Light has no electric charge or magnetic poles
BURT
than for matter's. It is like a monopole.
Mitch Raemsch
Uncle Al
<http://loscuatroojos.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/youranidiot.jpg>
<http://www.dementedferret.com/contents/media/t_Idiot-Seeks-Village.jpg>
1) Idiot Raemsch has no education.
2) Idiot Raemsch is no autodidact.
3) Idiot Raemsch has no math skills.
4) Idiot Raemsch is uncouth.
5) Idiot Raemsch is a masochist.
6) Idiot Raemsch is a eunuch in a brothel, a capon in a henhouse, a
steer amidst cows; a stot, a gelding, a gelt, a havier, a gib, a
lapin, a seg, a hog, a wether... a troll in a science newsgroup.
7) Idiot Raemsch exercises anile kneejerk spasms befitting a
particulary inferior undergrad assignment in spew emulation. Having
pissed upon a skyscraper wall, troll Raemsch rears back and exhorts
the crowd to admire both his spoor and the stunted flesh straw that
emplaced it.
Hey stooopid Raemsch - hypo-orchidism plus hypospadias? How greatly
empowered you are to piss into your own eyes.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
The Ghost In The Machine
<macro...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
<4d678f14-fb39-4293...@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
> The forms of the electric and magnetic fields for light is different
> than for matter's. It is like a monopole.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Never worked with antennae, then? Or are radio waves somehow
magically different?
BTW, one of the more interesting research areas apparently
is the ability to generate very tiny quarter-wave dipoles.
If one wants yellow light -- about 560-600 nm -- one
can set up a quarter-wave dipole of 140-150 nm above a
ground plane. (It turns out that's about 1000-1070 atoms
in length, though that assumes the empirical atomic radius
is a hard outer shell -- which is most clearly is not.)
Nanotubes are a natural, though fabrication costs might
preclude this being useful except for exotic applications.
One can also use this as a receiving antenna -- picking up
wavelengths of light and extracting energy therefrom.
A research device using titanium oxide tubes -- similar
to carbon nanotubes -- has been developed, though it is
relatively inefficient and hard to fabricate.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Y
tend to move off in seperate directions.
Dr. Henri Wilson
>no but can't a photon can become an electron and a positron ? They do
>tend to move off in seperate directions.
I've never heard of anything but a gamma 'photon' turning into an electron and
a positron. IR or RF certainly doesn't do it.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:56:52 GMT
<epjma4psos5gomikv...@4ax.com>:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Y <yana...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>no but can't a photon can become an electron and a positron ? They do
>>tend to move off in seperate directions.
>
> I've never heard of anything but a gamma 'photon' turning into an electron and
> a positron. IR or RF certainly doesn't do it.
The minimum energy required is about 1.022 MeV (the sum of
the particle masses, basically), though it is unclear to
me whether one photon is required at that energy, or two
photons at half that energy (0.511 MeV each) coming
together in a very specific fashion.
A yellow light pulse of 589 nm only has 2.1 eV in it.
This is enough to kick an electron out of a diode
junction (which has a potential of about 0.7 V), but
it won't really create much.
>
>
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #23291:
void f(item *p) { if(p != 0) delete p; }
Dr. Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
> wrote
>on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:56:52 GMT
><epjma4psos5gomikv...@4ax.com>:
>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Y <yana...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>no but can't a photon can become an electron and a positron ? They do
>>>tend to move off in seperate directions.
>>
>> I've never heard of anything but a gamma 'photon' turning into an electron and
>> a positron. IR or RF certainly doesn't do it.
>
>The minimum energy required is about 1.022 MeV (the sum of
>the particle masses, basically), though it is unclear to
>me whether one photon is required at that energy, or two
>photons at half that energy (0.511 MeV each) coming
>together in a very specific fashion.
You people claim that photons don't interact.
>A yellow light pulse of 589 nm only has 2.1 eV in it.
>This is enough to kick an electron out of a diode
>junction (which has a potential of about 0.7 V), but
>it won't really create much.
OK, here's a question for you.
If I approach a yellow light source at 0.99999c, will its output become 'gamma'
EM and have enough energy to break into a positron and an electron?
If so, how can it do that in my frame but not in the rest frame?
