experiment Detecting Absolute Motion" and
>>>specifically the new interpretation of the Photoelectric Experiment.
>>
>>Being stupidly wrong doesn't make you look correct, Ken.
>
>This is hilarious. Devens the moron and the runt of the SR experts is
>calling me stupidly wrong..
Thanks for admitting that you cannot support your assumption that light does
not operate in the observed manner.
Bilge
>
>I suggest as a follow up, those interested in this subject
>should bone up on the work of Nobel Prize winner Prince
>Louis de Broglie. There you will find the definitive answer.
>
If you have a problem with electron diffraction or with seeing why
bowling balls don't exhibit wave-like behaviour, you should read
it first.
Luc Bourhis
(in message
<slrn8f2l7...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>):
> The so-called "odd" behaviour of photons isn't
> confined to photons. You can get diffraction patterns
> with electrons and in nuclear scattering.
and even with molecules as big as C60 fullerenes [M. Arndt et
al, Nature 401 (14 october 1999) 680] which are in many other
aspects classical objects because of their size and huge number
of internal degrees of freedom.
--
Luc Bourhis
Center of Particle Physics/University of Durham
Vertner Vergon
Vergon:
If this post made any sense, I'd answer it.
And only a fool would suggest I read something that I
obviously have read.
*-***
V.V.
>
>
Jim Carr
Philip Mintz <p_m...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>A photon is neither a particle nor a wave, but it is matter.
It is matter with no mass, if you want to go down that road.
And it is a particle.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
David Evens
says...
Ah, so you simply failed to understand anything in it. That indicates that you
ned to read it again, perhaps with some reference materials for figuring out
the hard words.
Vertner Vergon
>In article <8cdjvm$ojq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>Philip Mintz <p_m...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>A photon is neither a particle nor a wave, but it is matter.
>
> It is matter with no mass, if you want to go down that road.
Vergon:
Only an idiot would go down that road.
> And it is a particle.
Vergon:
The higher energy photons are *particle-like*.
And, Philip, you are dead right. Photons are another form
of matter -- just like water vapor is another form of water, as is
ice.
****
V.V.
Vertner Vergon
wrote:
>In article <38f939bc...@news.earthlink.net>, ver...@earthlink.net
Vergon:
When I was kid, there was a dirty, scroungy little poodle dog
that followed me wherever I went, yapping, snapping and slobbering
at my heels -- a real nuisance.
One day when I left the house I carried a large heavy shovel.
When the slobbering wild eyed little runt came after
me, I whirled and banged him one good whack on the head.
I wish now I hadn't done that. After all, he was too
stupid to be responsible. So I should just have ingnored him.
Sooner or later, he would have gone away to pester someone
else.
V.V.
David Evens
says...
Ah, so you havedecided that you want to go away and pester someone else, since
you've had enough of having your head slammed against the wall of your own
stupidity.
David Evens
says...
>On 16 Apr 2000 21:52:07 GMT, j...@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>>In article <8cdjvm$ojq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>Philip Mintz <p_m...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>A photon is neither a particle nor a wave, but it is matter.
>>
>> It is matter with no mass, if you want to go down that road.
>
>Vergon:
>
>Only an idiot would go down that road.
Then why do you insist on going down it?
>> And it is a particle.
>
>Vergon:
>
>The higher energy photons are *particle-like*.
BNo, photons are PURELY PARTICULATE. The DISTRIBUTION of photons has wave
properties.
>And, Philip, you are dead right. Photons are another form
>of matter -- just like water vapor is another form of water, as is
>ice.
Ah, so you want to pretend that there is some sot of magical phase-transition
involved in electrons changing states.
Bilge
>
>
>And only a fool would suggest I read something that I
>obviously have read.
Maybe you didn't notice the thinner pages between the
fold of thick paper with the title and author that
wraps around the outside. One side opens up if you
take the plastic wrap off.
Bilge
>Only an idiot would go down that road.
>
>Vergon:
>
>The higher energy photons are *particle-like*.
>
I always had the impression that highenergy particles
were photon-like and low energy waves were photon like,
in-between energy photons were photon like, low energy
particles were particle-like and high energy waves were
wave like. So, sometimes particles act like particles
and waves act like waves and sometime they both act like
photons.
>And, Philip, you are dead right. Photons are another form
>of matter
So, the three states of matter must be matter, anti-matter
and non-matter.
> -- just like water vapor is another form of water, as is
>ice.