The TimeLord
1qdpa4t84qjqgct13...@4ax.com in sci.physics.relativity:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:51:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) <HW@>
>> wrote
>>on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:56:52 GMT
>><epjma4psos5gomikv...@4ax.com>:
>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>no but can't a photon can become an electron and a positron ? They do
>>>>tend to move off in seperate directions.
>>>
>>> I've never heard of anything but a gamma 'photon' turning into an
>>> electron and a positron. IR or RF certainly doesn't do it.
>>
>>The minimum energy required is about 1.022 MeV (the sum of the particle
>>masses, basically), though it is unclear to me whether one photon is
>>required at that energy, or two photons at half that energy (0.511 MeV
>>each) coming together in a very specific fashion.
>
> You people claim that photons don't interact.
I'm not sure who you mean by "you people". At any rate, I've never heard
of an actual photon-photon interaction. However, QM doesn't rule out
photon-photon interaction provided that some very unlikely events happen.
>
>>A yellow light pulse of 589 nm only has 2.1 eV in it. This is enough to
>>kick an electron out of a diode junction (which has a potential of about
>>0.7 V), but it won't really create much.
>
> OK, here's a question for you.
>
> If I approach a yellow light source at 0.99999c, will its output become
> 'gamma' EM and have enough energy to break into a positron and an
> electron?
The Doppler shift for such light would according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
be such that 589 nm light gets blue-shifted to 1.32 nm. This translates
to an energy of 941 eV according to the NIST values for c and h at
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c
and
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h%7Csearch_for=universal_in!
Now, 941 eV is barely X-rays, not gamma rays.
(Side Note = Photons in energy range of 1 keV to 1 MeV are soft X-rays; 1
MeV to about 1 GeV hard X-rays; above 1 GeV gamma rays.)
>
> If so, how can it do that in my frame but not in the rest frame?
Your frame is the rest frame, since it is at rest with respect to you.
[...]
--
// The TimeLord says:
// Pogo 2.0 = We have met the aliens, and they are us!
The Ghost In The Machine
<math-n-ph...@att.com>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:30:41 -0500
<N8KdnYVv98LcWDHV...@comcast.com>:
> Am Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:51:12 -0700 schrieb The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> in gvnsn5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net
> in sci.physics.relativity:
>
>> In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) <HW@>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:56:52 GMT
>> <epjma4psos5gomikv...@4ax.com>:
>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Y <yana...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>no but can't a photon can become an electron and a positron ? They do
>>>>tend to move off in seperate directions.
>>>
>>> I've never heard of anything but a gamma 'photon' turning into an
>>> electron and a positron. IR or RF certainly doesn't do it.
>>
>> The minimum energy required is about 1.022 MeV (the sum of the particle
>> masses, basically), though it is unclear to me whether one photon is
>> required at that energy, or two photons at half that energy (0.511 MeV
>> each) coming together in a very specific fashion.
>
> been observed around black holes and in some cases as part of Gamma Ray
> Bursts (GRBs) and is considered an indicator of matter-antimatter
> interactions.
Interesting...though I do wonder how one can get two 511
keV photons to collide in precisely the right place with
the nucleus of an atom (I'm assuming that's what's needed
for pair creation).
>
> [...]
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
<1qdpa4t84qjqgct13...@4ax.com>:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:51:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
>><HW@>
>> wrote
>>on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:56:52 GMT
>><epjma4psos5gomikv...@4ax.com>:
>>> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 23:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Y <yana...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>no but can't a photon can become an electron and a positron ? They do
>>>>tend to move off in seperate directions.
>>>
>>> I've never heard of anything but a gamma 'photon' turning
>>> into an electron and a positron. IR or RF certainly doesn't do it.
>>
>>The minimum energy required is about 1.022 MeV (the sum of
>>the particle masses, basically), though it is unclear to
>>me whether one photon is required at that energy, or two
>>photons at half that energy (0.511 MeV each) coming
>>together in a very specific fashion.
>
> You people claim that photons don't interact.
Not with each other, generally. The photons, AIUI,
interact with a nearby charged particle or nucleus.
>
>>A yellow light pulse of 589 nm only has 2.1 eV in it.
>>This is enough to kick an electron out of a diode
>>junction (which has a potential of about 0.7 V), but
>>it won't really create much.
>
> OK, here's a question for you.
>
> If I approach a yellow light source at 0.99999c,
> will its output become 'gamma' EM and have enough
> energy to break into a positron and an electron?
gamma(0.99999c) = 223.6
Not fast enough. You'll need a v of
about (1 - 7.6593 * 10^-12) c.
(Assuming anyone can accelerate that much anyway. The
best I can do with a single-stage boron-proton rocket
is about 0.20 c -- and stopping would be a bit of
a problem.)
>
> If so, how can it do that in my frame but not in the rest frame?
Well, for starters, your frame is not its originating frame. ;-)
>
>
>
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable
The TimeLord
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> in vj7vn5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net:
Oooooooohhhhh - What I meant was that the 511 keV emission line comes
from electron-positron collision resulting in two photons. If there were
a photon-photon interaction to produce an electron-positron pair, then
the 511 keV line would be an absorbtion line. As far as I know, that has
never been observed; only the emission line has been observed.
The Ghost In The Machine
<N8KdnYdv98I3jjDV...@comcast.com>:
Hm...now I'm totally confused. :-)
However, a quick Google did cough up
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v38/i2/p651_1
which suggests that throwing a 10-20 MeV photon near a
uranium nucleus will do the trick.
>>
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0);
Androcles
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:ur60o5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
That is quite interesting.
If we suppose we have an absorber of radiation such as this:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080221.html
and given that the cloud is far larger than the nearby stars, then
we have a mechanism by which matter is created from energy,
yielding a continuous creation universe of infinite extent.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:15:06 +0100
<pEfrk.59925$Ft5....@newsfe29.ams2>:
Until the nearby energy peters out. Nice try, though. ;-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
Androcles
The energy source is the entire universe and is conserved.
Dr. Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
> wrote
>on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:38:00 GMT
>>>The minimum energy required is about 1.022 MeV (the sum of
>>>the particle masses, basically), though it is unclear to
>>>me whether one photon is required at that energy, or two
>>>photons at half that energy (0.511 MeV each) coming
>>>together in a very specific fashion.
>>
>> You people claim that photons don't interact.
>
>Not with each other, generally. The photons, AIUI,
>interact with a nearby charged particle or nucleus.
That is not the same.
Do photons interact or not Ghost?
If they do then you are supporting my H-aether theory and kisssing the BB
goodbye...... thank you.
...
>>>A yellow light pulse of 589 nm only has 2.1 eV in it.
>>>This is enough to kick an electron out of a diode
>>>junction (which has a potential of about 0.7 V), but
>>>it won't really create much.
>>
>> OK, here's a question for you.
>>
>> If I approach a yellow light source at 0.99999c,
>> will its output become 'gamma' EM and have enough
>> energy to break into a positron and an electron?
>
>gamma(0.99999c) = 223.6
>
>Not fast enough. You'll need a v of
>about (1 - 7.6593 * 10^-12) c.
Just add a few more '9's then.
>
>(Assuming anyone can accelerate that much anyway. The
>best I can do with a single-stage boron-proton rocket
>is about 0.20 c -- and stopping would be a bit of
>a problem.)
Don't avoid the issue Ghost.
>>
>> If so, how can it do that in my frame but not in the rest frame?
>
>Well, for starters, your frame is not its originating frame. ;-)
Ghost, the facts are these. If I move towards an X-ray source (of less than 1
Mev) at sufficiently high speed, its output will become gamma in my frame (of
say, far greater than 1 mev)
According to you, there is no reason these gamma 'particles' cannot decay into
positron and electron in MY frame.
Yet you also claim they cannot decay such in the source frame.
If they decay at all, they must do so in all frames.
I think you are talking out of your arse Ghost.
The Ghost In The Machine
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics>
wrote
<yxirk.53728$2X3....@newsfe13.ams2>:
Fine. This isn't too far off the mark, except for the
mottled background radiation of about 2.5 to 3 Kelvin.
How long has the Universe existed? Can this steady-state
equilibrium compensate for stellar explosions? Stars blow
up after consuming their hydrogen and helium, if they're
big enough; we know that from observation. We can estimate
the abundance of elements if they're glowing using a
spectroscope.
The steady state Universe has to -- somehow -- create an
equivalent amount of hydrogen and helium to compensate.
Otherwise it's not steady state.
How big is the Universe? What is its general shape?
Is there a boundary? If so, what happens at the boundary?