And we're right in the middle of all the action, at some sort
of cosmic triple point? Let me guess, the e,\mu and \tau
are fcc, bcc and hcp phases? So, that makes charges cp
violating since c-> -c, but Packing goes to Packing, since
obviously positrons aren't Unpacked electrons. I feel a website
coming on... All I need now is a few endorsements of dead
physicists through whatever criticism I can get away with
without causing them rise up from the dead, and I'm all set.
Vertner Vergon
wrote:
>In article <38fa92bb...@news.earthlink.net>, ver...@earthlink.net
>says...
>>On 16 Apr 2000 21:52:07 GMT, j...@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>>>In article <8cdjvm$ojq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>>Philip Mintz <p_m...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>A photon is neither a particle nor a wave, but it is matter.
>>>
>>> It is matter with no mass, if you want to go down that road.
>>
>>Vergon:
>>
>>Only an idiot would go down that road.
>
>Then why do you insist on going down it?
>
>>> And it is a particle.
>>
>>Vergon:
>>
>>The higher energy photons are *particle-like*.
>
>BNo, photons are PURELY PARTICULATE. The DISTRIBUTION of photons has wave
>properties.
>
>>And, Philip, you are dead right. Photons are another form
>>of matter -- just like water vapor is another form of water, as is
>>ice.
>
>Ah, so you want to pretend that there is some sot of magical phase-transition
>involved in electrons changing states.
Vergon:
No. What I'm trying to impart to you is the concept that
there are 4 states of matter, [1] ponderable (which includes
solid and liquid). [2] vapor [3] radiation [4] sublimation.
****
V.V.
David Evens
says...
Never mind the fact that matter occurs in precisely six states: Solid, liquid,
gas, plasma, electronic degeneracy, and neucleonic degeneracy, and that
sublimation is a PROCESS rather than a state.
Vertner Vergon
wrote:
Vergon:
You're right. I should have said sublimated.
Electronic and neucleonic degeneracy are terms that are new to me.
Could you explain?
Upon thinking it over, I would redo my classifications.
I had a nagging disatisfaction with them, anyway.
I would say [1] atomic.
This would include solid, liquid and gas. The only difference between
these three substates is motion of the atoms (molecules).
And motion is not a substance -- just a *condition* rather than
a state.
[2] Plasma.
I was going to say plasma in my post. However, I do not know enough
about plasma to be sure. But I had a hunch it qualifies as a
separate state.
[3] Radiation
When a body absorbs radiation, it gains in mass.
[4]Sub atomic.
That would be (essentially) electron/proton particles isolated.
For example, a stream of electrons is certainly matter -- and
certainly unlike any of the aforementioned states.
[5] Sublimated (hypothetical)
This is not atomic -- nor even sub atomic. It comes out of my own
theory and consists of a particle that is the foundation of *all*
states of matter. So far it remains undetected, except that it
is the medium of gravitational action.
****
V.V.
Bilge
>
>
>No. What I'm trying to impart to you is the concept that
>there are 4 states of matter, [1] ponderable (which includes
>solid and liquid). [2] vapor [3] radiation [4] sublimation.
How about just calling it two forms of energy: kinetic and potential?
David Evens
>>>
>>>No. What I'm trying to impart to you is the concept that
>>>there are 4 states of matter, [1] ponderable (which includes
>>>solid and liquid). [2] vapor [3] radiation [4] sublimation.
>>
liquid,
>>gas, plasma, electronic degeneracy, and neucleonic degeneracy, and that
>>sublimation is a PROCESS rather than a state.
>>
>Vergon:
>
>You're right. I should have said sublimated.
Sublimation is the direct change of state between solid and gas without an
intermediate liquid state. It is NOT a state of matter.
>Electronic and neucleonic degeneracy are terms that are new to me.
>Could you explain?
Sufficiently massive stars, as well as white dwarf stars, contain mater in a
state of electronic degeneracy, and neutron stars are largely composed of
matter in a state of neucleonic degeneracy. Particulate degeneracy is a state
in which matter particles are squeezed to such a high density that the Pauli
exclusion principle and the velocity limits imposed by relativity creates a
pressure arrising from the quantum states of either the electrons or the
neucleons in the star (or the core of the star, for massive stars) all being
occupied. Since the Pauli principle prohibits two matter particles fro mbeing
in identicle quantum states, if you squeeze matter particles together hard
enough, you eventually force the patter particles into all allowed quantum
states, which results in a strong pressure abruptly forming which resists
further compression. This was first theorised by Chandrasekhar while he was
sailing from Indian to England to do graduate work under Eddington back before
WWII. (This work also is the starting point for black hole theory, since both
forms of degeneracy have a limiting mass beyond which they are unable to
generate further resistance, and the body will then collapse to some denser
state if its mass goes above that limit. FOr neucleonic degeneracy, there was
no known possible further degenerate state, and the size of a star held up by
quark degeneracy pressure is too small for it to not be entirely contained
within its own event horizon, so quark stars cannot form: They are doomed to
total collapse before quark degeneracy pressure can develope.)