The simplest solution is to have the Universe be the
surface of a hypersphere; go far enough and one eventually
returns to one's starting point. No boundary needed there.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #11823822:
signal(SIGKILL, catchkill);
Androcles
Nobody knows, but logic would suggest forever. It has existed
for at least as long as it will continue to exist.
The only thing we can be certain of is that it does, although
pathetic human intuition wants to say "In the beginning" and
"forever and ever, Amen".
> Can this steady-state
> equilibrium compensate for stellar explosions?
That's the whole point. As each star loses mass to radiation
we have an eventual ending of the Universe.
The two models, steady state (SS) and big bang (BB) are in
conflict. One is at least realistic, the other stretches credulity
and creates more questions than it answers.
Neither model is dead, but this picture clearly claims SS.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031026.html
"Newborn stars are forming in the Eagle Nebula. This image, taken with the
Hubble Space Telescope in 1995, shows evaporating gaseous globules (EGGs)
emerging from pillars of molecular hydrogen gas and dust. The giant pillars
are light years in length and are so dense that interior gas contracts
gravitationally to form stars."
> Stars blow
> up after consuming their hydrogen and helium, if they're
> big enough; we know that from observation. We can estimate
> the abundance of elements if they're glowing using a
> spectroscope.
That's looking at the leaves on the tree and not seeing the forest.
As each leaf falls it decomposes, the nutrients enter the ground
and are taken up by the roots to become new leaves again.
In a SS universe I form the hypothesis that radiation is absorbed
by the clouds, is SOMEHOW converted to matter (the big question
is how) and new stars are formed.
>
> The steady state Universe has to -- somehow -- create an
> equivalent amount of hydrogen and helium to compensate.
> Otherwise it's not steady state.
It's not the total amount of matter that's important here,
but the total amount of matter + radiation.
>
> How big is the Universe?
Infinite. All we see of it is one tree in the forest, the leaves of
that tree are too far apart to jump from one to another, let alone
get to another branch. We are not even ants crawling over the
leaves, we are bacteria in the gut of the ant. We have no way
of seeing the forest.
> What is its general shape?
It has no shape, the forest goes on forever.
> Is there a boundary? If so, what happens at the boundary?
It has no boundary. What would beyond it except more nothing
or another forest?
> The simplest solution is to have the Universe be the
> surface of a hypersphere; go far enough and one eventually
> returns to one's starting point. No boundary needed there.
Nature doesn't care about simple solutions. There is no highest
number, I can always add one to any number you propose, travel
an inch further than any distance to propose, go one more mile
beyond any boundary you propose.
When you attempt to discuss finite hyperspheres you are still
discussing one tree in the forest and attempting to do so
using mathematical ideas for which there is no physical evidence.
As physicists (as opposed to religious zealots) we want to
discover the details of the mechanism of the universe, such as
how matter becomes radiant energy (it does, H-bombs work,
but how?) and whether that process is reversible, not speculate
on Big Bangs, beginnings and endings.
The universe we see is one tree in the forest. The galaxies
are branches on that tree and the stars are leaves on the branches.
All we can hope for is to understand our leaf.
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
>news:4t12o5-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
>>
>> The steady state Universe has to -- somehow -- create an
>> equivalent amount of hydrogen and helium to compensate.
>> Otherwise it's not steady state.
>
>It's not the total amount of matter that's important here,
>but the total amount of matter + radiation.
+ fields..whatever they are...
The Ghost In The Machine
<HW@>
wrote
<m0rra4580skuks1hq...@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:35:22 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
>><HW@>
>> wrote
>>on Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:38:00 GMT
>
>>>>The minimum energy required is about 1.022 MeV (the sum of
>>>>the particle masses, basically), though it is unclear to
>>>>me whether one photon is required at that energy, or two
>>>>photons at half that energy (0.511 MeV each) coming
>>>>together in a very specific fashion.
>>>
>>> You people claim that photons don't interact.
>>
>>Not with each other, generally. The photons, AIUI,
>>interact with a nearby charged particle or nucleus.
>
> That is not the same.
> Do photons interact or not Ghost?
I frankly don't know. Standard theory says no. However,
virtual photons comprise the warp and weft of matter
(as they are the carriers of the electroweak force).
> If they do then you are supporting my H-aether theory and kisssing the BB
> goodbye...... thank you.