>Upon thinking it over, I would redo my classifications.
>
>I had a nagging disatisfaction with them, anyway.
>
>I would say [1] atomic.
>
>This would include solid, liquid and gas. The only difference between
>these three substates is motion of the atoms (molecules).
>And motion is not a substance -- just a *condition* rather than
>a state.
The similarity between all three states is that the molecules are at low enough
energy that kinetic energy cannot knock electrons out of the atoms. However,
the physical propeties of the three are radically different (solids are, well,
solid, liquids and gasses are fluid, and liuids are highly incompressible while
gasses are highly compressible), so this grouping isn't really a good choice.
>[2] Plasma.
>
>I was going to say plasma in my post. However, I do not know enough
>about plasma to be sure. But I had a hunch it qualifies as a
>separate state.
It is POSSIBLE to classify plasma as an ionized gas (and it certainly CAN be
treated like a gas, although it has radically different physical properties
from any other type of gas), but the different nature of its properties makes
it fundamentally different from what are normally called gasses. (For
instance, all things normally called gasses have a range of temperature and
pressure in which they behave very similarly to ideal gasses. Since the
individual particles in a plasma are charged, they interact with each other
very strongly at all but the very lowest densities, at which they no longer act
like a gas but as individual particles, so the gas model isn't really a good
one for plasmas.)
>[3] Radiation
>
>When a body absorbs radiation, it gains in mass.
Of course, that gain in mass is not in the form of bound radiation, but bound
energy, in the form of a new internal state for the body. This really doesn't
look like massive radiation, since the radiation obeys none of the rules
governing massive bodies.
>[4]Sub atomic.
>
>That would be (essentially) electron/proton particles isolated.
>For example, a stream of electrons is certainly matter -- and
>certainly unlike any of the aforementioned states.
That, of course, is wrong: A stream of electrons is a plasma, since it
consists of a charged gas. In fact, it is not uncommon to talk about an
'electron gas' for this sort of situation. Similarly, masses of protons are
sometimes refered to as a 'proton gas'.
>[5] Sublimated (hypothetical)
>
>This is not atomic -- nor even sub atomic. It comes out of my own
>theory and consists of a particle that is the foundation of *all*
>states of matter. So far it remains undetected, except that it
>is the medium of gravitational action.
Wrong, of course. You do not have such a model, as you clearly haven't got the
training or equipment to DEVELOP such a model. Superstring theories require
MASSIVE ammounts of computer power to work on, since it isn't possible to
produce solutions to the equations of the types required to work out the actual
predictions of such models.
Vertner Vergon
wrote:
Vergon:
At least to me this is turning into an interesting discussion.
I am always mindful of something de Broglie said that is
profound: "... the subtlety, and sometimes the vagueness, of
its most fundamental conceptions is one of the difficulties
of modern physics, *and not the least among them."*
(emphasis added)
And so, since I have never seen the states of matter as a subject,
I thought I would venture same.
What started this endeavor was the discussion on this NG
of the mass of the photon. An offshoot of that discussion is
the revelation of light being another state of matter.
In developing my thesis on the quantum as a physical entity,
I concieved the hypothesis that the universe consists of
only two things. matter and nonmatter. That is, matter, the
space between matter -- and the motion of matter through space.
(The rest is conceptions in the mind of man.)
Those factors are what led me to cogitate upon the states of matter.
My latest offering is the following:
(1) The basic common attribute of matter is *mass*. It is the
one atribute - or physical property -- that is common to all
states of matter.
(2) What differentiates the states of matter is a difference
in *physical properties*
These two postulates lead the the following classifications:
(Listed below each are the sub-conditions.)
|ELECTRO MAGNETIC|
| RADIATION |
the complete spectrum
ATOMIC
gas
liquid
solid
SUBATOMIC
free electrons
free protons
free neutrons
transient shards
(otherwise known as "elemental particles")
SUBLIMATE
free quanta
(manifests as gravity)
PLASMA
a hybrid of "atomic" and "subatomic"
(gas and free electrons and protons)
I think it will be found that the physical properties
of each state will be different and distinct from the
others.
The physical properties are not listed because I believe they
are common knowledge. these would be subsets.
The properties of light (e.m.radiation) are certainly
different than those of gas, liquid and solids -- which
in turn are distinct from those of electrons, protons,
neutrons, and "elemental particles", i.e., the subatomic zoo.
Free quanta have never been detected but do account theoretically
for gravity. One of their properties is that (being sublimated
from all other matter) they travel at c.
One will note that common to all of the above is the
property of mass. Where you have matter, you have mass --
where you have mass, you have matter.
****
Vergon:
The above is *much* too speculative to give it any credence.
Therefore, I would give it no further consideration.
Others may do as they please.
****
>>Upon thinking it over, I would redo my classifications.
>>
>>I had a nagging disatisfaction with them, anyway.
>>
>>I would say [1] atomic.
>>
>>This would include solid, liquid and gas. The only difference between
>>these three substates is motion of the atoms (molecules).
>>And motion is not a substance -- just a *condition* rather than
>>a state.
>
>The similarity between all three states is that the molecules are at low enough
>energy that kinetic energy cannot knock electrons out of the atoms. However,
>the physical propeties of the three are radically different (solids are, well,
>solid, liquids and gasses are fluid, and liuids are highly incompressible while
>gasses are highly compressible), so this grouping isn't really a good choice.
Vergon:
These physical properties are all related -- and
present to one degree or another in all, e.g., solids
are compressible -- glass is a solid liquid, and liquids
under enough pressure may compress -- at least minutely.
It's a very good choice.
****
>>[2] Plasma.
>>
>>I was going to say plasma in my post. However, I do not know enough
>>about plasma to be sure. But I had a hunch it qualifies as a
>>separate state.
>
>It is POSSIBLE to classify plasma as an ionized gas (and it certainly CAN be
>treated like a gas, although it has radically different physical properties
>from any other type of gas), but the different nature of its properties makes
>it fundamentally different from what are normally called gasses. (For
>instance, all things normally called gasses have a range of temperature and
>pressure in which they behave very similarly to ideal gasses. Since the
>individual particles in a plasma are charged, they interact with each other
>very strongly at all but the very lowest densities, at which they no longer act
>like a gas but as individual particles, so the gas model isn't really a good
>one for plasmas.)
Vergon:
You are right, so I looked up a little more on plasmas
and came to the conclusion that resulted in the new
categorization above.
Thanks for the input.
****
>>[3] Radiation
>>
>>When a body absorbs radiation, it gains in mass.
>
>Of course, that gain in mass is not in the form of bound radiation, but bound
>energy, in the form of a new internal state for the body. This really doesn't
>look like massive radiation, since the radiation obeys none of the rules
>governing massive bodies.
Vergon:
Of course it doesn't. That's why it is a separate category.
What I was trying to illustrate, I may give as an analogy.
(bearing in mind that all analogies have their limitations)
A rain drop falls into the ocean. It no longer is a rain
drop. *But* it adds its mass to that of the ocean.
Similarly, a photon is absorbed by a body. It no longer
is a photon. But, it adds its mass to that of the body.
****
>>[4]Sub atomic.
>>
>>That would be (essentially) electron/proton particles isolated.
>>For example, a stream of electrons is certainly matter -- and
>>certainly unlike any of the aforementioned states.
>
>That, of course, is wrong: A stream of electrons is a plasma, since it
>consists of a charged gas. In fact, it is not uncommon to talk about an
>'electron gas' for this sort of situation. Similarly, masses of protons are
>sometimes refered to as a 'proton gas'.
Vergon:
Loose talk about "electron gas" and "proton gas" does not
make directed streams of electrons or protons "plasma".
Note that on occaision experimentors have created what
they call "photon gas". these are loose expressions for
the purpose of conception. Remember what de Broglie said.
>>[5] Sublimated (hypothetical)
>>
>>This is not atomic -- nor even sub atomic. It comes out of my own
>>theory and consists of a particle that is the foundation of *all*
>>states of matter. So far it remains undetected, except that it
>>is the medium of gravitational action.
>
>Wrong, of course. You do not have such a model, as you clearly haven't got the
>training or equipment to DEVELOP such a model. Superstring
Vergon:
You keep using the phrase, "Wrong, *of course* --.
Why the "of course"? That bespeaks an arrogant deprecation
on your part of my offerings and abilities.
How would you know I was "wrong, *of course*" unless you were
a genius who knew everything?
Would you be surprised if I were just a little bit resentful?
And as far as my not having such a model -- what do you know
about it, or me, or what I have done, or my training?
The answer to those questions is -- 'nothing'. You know
nothing about me except what I write in this NG. So that
makes you an arrogant ass who makes statements about something
he has absolutely no information about.
****
>theories require
>MASSIVE ammounts of computer power to work on, since it isn't possible to
>produce solutions to the equations of the types required to work out the actual
>predictions of such models.
Vergon:
Who said *anything* about string theory?
****
V.V.
Bilge
>
>At least to me this is turning into an interesting discussion.
>
What's interesting is why this is prefereable to two
forms of energy, potential and kinetic. 4 things which
exhibit a rather contrived relationship inorder to
fit a similarly contrived model would be preferred
to two rather well known "things" for which trans-
formation between them has never raised an eyebrow.
>
>(1) The basic common attribute of matter is *mass*. It is the
>one atribute - or physical property -- that is common to all
>states of matter.
>
Which is to say, matter acts as sources and sinks for fields.
>(2) What differentiates the states of matter is a difference
>in *physical properties*
>
While the non-matter carries the fields and may or may
not act as a source and sink. Or in simple terms one electron
tells another it is conserving energy by sending a message.
The receiving electron acknowledges it by moving when the
message is received.
>SUBATOMIC
>
>free electrons
>free protons
>free neutrons
Free neutrons aren't tolerated. The cosmos lynches them in
about 900 sec.
>transient shards
>(otherwise known as "elemental particles")
>
[...]
>are compressible -- glass is a solid liquid, and liquids
>under enough pressure may compress -- at least minutely.
>
>It's a very good choice.
It's an example of cosmic laziness(TM). Everything does
whatever it is that requires the least effort. so?
[...]
>Similarly, a photon is absorbed by a body. It no longer
>is a photon. But, it adds its mass to that of the body.
It most certainly does not. An electron can only have its kinetic
energy changed by emission and absorption of radiation, or equivalently,
it moves to a different inertial frame.
When absorbing or emitting radiation in a bound, multiparticle system,
the change in mass results from the change in the binding between the
_BODIES_. Note the plural. The masses of the constituents dont change.
That's why the system is bound in the first place. It's why a neutron
with a 900 sec half-life doesn't decay in a helium nucleus after
millions of years.
Nanogirl
"Thijs Hollink" <th...@hollink.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
> Does light consist of particles (photons) or waves? I've asked this
question
> before, resulting in a large theoretical discussion I didn't
understand.
> The part I understood was that light consist of particles behaving
like
> waves, can someone explain this to me?
>
Both. Depends what property you are looking at, it's called the duality
of light. Waves also behave like particles. Light has both properties,
so depending on what property you are looking at, you can use a wave
model or a property model.
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
www.nanoindustries.com
www.nanogirl.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Heinrich
Nanogirl wrote in message <8e0pth$lmq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
I don't know much about this and please correct me If I'm wrong.
But this select a theory that fits you best at the time. Sounds to me
like a lame excuse for not being able to figure out one.
Why does light have to be waves or patricles?
Cause from some stuff it can't be either!
Althought I am maybe a bit out of my field right know.
Grade 11 student
Heinrich
Bilge
>
>I don't know much about this and please correct me If I'm wrong.
>
>But this select a theory that fits you best at the time. Sounds to me
>like a lame excuse for not being able to figure out one.
You're wrong. The lame excuse is that people don't picture
the nature of light very well. It's easy to write down what
happens in a given situation mathematically, but nothing
like that has an analog in any phenomena that are large
enough to be familiar, so you have two pictures, neither
of which really captures the photon, but the mental imagery
is a lot more useful most of the time than the math, because
you can save a lot of effort if you know what NOT to calculate,
or maybe you don't even need a numerical answer. If two cars
crash head on, which is the correct place to view the collision,
(1) in car #1, (2) car #2 , (3) in the center of mass?
The answer is, which one is easiet to get the information
you want?
>Why does light have to be waves or patricles?
>Cause from some stuff it can't be either!
>Althought I am maybe a bit out of my field right know.
>
How many massless particles have you see? How many waves
have you seen that look like a spike travelling along?
It's better just to think of waves and particles as
idealizations of \Delta E \Delta t = h, in opposite
limits of which uncertainties become large and small.
Heinrich
I think I understand that more or less.
Bye
Heinrich
orton
i have always wondered how porcupines make whoopee.
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm
_the third side of every coin always gave me the edge, (orton).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Bilge
Re: Light: particles or waves to usenet:
>>"Blind people don't bungee jump. It scares the dog too much."
>
>
>i have always wondered how porcupines make whoopee.
>
>
Robert J. Kolker
orton wrote:
> >"Blind people don't bungee jump. It scares the dog too much."
>
> i have always wondered how porcupines make whoopee.
With a great deal of care and caution.
Bob Kolker
mediaglyphic
porcupines can make whoopie!
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:3964A731...@usa.net...