Anything will support your theory; it's impossible not to. :-)
> ...
>>>>A yellow light pulse of 589 nm only has 2.1 eV in it.
>>>>This is enough to kick an electron out of a diode
>>>>junction (which has a potential of about 0.7 V), but
>>>>it won't really create much.
>>>
>>> OK, here's a question for you.
>>>
>>> If I approach a yellow light source at 0.99999c,
>>> will its output become 'gamma' EM and have enough
>>> energy to break into a positron and an electron?
>>
>>gamma(0.99999c) = 223.6
>>
>>Not fast enough. You'll need a v of
>>about (1 - 7.6593 * 10^-12) c.
>
> Just add a few more '9's then.
The incoming photons may break into a positron and
electron, if they encounter something. I would reverse
the problem: accelerate gold atoms against a sodium light
beam to the requisite velocity. Such should easily be
doable in the LHC, and result in some interesting effects
*without* necessitating collisions of massive particles
(unless one counts light photons as massive).
>
>>
>>(Assuming anyone can accelerate that much anyway. The
>>best I can do with a single-stage boron-proton rocket
>>is about 0.20 c -- and stopping would be a bit of
>>a problem.)
>
> Don't avoid the issue Ghost.
>
>>>
>>> If so, how can it do that in my frame but not in the rest frame?
>>
>>Well, for starters, your frame is not its originating frame. ;-)
>
> Ghost, the facts are these. If I move towards an X-ray source
> (of less than 1 Mev) at sufficiently high speed, its output
> will become gamma in my frame (of say, far greater than 1 mev)
As far as that frame is concerned, yes.
>
> According to you, there is no reason these gamma 'particles'
> cannot decay into positron and electron in MY frame.
> Yet you also claim they cannot decay such in the source frame.
>
> If they decay at all, they must do so in all frames.
Oh, an interesting hypothesis, that.
>
> I think you are talking out of your arse Ghost.
I think you're indulging in ad hom. Nevertheless, you
are correct; this is beyond my expertise.
>
>>> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
>>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>>
>>> All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
>
>
>
> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>
> All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional
architectures I've seen in a computer system.
BURT
What form is the electric field without charge?
Same with magnetism without poles.
Mitch Raemsch
Dr. Henri Wilson
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
><HW@>
> wrote
>>>Not with each other, generally. The photons, AIUI,
>>>interact with a nearby charged particle or nucleus.
>>
>> That is not the same.
>> Do photons interact or not Ghost?
>
>I frankly don't know. Standard theory says no. However,
>virtual photons comprise the warp and weft of matter
>(as they are the carriers of the electroweak force).
that sounds like a bit of an oversimplification.
>> If they do then you are supporting my H-aether theory and kisssing the BB
>> goodbye...... thank you.
>
>Anything will support your theory; it's impossible not to. :-)
My theory works, Ghost.....and stands up to all tests.
>>>>>A yellow light pulse of 589 nm only has 2.1 eV in it.
>>>>>This is enough to kick an electron out of a diode
>>>>>junction (which has a potential of about 0.7 V), but
>>>>>it won't really create much.
>>>>
>>>> OK, here's a question for you.
>>>>
>>>> If I approach a yellow light source at 0.99999c,
>>>> will its output become 'gamma' EM and have enough
>>>> energy to break into a positron and an electron?
>>>
>>>gamma(0.99999c) = 223.6
>>>
>>>Not fast enough. You'll need a v of
>>>about (1 - 7.6593 * 10^-12) c.
>>
>> Just add a few more '9's then.
>
>The incoming photons may break into a positron and
>electron, if they encounter something.
Are you claiming that such decay is not random?
Maybe you're right. Maybe that's why muons last longer in highly evacuated
ring. ...it isn't due to Einstein's nonsense at all..
>I would reverse
>the problem: accelerate gold atoms against a sodium light
>beam to the requisite velocity. Such should easily be
>doable in the LHC, and result in some interesting effects
>*without* necessitating collisions of massive particles
>(unless one counts light photons as massive).
Again, you are assuming a collision is the cause of the decay. I don't know if
that's correct.
>>>(Assuming anyone can accelerate that much anyway. The
>>>best I can do with a single-stage boron-proton rocket
>>>is about 0.20 c -- and stopping would be a bit of
>>>a problem.)
>>
>> Don't avoid the issue Ghost.
>>
>>>>
>>>> If so, how can it do that in my frame but not in the rest frame?
>>>
>>>Well, for starters, your frame is not its originating frame. ;-)
>>
>> Ghost, the facts are these. If I move towards an X-ray source
>> (of less than 1 Mev) at sufficiently high speed, its output
>> will become gamma in my frame (of say, far greater than 1 mev)
>
>As far as that frame is concerned, yes.
>
>>
>> According to you, there is no reason these gamma 'particles'
>> cannot decay into positron and electron in MY frame.
>> Yet you also claim they cannot decay such in the source frame.
>>
>> If they decay at all, they must do so in all frames.
>
>Oh, an interesting hypothesis, that.
Well, either they do or they don't. ...It's a bit like female pregnancy....
>> I think you are talking out of your arse Ghost.
>
>I think you're indulging in ad hom. Nevertheless, you
>are correct; this is beyond my expertise.
Al right. Show me evidence that particle decay, in general, is not random but
relies on collisions
Michael Moroney
>>> I've never heard of anything but a gamma 'photon' turning into an electron and
>>> a positron. IR or RF certainly doesn't do it.
>>
>>The minimum energy required is about 1.022 MeV (the sum of
>>the particle masses, basically), though it is unclear to
>>me whether one photon is required at that energy, or two
>>photons at half that energy (0.511 MeV each) coming
>>together in a very specific fashion.
>You people claim that photons don't interact.
>>A yellow light pulse of 589 nm only has 2.1 eV in it.
>>This is enough to kick an electron out of a diode
>>junction (which has a potential of about 0.7 V), but
>>it won't really create much.
>OK, here's a question for you.
>If I approach a yellow light source at 0.99999c, will its output become 'gamma'
>EM and have enough energy to break into a positron and an electron?
>If so, how can it do that in my frame but not in the rest frame?
The way I see it (after adding a few more 9s):
In the highly accelerated frame one would see a gamma photon of >1.022 MeV
becoming an e+e- pair. OK so far. However in the frame of the yellow light
source, the result would be an e+e- approaching the light source at 0.99999c,
and they'd have substantial energy (and momentum), far beyond the rest mass
of about 1.022 MeV. This would be a violation of conservation of mass and
momentum...unless...it came from something in the accelerated frame. I guess
this is why a photon has to interact with something to become an e+e- pair.
I guess a real version of this is trying to figure out where the "oh my God"
cosmic ray particles of ~10^20 eV could have come from. At such energies
the CMBR photons would have enough energy in the frames of the energetic
particles to become e+e- pairs, robbing them of energy. This limits the
maximum distance they could have travelled.
Dr. Henri Wilson
The explanation is obvious.
Einstein's relativity is a load of crap from start to finish.
BURT
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:38:30 +0000 (UTC), moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
But the appearence of relativity is undeniable. When you move through
space things around you appear to move at the same rate. This is
undeniable.
Mitch Raemsch
tadchem
> The forms of the electric and magnetic fields for light is different
> than for matter's. It is like a monopole.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Zeeman effect.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Androcles
"tadchem" <tad...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:32526881-f948-4b62...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 5:42 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The forms of the electric and magnetic fields for light is different
> than for matter's. It is like a monopole.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Zeeman effect.
================
That sentence contains as much communication as
"God effect".
Dr. Henri Wilson
wrote:
Engineers never learnt basic physics.....
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
Dr. Henri Wilson
Unlike Einstein, I am a TRUE RELATIVIST. There is NO absolute rst frame, light
is ballistic and Newton's laws hold.
>Mitch Raemsch
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
tadchem
> "tadchem" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Google it.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Androcles
Google it.
=========================
That sentence contains as much communication as
"Zeeman effect".
tadchem
> "tadchem" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:489d1591-c6f2-4bde...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 4, 6:54 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> > "tadchem" <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:32526881-f948-4b62...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 18, 5:42 pm, BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The forms of the electric and magnetic fields for light is different
> > > than for matter's. It is like a monopole.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Zeeman effect.
> > ================
> > That sentence contains as much communication as
> > "God effect".
>
> Google it.
>
> =========================
> That sentence contains as much communication as
> "Zeeman effect".
Androcles...
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA