A few gedankens involving light
RP
1) Two lasers are adrift in open space, they are aligned parallel and
are adjacent one another. They both have on board power sources, and are
identical in every respect. They are both fired simultaneously for a
brief interval that is equal to less than r/c, where r is the distance
to the absorbing matter that they are aimed at. The beams are 180º out
of phase and directed so that their patterns superpose over each other
at the detector. Upon arrival at the detector no energy is transferred,
the light is undetectable, having canceled due to destructive interference.
How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt
a fixed inertial FoR? Explain.
2) The same lasers are fired with beams in phase. How will their
momentum and energy be affected. Explain.
3) The same lasers are fired alternately. How will their momentum and
energy be affected? Explain.
4) A laser at the periphery of the visible universe, under similar
circumstances to those above, is fired toward an open region of space,
toward the outer boundary, such that it never strikes an absorbing body
or mass. How will the laser assembly's momentum and energy be affected?
Explain.
4a) The laser above [4] being part of the universe, when or if it
recoils, should lead to a change in momentum of the universe as a whole
(not counting the outgoing radiation) wrt our inertial FoR. Unless the
outgoing em radiation has mass, the center of mass of the universe will
have obtained a net drift. Drift wrt what?
How does the advanced wave of Feynman and Wheeler's absorber theory
affect and play into the outcomes of these experiments?
Does light have mass? Is there a massive medium? Or is it simply that
light is a fictitious operator and there is no advanced wave of the
Feynman-Wheeler sort in operation, which is to say, is light a simply an
effect produced by retarded potentials?
Richard Perry
John
"RP" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9rKdnfeOUby...@centurytel.net...
>
> 1) Two lasers are adrift in open space, they are aligned parallel and are
> adjacent one another. They both have on board power sources, and are
> identical in every respect. They are both fired simultaneously for a
> brief interval that is equal to less than r/c, where r is the distance to
> the absorbing matter that they are aimed at. The beams are 180º out of
> phase and directed so that their patterns superpose over each other at the
> detector. Upon arrival at the detector no energy is transferred, the light
> is undetectable, having canceled due to destructive interference.
> How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt a
> fixed inertial FoR? Explain.
doesn't depend upon the detector at all, just slight, probably immeasurable
reaction
> 2) The same lasers are fired with beams in phase. How will their momentum
> and energy be affected. Explain.
Dosent depend on phase or detector
>
> 3) The same lasers are fired alternately. How will their momentum and
> energy be affected? Explain.
could depend on how far apart they are.
>
> 4) A laser at the periphery of the visible universe, under similar
> circumstances to those above, is fired toward an open region of space,
> toward the outer boundary, such that it never strikes an absorbing body or
> mass. How will the laser assembly's momentum and energy be affected?
> Explain.
dosen't depend upon target.
>
> 4a) The laser above [4] being part of the universe, when or if it recoils,
> should lead to a change in momentum of the universe as a whole (not
> counting the outgoing radiation) wrt our inertial FoR. Unless the outgoing
> em radiation has mass, the center of mass of the universe will have
> obtained a net drift. Drift wrt what?
dosen't depend on surroundings at all. (just shine your flashlight, does
that change the drift of the Universe?)
> How does the advanced wave of Feynman and Wheeler's absorber theory affect
> and play into the outcomes of these experiments?
>
> Does light have mass? Is there a massive medium? Or is it simply that
> light is a fictitious operator and there is no advanced wave of the
> Feynman-Wheeler sort in operation, which is to say, is light a simply an
> effect produced by retarded potentials?
>
Leave the rest for others, is trivial.
RP
John wrote:
Did you provide any content at all? I didn't see it. Go along now and
play with your barbie dolls.
Richard Perry
John
your made-up problems provide no content either, and your po'ed because I
exposed your trivality after you spend so much time typing it all up.
RP
John wrote:
I'm not po'ed in the slightest, simply unimpressed with your reading
incomprehension.
BTW, I spent a total of approx. 2 minutes typing up the quiz. I'm a
rather fast typist.
Richard Perry
John
Stay unimpressed, your set of problems are a null case, and you still fail
to comprehend that.
RP
John wrote:
Idiot.
Richard Perry
John
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php
But try answering these
How big is your detector ? 1/4 wavelength or less ?
How far apart are the lasers? How do they maintain coherency ?
In what cases are your problems no different than a bullet leaving a gun ?
If you can correctly, I will withdraw the Idiot charge.
A good Lesson for You.
RP
John wrote:
If you're familiar with QED at all then you would know that the photon
has no definite momentum or energy until it is detected. For this reason
these entities are called *virtual*. Nor does the photon take a definite
path, but rather takes all possible paths. Obviously photons bear no
resemblance to a massive and confined bullets. Here's the difference,
however, that is relevant to the questions above: When two bullets
strike a target simultaneously, or even alternately, the energy imparted
to the target is identically the sum of the energies of the two bullets.
When photons strike the target simultaneously, but out of phase, the
resultant energy absorbed is zero. When they strike simultaneously and
in phase the resultant energy absorbed is twice the sum of their
energies. In the case of photons in phase, where did the extra energy
come from? In the case of photons out of phase, where did the energy go?
The same results are obtained in wave dynamics, thus providing the
very evidence for the wave nature of light.
OTOH, when a wave is generated in a body of water via a mechanical
source immersed within it, then the momentum of the whole remains
unaltered. Via superposition of many such waves we can approximate an
analogous form of the laser beam, i.e. by producing a relatively focused
beam of waves along one direction. The momentum of the whole has still
remained unchanged. Only when the wave energy is absorbed, or else
amplified, by interaction with the mass of another system will the body
of water incur a change in momentum. The question is, was this change a
recoil due to the production of the waves, or was it due to its
absorption of momentum from the other system? Given that there is a
noticeable delay between the production of the waves and the recoil of
the system that produced them, it seems rather obvious that the waves
themselves had no intrinsic momentum. The acceleration of water
molecules that form the waves occurs perpendicular to the direction of
propagation of the waves. A transverse wave has no forward momentum, nor
does it have intrinsic energy, that is, since it may well meet with
another wave that is out of phase with it and the two will cancel each
other out. Though energy may indeed have been imparted to the system,
it's whereabouts are indeterminate. When destructive interference
occurs in one place along superposed wave fronts it is accompanied by
constructive interference elsewhere. The geometry simply won't allow an
exception to this. It's as though the energy of the entire wave
collapses to a single region along the wave front. There is no collapse
however, their is simply an illusion of a collapse produced by the
mistaken notion that energy has an objective existence and definite
moment by moment location.
The only evidence for the particle-like behavior of light, OTOH, is the
photoelectric effect. I've explained this effect in terms of wave
interference many many times, and in addition derived the equation E=hf
directly from the relativity of spherical waves as quantified by
Einstein in his 1905 paper. It has its origins in relativistic wave
dynamics. As for the apparent localization of energy absorption, if it
hasn't registered yet that every surface is at all times being bombarded
by a virtual infinity of waves at any moment, and that these interfere
at that location, then that is no problem of mine, I assure you. The
surface is pumped, and the probability is that of an alignment of phases
of all of these waves and of the atom or molecule undergoing an orbital
transition.
Richard Perry
John
Your question was not about the target momentum, but the laser assy
momentum.
"How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt a
fixed inertial FoR?"
Perhaps you want to rephrase
>
> OTOH, when a wave is generated in a body of water via a mechanical source
> immersed within it, then the momentum of the whole remains unaltered. Via
> superposition of many such waves we can approximate an analogous form of
> the laser beam, i.e. by producing a relatively focused beam of waves along
> one direction. The momentum of the whole has still remained unchanged.
> Only when the wave energy is absorbed, or else amplified, by interaction
> with the mass of another system will the body of water incur a change in
> momentum. The question is, was this change a recoil due to the production
> of the waves, or was it due to its absorption of momentum from the other
> system? Given that there is a noticeable delay between the production of
> the waves and the recoil of the system that produced them, it seems rather
> obvious that the waves themselves had no intrinsic momentum. The
> acceleration of water molecules that form the waves occurs perpendicular
> to the direction of propagation of the waves. A transverse wave has no
> forward momentum, nor does it have intrinsic energy, that is, since it may
> well meet with another wave that is out of phase with it and the two will
> cancel each other out.
That is a mistake, it is a sum, and out of phase they cancel, in phase they
add, but each has energy.
You stated they do not.
> Though energy may indeed have been imparted to the system, it's
> whereabouts are indeterminate. When destructive interference occurs in
> one place along superposed wave fronts it is accompanied by constructive
> interference elsewhere. The geometry simply won't allow an exception to
> this. It's as though the energy of the entire wave collapses to a single
> region along the wave front. There is no collapse however, their is
> simply an illusion of a collapse produced by the mistaken notion that
> energy has an objective existence and definite moment by moment location.
no illusions, no collapse, it is measurable, predictable, simple wave
inteference.
>
> The only evidence for the particle-like behavior of light, OTOH, is the
> photoelectric effect.
measured daily by thousands of photomultiplier tubes.
> I've explained this effect in terms of wave interference many many times,
> and in addition derived the equation E=hf directly from the relativity of
> spherical waves as quantified by Einstein in his 1905 paper. It has its
> origins in relativistic wave dynamics. As for the apparent localization of
> energy absorption, if it hasn't registered yet that every surface is at
> all times being bombarded by a virtual infinity of waves at any moment,
> and that these interfere at that location, then that is no problem of
> mine, I assure you.
That dosen't agree with reflection of photons.
RP
And?
>
> "How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt a
> fixed inertial FoR?"
>
> Perhaps you want to rephrase
Perhaps you want to reread.
>
>
>
>>OTOH, when a wave is generated in a body of water via a mechanical source
>>immersed within it, then the momentum of the whole remains unaltered. Via
>>superposition of many such waves we can approximate an analogous form of
>>the laser beam, i.e. by producing a relatively focused beam of waves along
>>one direction. The momentum of the whole has still remained unchanged.
>>Only when the wave energy is absorbed, or else amplified, by interaction
>>with the mass of another system will the body of water incur a change in
>>momentum. The question is, was this change a recoil due to the production
>>of the waves, or was it due to its absorption of momentum from the other
>>system? Given that there is a noticeable delay between the production of
>>the waves and the recoil of the system that produced them, it seems rather
>>obvious that the waves themselves had no intrinsic momentum. The
>>acceleration of water molecules that form the waves occurs perpendicular
>>to the direction of propagation of the waves. A transverse wave has no
>>forward momentum, nor does it have intrinsic energy, that is, since it may
>>well meet with another wave that is out of phase with it and the two will
>>cancel each other out.
>
>
> That is a mistake, it is a sum, and out of phase they cancel, in phase they
> add, but each has energy.
> You stated they do not.
It isn't a sum.
>
>
>>Though energy may indeed have been imparted to the system, it's
>>whereabouts are indeterminate. When destructive interference occurs in
>>one place along superposed wave fronts it is accompanied by constructive
>>interference elsewhere. The geometry simply won't allow an exception to
>>this. It's as though the energy of the entire wave collapses to a single
>>region along the wave front. There is no collapse however, their is
>>simply an illusion of a collapse produced by the mistaken notion that
>>energy has an objective existence and definite moment by moment location.
>
>
> no illusions, no collapse, it is measurable, predictable, simple wave
> inteference.
>
>
>
>>The only evidence for the particle-like behavior of light, OTOH, is the
>>photoelectric effect.
>
>
> measured daily by thousands of photomultiplier tubes.
Point photon collisions with matter are not measured. An uncountable
number of em waves impinge on the surface in any given instant. The
cascading photomultiplier tube uses electron collisions to amplify the
image. The incident radiation dislodges electrons from a photocathode
element. So what? Discrete energy levels in ordinary matter combined
with conservation of energy is more than sufficient to derive the
photoelectric equation. I've posted the derivation several times.
>
>
>>I've explained this effect in terms of wave interference many many times,
>>and in addition derived the equation E=hf directly from the relativity of
>>spherical waves as quantified by Einstein in his 1905 paper. It has its
>>origins in relativistic wave dynamics. As for the apparent localization of
>>energy absorption, if it hasn't registered yet that every surface is at
>>all times being bombarded by a virtual infinity of waves at any moment,
>>and that these interfere at that location, then that is no problem of
>>mine, I assure you.
>
>
> That dosen't agree with reflection of photons.
There is no such thing as reflection of photons. Its absorption-emission
of em waves.
Richard Perry
John
Looks like you made another mistake dosen't it.
>
>>
>> "How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt
>> a fixed inertial FoR?"
>>
>> Perhaps you want to rephrase
>
> Perhaps you want to reread.
says "laser assemblies " not " When photons
strike the target simultaneously, but out of phase, the resultant energy
absorbed is zero. When they strike simultaneously and in phase the
resultant energy absorbed is twice the sum of their energies"
Mistakes can easily be overlooked.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>OTOH, when a wave is generated in a body of water via a mechanical source
>>>immersed within it, then the momentum of the whole remains unaltered. Via
>>>superposition of many such waves we can approximate an analogous form of
>>>the laser beam, i.e. by producing a relatively focused beam of waves
>>>along one direction. The momentum of the whole has still remained
>>>unchanged. Only when the wave energy is absorbed, or else amplified, by
>>>interaction with the mass of another system will the body of water incur
>>>a change in momentum. The question is, was this change a recoil due to
>>>the production of the waves, or was it due to its absorption of momentum
>>>from the other system? Given that there is a noticeable delay between
>>>the production of the waves and the recoil of the system that produced
>>>them, it seems rather obvious that the waves themselves had no intrinsic
>>>momentum. The acceleration of water molecules that form the waves occurs
>>>perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the waves. A transverse
>>>wave has no forward momentum, nor does it have intrinsic energy, that is,
>>>since it may well meet with another wave that is out of phase with it and
>>>the two will cancel each other out.
>>
>>
>> That is a mistake, it is a sum, and out of phase they cancel, in phase
>> they add, but each has energy.
>> You stated they do not.
>
> It isn't a sum.
you say it is a sum " twice the sum of their energies"
forgetful, aren't we ?
>
>>
>>
>>>Though energy may indeed have been imparted to the system, it's
>>>whereabouts are indeterminate. When destructive interference occurs in
>>>one place along superposed wave fronts it is accompanied by constructive
>>>interference elsewhere. The geometry simply won't allow an exception to
>>>this. It's as though the energy of the entire wave collapses to a single
>>>region along the wave front. There is no collapse however, their is
>>>simply an illusion of a collapse produced by the mistaken notion that
>>>energy has an objective existence and definite moment by moment location.
>>
>>
>> no illusions, no collapse, it is measurable, predictable, simple wave
>> inteference.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The only evidence for the particle-like behavior of light, OTOH, is the
>>>photoelectric effect.
>>
>>
>> measured daily by thousands of photomultiplier tubes.
>
> Point photon collisions with matter are not measured.
Yes they are, single photon counters Hamamatsu carries them.
>An uncountable number of em waves impinge on the surface in any given
>instant. The cascading photomultiplier tube uses electron collisions to
>amplify the image.
There is no image, photomultiplier tubes count photons only.
>The incident radiation dislodges electrons from a photocathode element. So
>what? Discrete energy levels in ordinary matter combined with conservation
>of energy is more than sufficient to derive the photoelectric equation.
>I've posted the derivation several times.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>I've explained this effect in terms of wave interference many many times,
>>>and in addition derived the equation E=hf directly from the relativity of
>>>spherical waves as quantified by Einstein in his 1905 paper. It has its
>>>origins in relativistic wave dynamics. As for the apparent localization
>>>of energy absorption, if it hasn't registered yet that every surface is
>>>at all times being bombarded by a virtual infinity of waves at any
>>>moment, and that these interfere at that location, then that is no
>>>problem of mine, I assure you.
>>
>>
>> That dosen't agree with reflection of photons.
>
> There is no such thing as reflection of photons. Its absorption-emission
> of em waves.
Then there should be a delay while it is absorpted and then re-emitted, but
there is no delay is there?
RP
John wrote:
2(a+a) is not a sum. You are an idiot. It is further removed from being
a sum when the em waves are of different frequencies.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Though energy may indeed have been imparted to the system, it's
>>>>whereabouts are indeterminate. When destructive interference occurs in
>>>>one place along superposed wave fronts it is accompanied by constructive
>>>>interference elsewhere. The geometry simply won't allow an exception to
>>>>this. It's as though the energy of the entire wave collapses to a single
>>>>region along the wave front. There is no collapse however, their is
>>>>simply an illusion of a collapse produced by the mistaken notion that
>>>>energy has an objective existence and definite moment by moment location.
>>>
>>>
>>>no illusions, no collapse, it is measurable, predictable, simple wave
>>>inteference.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only evidence for the particle-like behavior of light, OTOH, is the
>>>>photoelectric effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>measured daily by thousands of photomultiplier tubes.
>>
>>Point photon collisions with matter are not measured.
>
>
> Yes they are, single photon counters Hamamatsu carries the
They don't count single photons. They count single transitions. I've
already been over this device in excruciating detail in a previous argument.
It is only assumed that the same energy emitted by the source is
absorbed by the photocathode.
>
>
>>An uncountable number of em waves impinge on the surface in any given
>>instant. The cascading photomultiplier tube uses electron collisions to
>>amplify the image.
>
>
> There is no image, photomultiplier tubes count photons only.
You are still an idiot.
>
>
>>The incident radiation dislodges electrons from a photocathode element. So
>>what? Discrete energy levels in ordinary matter combined with conservation
>>of energy is more than sufficient to derive the photoelectric equation.
>>I've posted the derivation several times.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>I've explained this effect in terms of wave interference many many times,
>>>>and in addition derived the equation E=hf directly from the relativity of
>>>>spherical waves as quantified by Einstein in his 1905 paper. It has its
>>>>origins in relativistic wave dynamics. As for the apparent localization
>>>>of energy absorption, if it hasn't registered yet that every surface is
>>>>at all times being bombarded by a virtual infinity of waves at any
>>>>moment, and that these interfere at that location, then that is no
>>>>problem of mine, I assure you.
>>>
>>>
>>>That dosen't agree with reflection of photons.
>>
>>There is no such thing as reflection of photons. Its absorption-emission
>>of em waves.
>
>
> Then there should be a delay while it is absorpted and then re-emitted, but
> there is no delay is there?
There is a phase shift incurred. The delay corresponds to the phase
shift. Light does propagate slower through glass than through air. Why
do you suppose it does so?
Richard Perry
John
Google + or Google sum
EM waves, different frequencies dosen't matter, still a sum. All day long.
the form is a*cos(bt+c) or use phase and magnitide notation.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>Though energy may indeed have been imparted to the system, it's
>>>>>whereabouts are indeterminate. When destructive interference occurs in
>>>>>one place along superposed wave fronts it is accompanied by
>>>>>constructive interference elsewhere. The geometry simply won't allow an
>>>>>exception to this. It's as though the energy of the entire wave
>>>>>collapses to a single region along the wave front. There is no
>>>>>collapse however, their is simply an illusion of a collapse produced by
>>>>>the mistaken notion that energy has an objective existence and definite
>>>>>moment by moment location.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>no illusions, no collapse, it is measurable, predictable, simple wave
>>>>inteference.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The only evidence for the particle-like behavior of light, OTOH, is the
>>>>>photoelectric effect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>measured daily by thousands of photomultiplier tubes.
>>>
>>>Point photon collisions with matter are not measured.
>>
>>
>> Yes they are, single photon counters Hamamatsu carries the
>
> They don't count single photons. They count single transitions.
photons, not transitions, what is a transition?
google photon counters lotsa hits.
> I've already been over this device in excruciating detail in a previous
> argument.
> It is only assumed that the same energy emitted by the source is absorbed
> by the photocathode.
>
>>
>>
>>>An uncountable number of em waves impinge on the surface in any given
>>>instant. The cascading photomultiplier tube uses electron collisions to
>>>amplify the image.
>>
>>
>> There is no image, photomultiplier tubes count photons only.
>
> You are still an idiot.
google it => Results 1 - 10 of about 274,000 for photon counters.
>
>>
>>
>>>The incident radiation dislodges electrons from a photocathode element.
>>>So what? Discrete energy levels in ordinary matter combined with
>>>conservation of energy is more than sufficient to derive the
>>>photoelectric equation. I've posted the derivation several times.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I've explained this effect in terms of wave interference many many
>>>>>times, and in addition derived the equation E=hf directly from the
>>>>>relativity of spherical waves as quantified by Einstein in his 1905
>>>>>paper. It has its origins in relativistic wave dynamics. As for the
>>>>>apparent localization of energy absorption, if it hasn't registered yet
>>>>>that every surface is at all times being bombarded by a virtual
>>>>>infinity of waves at any moment, and that these interfere at that
>>>>>location, then that is no problem of mine, I assure you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That dosen't agree with reflection of photons.
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as reflection of photons. Its absorption-emission
>>>of em waves.
>>
>>
>> Then there should be a delay while it is absorpted and then re-emitted,
>> but there is no delay is there?
>
> There is a phase shift incurred.
not off a mirror, it is a conducting surface.
> The delay corresponds to the phase shift. Light does propagate slower
> through glass than through air. Why do you suppose it does so?
different media, Maxwell already covered that over 140 years ago, with
permittivity and permeability of the media.
>
> Richard Perry
>
RP
John wrote:
Identify the energies of the individual photons from that expression.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>Though energy may indeed have been imparted to the system, it's
>>>>>>whereabouts are indeterminate. When destructive interference occurs in
>>>>>>one place along superposed wave fronts it is accompanied by
>>>>>>constructive interference elsewhere. The geometry simply won't allow an
>>>>>>exception to this. It's as though the energy of the entire wave
>>>>>>collapses to a single region along the wave front. There is no
>>>>>>collapse however, their is simply an illusion of a collapse produced by
>>>>>>the mistaken notion that energy has an objective existence and definite
>>>>>>moment by moment location.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>no illusions, no collapse, it is measurable, predictable, simple wave
>>>>>inteference.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The only evidence for the particle-like behavior of light, OTOH, is the
>>>>>>photoelectric effect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>measured daily by thousands of photomultiplier tubes.
>>>>
>>>>Point photon collisions with matter are not measured.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes they are, single photon counters Hamamatsu carries the
>>
>>They don't count single photons. They count single transitions.
>
>
> photons, not transitions, what is a transition?
A transition is the change in energy state of the atom due to an
electron moving between two possible orbitals. The removal of an
electron completely from the atom corresponds to a transition to the
highest energy level possible for that electron.
> google photon counters lotsa hits.
I have. What's your point?
>
>
>
>>I've already been over this device in excruciating detail in a previous
>>argument.
>>It is only assumed that the same energy emitted by the source is absorbed
>>by the photocathode.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>An uncountable number of em waves impinge on the surface in any given
>>>>instant. The cascading photomultiplier tube uses electron collisions to
>>>>amplify the image.
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no image, photomultiplier tubes count photons only.
>>
>>You are still an idiot.
>
>
>
> google it => Results 1 - 10 of about 274,000 for photon counters.
Try Googling photomultiplier tubes instead.
>
>>>
>>>>The incident radiation dislodges electrons from a photocathode element.
>>>>So what? Discrete energy levels in ordinary matter combined with
>>>>conservation of energy is more than sufficient to derive the
>>>>photoelectric equation. I've posted the derivation several times.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I've explained this effect in terms of wave interference many many
>>>>>>times, and in addition derived the equation E=hf directly from the
>>>>>>relativity of spherical waves as quantified by Einstein in his 1905
>>>>>>paper. It has its origins in relativistic wave dynamics. As for the
>>>>>>apparent localization of energy absorption, if it hasn't registered yet
>>>>>>that every surface is at all times being bombarded by a virtual
>>>>>>infinity of waves at any moment, and that these interfere at that
>>>>>>location, then that is no problem of mine, I assure you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That dosen't agree with reflection of photons.
>>>>
>>>>There is no such thing as reflection of photons. Its absorption-emission
>>>>of em waves.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then there should be a delay while it is absorpted and then re-emitted,
>>>but there is no delay is there?
>>
>>There is a phase shift incurred.
>
>
> not off a mirror, it is a conducting surface.
There is still a phase shift.
>
>
>
>>The delay corresponds to the phase shift. Light does propagate slower
>>through glass than through air. Why do you suppose it does so?
>
>
> different media, Maxwell already covered that over 140 years ago, with
> permittivity and permeability of the media.
Indeed. You're catching on.
Richard Perry
Hexenmeister
1) Explain
2) Explain
3) Explain
4) Explain
5) Explain
6) Explain
7) Explain
8) Explain
9) Explain
10) Explain
BTW, I spent 12 seconds typing up the quiz. I'm a slow typist but I
cut/paste really quick.
Androcles
Paul Cardinale
RP wrote:
> 1) Two lasers are adrift in open space, they are aligned parallel and
> are adjacent one another. They both have on board power sources, and are
> identical in every respect. They are both fired simultaneously for a
> brief interval that is equal to less than r/c, where r is the distance
> to the absorbing matter that they are aimed at. The beams are 180º out
> of phase and directed so that their patterns superpose over each other
> at the detector. Upon arrival at the detector no energy is transferred,
> the light is undetectable, having canceled due to destructive interference.
> How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt
> a fixed inertial FoR? Explain.
The light will go somewhere; it isn't destroyed by interference, it
just doesn't go to the place(s) where there is cancelation. Where is
does go, depends upon the particulars of the optical setup.
Paul Cardinale
RP
Suppose photon A was already on its way to the detector, but just before
it struck the surface photon B was emitted from a source very near the
detector, the two photons nulling each other. Does photon A instantly
transport itself to some other location along the wave front at this
point in time, or did it perhaps have foreknowledge of the last minute
emission of B? Once having diverted itself to some other location along
the front, does the other photon go ahead and strike the detector?
Silly me, of course it doesn't, there is no energy detected there, duh,
thus B must also divert itself somewhere else based upon its
foreknowledge of the arrival of A, right? Hmmm. Well, if neither
actually went there, then their certain foreknowledge of the arrival of
the other must surely have been faulty, eh? :) Would you prefer some
time to review your argument? Or were you speaking in terms of classical
wave dynamics? If you were then I still disagree with your answer, in
particular the description of light "going somewhere else instead".
From the perspective of classical wave dynamics the wave is spherical
and goes literally everywhere.
Richard Perry
RP
RP wrote:
I almost forgot my original questions, but in light of your recent
insertion of theory, I'll ask another that is related to the originals.
It is:
If we don't know in which direction a photon was emitted until it is
actually detected somewhere, then how would the source know in which
direction to recoil in response to the emission of that photon, until
such time as the photon was detected? If OTOH, the source does recoil
instantly in response to the emission of the photon, then wouldn't this
tell us immediately and precisely in which direction the photon was
emitted? A bit of homework for the local photons-with-momentum worshipers.
Richard Perry
Timo Nieminen
> RP wrote:
>> Paul Cardinale wrote:
>>> RP wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1) Two lasers are adrift in open space, they are aligned parallel and
>>>> are adjacent one another. They both have on board power sources, and are
>>>> identical in every respect. They are both fired simultaneously for a
>>>> brief interval that is equal to less than r/c, where r is the distance
>>>> to the absorbing matter that they are aimed at. The beams are 180º out
>>>> of phase and directed so that their patterns superpose over each other
>>>> at the detector. Upon arrival at the detector no energy is transferred,
>>>> the light is undetectable, having canceled due to destructive
>>>> interference.
>>>> How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt
>>>> a fixed inertial FoR? Explain.
>>>
>>> The light will go somewhere; it isn't destroyed by interference, it
>>> just doesn't go to the place(s) where there is cancelation. Where is
>>> does go, depends upon the particulars of the optical setup.
>>
>> Suppose photon A was already on its way to the detector, but just before it
>> struck the surface photon B was emitted from a source very near the
>> detector, the two photons nulling each other.
Thus "each photon only interferes with itself". Each photon comes from
both sources at once; after all, the photon is an excitation of the
electromagnetic field, and both sources contribute to the field.
In practice, I suspect that such cancelling as you propose would be,
quantumly, identical to absorption of the photon by the second source.
Classically, the 2nd source would get the energy.
> If we don't know in which direction a photon was emitted until it is actually
> detected somewhere, then how would the source know in which direction to
> recoil in response to the emission of that photon, until such time as the
> photon was detected? If OTOH, the source does recoil instantly in response to
> the emission of the photon, then wouldn't this tell us immediately and
> precisely in which direction the photon was emitted? A bit of homework for
> the local photons-with-momentum worshipers.
Given a certain uncertainty in the detected momentum, and a corresponding
minimum uncertainty in position of the atom, there will be some
uncertainty in the direction of emission.
But apart from that, isn't this equivalent to things such as emission of
photons with correlated spins; detect one and you know what the other
does?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Ken S. Tucker
"Given a certain uncertainty"
that's ahh quite a statement...
>in the detected momentum, and a corresponding
> minimum uncertainty in position of the atom, there will be some
> uncertainty in the direction of emission.
>
> But apart from that, isn't this equivalent to things such as emission of
> photons with correlated spins; detect one and you know what the other
> does?
But yeah, the process of constructive and destructive
interference is important in interferometry and seems
easy to understand using the wave theory of light but
from the PoV of photon theory it is more challenging.
I think optical engineeers describe the effect as fringe
patterns, and is useful in gauging the accuracy of
parabolic mirrors used in reflecting telescopes.
I understand one may take what's known as a
"standing wave" and in photon theory call the
nodes of the standing wave, the sum of spin and
anti-spin that result in "destructive interference, and
"180 degrees" apart from there is the sum of the
2 spins and 2 anti-spins corresponding to
constructive interference.
Is that what you guys think?
TIA
Ken
donsto...@hotmail.com
RP
Timo Nieminen wrote:
It appears to be a lot like that. OTOH, it also appears to define
uncertainty as clearly not an uncertainty in nature, but instead as an
uncertainty only in our minds. When you define the act of observation
in detail, then it turns out to mean only that some electrons have
jiggled in your brain as a result of electrons jiggling in your retinas.
Electrons are the observer. But there are electrons pretty much
everywhere, thus the photon has been observed by the source, immediately
upon its emission. Its polarization is certain wrt the source, and the
orientation of the source is certain wrt all observers, thus the
polarization of the photon is certain wrt all frames from birth. EPR is
the greatest waste of bandwidth ever to pass peer review.
Now, we still have the issue of radiation reaction force to address. If
Foreknowledge of the state of the ambient field at the surface of the
detector is not allowed, and because of this it cannot be predicted in
which places the wave front will be destructively interfered with, then
how does the source know in which direction to recoil. Another
diversionary tactic is expected, but I'd appreciate you giving some
serious consideration to question. How can you justify light having
momentum?
Richard Perry
Sue...
RP wrote:
<< How can you justify light having momentum? >>
Lurking. ;o)
Sue...
>
> Richard Perry
Timo Nieminen
> Now, we still have the issue of radiation reaction force to address. If
> Foreknowledge of the state of the ambient field at the surface of the
> detector is not allowed, and because of this it cannot be predicted in which
> places the wave front will be destructively interfered with, then how does
> the source know in which direction to recoil. Another diversionary tactic is
> expected, but I'd appreciate you giving some serious consideration to
> question. How can you justify light having momentum?
Foreknowledge of the state of the field at the surface of the detector
_is_ allowed. Detecting a photon emitted from an atom at X instead of Y
doesn't mean that the field at Y is any different from the field at X. For
a classical dipole antenna, we know the fields. For an atom that undergoes
a dipole transition, the field will be the same (or there will be some
probability of the field being that of a dipole antenna in some particular
orientation, if the atom's orientation is random).
How does the source know which way to recoil? The same way a photon that
has polarisation correlated with another photon knows which way to be
measured. A question for quantum people.
But you ask: "How can you justify light having momentum?" Electromagnetic
radiation exerts forces, including recoil forces. This is experimentally
measured. Theory states that the recoil force only depends on the emitter
and the fields at the emitter, and not on what happens at whatever might
absorb the emitted radiation later. Likewise, force due to
absorption/scattering of the emitted radiation only depends on local
conditions. Theory also predicts a momentum density and current that
matches experiment. Either light has momentum, or the momentum disappears
between emission and absorption. I would say that conservation of momentum
and classical electrodynamics work well enough to say "light has
momentum".
Timo Nieminen
> But yeah, the process of constructive and destructive
> interference is important in interferometry and seems
> easy to understand using the wave theory of light but
> from the PoV of photon theory it is more challenging.
Treat the EM field as the wavefunction of the photon. Interference between
two contributions to the field changes where the photon might be detected.
The story from the PoV of photon theory _is_ the classical wave story.
I think that the experiments which show interference between indepedent
sources - something completely expected in classical wave theory and
completely forbidden in naive billiard ball pictures of photons - nicely
illuminate the correctness of such naive billiard ball pictures.
> I understand one may take what's known as a
> "standing wave" and in photon theory call the
> nodes of the standing wave, the sum of spin and
> anti-spin that result in "destructive interference, and
> "180 degrees" apart from there is the sum of the
> 2 spins and 2 anti-spins corresponding to
> constructive interference.
>
> Is that what you guys think?
No. A plane polarised laser beam, being the sum of circularly polarised
beams of opposite spin, tells me otherwise.
Sue...
> 1) Two lasers are adrift in open space, they are aligned parallel and
> are adjacent one another.
> They both have on board power sources, and are
> identical in every respect. They are both fired simultaneously for a
> brief interval that is equal to less than r/c, where r is the distance
> to the absorbing matter that they are aimed at. The beams are 180º out
> of phase and directed so that their patterns superpose over each other
> at the detector.
So this will cause the energy to be refllected or absorbed
depending on the phase.
> Upon arrival at the detector no energy is transferred,
> the light is undetectable, having canceled due to destructive interference.
> How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt
> a fixed inertial FoR? Explain.
If light is directed, the universe has to move one way,
the emitter the other way. If reflected the inverse
can occur. IOW the net force is usually attractive...
NOT repulsive as we might intuit from simply adding
the recoil to the radiation pressure.
<< MD-GRAPE2 will come with coefficients for Coulomb
and van der Waals forces, and with coefficients used for
the Ewald method. The coefficient sets are entered with a
subroutine call in the main program, and can be varied
arbitrarily during the operation of the code. >>
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
>
> 2) The same lasers are fired with beams in phase. How will their
> momentum and energy be affected. Explain.
>
> 3) The same lasers are fired alternately. How will their momentum and
> energy be affected? Explain.
>
> 4) A laser at the periphery of the visible universe, under similar
> circumstances to those above, is fired toward an open region of space,
> toward the outer boundary, such that it never strikes an absorbing body
> or mass. How will the laser assembly's momentum and energy be affected?
> Explain.
Radiation pattern of a *laser*
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/gifpics/yagi4.gif from:
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antarray.html
Positive charges at the origin are Coulomb coupled
to negative charges out in free-space so
~edge of the universe~
type of references are too abiguous.
If the EM domain is not 377 ohms, its structure needs
better definition to consider the question.
>
> 4a) The laser above [4] being part of the universe, when or if it
> recoils, should lead to a change in momentum of the universe as a whole
> (not counting the outgoing radiation) wrt our inertial FoR. Unless the
> outgoing em radiation has mass, the center of mass of the universe will
> have obtained a net drift. Drift wrt what?
wrt 377 ohm universe.
>
> How does the advanced wave of Feynman and Wheeler's absorber theory
> affect and play into the outcomes of these experiments?
>
> Does light have mass? Is there a massive medium?
One H2 molecule per cubic centimeter sounds like mass to me.
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html
> Or is it simply that
> light is a fictitious operator and there is no advanced wave of the
> Feynman-Wheeler sort in operation, which is to say, is light a simply an
> effect produced by retarded potentials?
The advanced wave fiction is properly rejected as a canon of
physics. It is a violation of causality.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node51.html
Photons are dragged out of electric dipoles by the 377 ohm
universe just as much as they are launched.
Light has an equivalent mass. We shouldn't jump to
conclusions about inertial/gravitational interactions
tho without some better proof.
Pound-Snider, Vessot, and Einstein rings aren't good
enough for that kind of assumption.
Title: How an antenna launches its input power into radiation: the
pattern of the Poynting vector at and near an antenna
Authors: J. David Jackson
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506053
Sue...
>
> Richard Perry
<<
'Electromagnetic momentum '
Here, the radiation is assumed to be perfectly collimated. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html
<< Fluctuations in the microwave energy stored in the
cavity change the radiation pressure on the cavity walls
and modify the non-linear part of the superconducting
surface reactance. Fortunately, these are quite small
effects that can be minimized with a modest level of
power control. >>
http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/status.htm
tdp...@gmail.com
Good point!
It is well proven that the maximum power transfer occurs
when the source (Cause) impedance matches the load (Effect) impedance.
This implies that there is no sustained transfer of energy at the unit
quantum level
unless the source impedance and the load impedance,
equal the impedance of space,
as the maximum quantum unit is the minimum quantum unit.
Tunneling and negative resistance situations might be exceptions to
this,
but these effects are like negative entropy,
and they probably cannot be sustained at the global level.
In other words tunneling, negative resistance, and life forms in a
region,
must be supplied with an outside source of power.
--
Tom Potter
http://no-turtles.com
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com
tdp...@gmail.com
So what you're saying is that if you set fire to one side
of a disk in space, that the disk would not move???
No photon torpedos???
There goes Star Trek.
Hexenmeister
<tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140352273.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Photons are dragged out of electric dipoles by the 377 ohm
> universe just as much as they are launched.
Good point!
Oh, ok. Bullets are sucked out of gun barrels by air resistance.
Must be a good point, right?
Do you know what an incompetent shithead is?
Androcles.
Paul Cardinale
RP wrote:
> Paul Cardinale wrote:
> > RP wrote:
> >
> >>1) Two lasers are adrift in open space, they are aligned parallel and
> >>are adjacent one another. They both have on board power sources, and are
> >>identical in every respect. They are both fired simultaneously for a
> >>brief interval that is equal to less than r/c, where r is the distance
> >>to the absorbing matter that they are aimed at. The beams are 180º out
> >>of phase and directed so that their patterns superpose over each other
> >>at the detector. Upon arrival at the detector no energy is transferred,
> >>the light is undetectable, having canceled due to destructive interference.
> >>How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt
> >>a fixed inertial FoR? Explain.
> >
> >
> > The light will go somewhere; it isn't destroyed by interference, it
> > just doesn't go to the place(s) where there is cancelation. Where is
> > does go, depends upon the particulars of the optical setup.
> >
> > Paul Cardinale
>
> Suppose photon A was already on its way to the detector, but just before
> it struck the surface photon B was emitted from a source very near the
> detector, the two photons nulling each other.
You don't understand photons. Photons never 'null each other'. Where
the waves exactly cancel each other, there is a zero probablility of
observing a photon; at other locations, the probability is non-zero.
Paul Cardinale
Tom Roberts
> 1) Two lasers are adrift in open space, they are aligned parallel and
> are adjacent one another. They both have on board power sources, and are
> identical in every respect. They are both fired simultaneously for a
> brief interval that is equal to less than r/c, where r is the distance
> to the absorbing matter that they are aimed at. The beams are 180º out
> of phase and directed so that their patterns superpose over each other
> at the detector. Upon arrival at the detector no energy is transferred,
> the light is undetectable, having canceled due to destructive interference.
> How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt
> a fixed inertial FoR? Explain.
The two lasers are not located at the exact same point in space, they
are displaced by a small but finite distance perpendicular to their
beams. Consider the point midway between them to be the origin, with
their displacement along x and the beams along z. Then for certain
angles in the x-z plane there will be constructive interference, and for
other angles there will be destructive interference. You stipulate that
the detector is at a location where there is destructive interference.
That implies that at other locations adjacent to that detector one would
observe a maximum in the light.
Due to the geometry inherent in the physical situation, the two beams
cannot possibly be "180º out of phase" everywhere. Turn one laser off
and one obtains a profile of the other's beam when one measures along x
at the z position of the detector. Repeat with the other laser to obtain
its beam profile. One can arrange the lasers so these two profiles are
identical. Turn them both on, and at the z of the detector one finds an
interference pattern along x, with regions of zero light and regions of
light brighter than from either laser alone. Integrate the light
intensity for this pattern, and you find that it is equal to the sum of
the integrals for the individual lasers -- total energy is conserved.
[Interference also occurs in the y direction, which I ignore
for simplicity.]
Exercise for the reader: is it possible to make the two beams
so small that there is no room for both maxima and minima,
so only a single minimum is produced at the detector? Explain.
Hint: the distance between the lasers in x is limited by the
size of their apertures. Hint 2: diffraction.
> 2) The same lasers are fired with beams in phase. How will their
> momentum and energy be affected. Explain.
See above. They cannot be "in phase" everywhere, either.
> 3) The same lasers are fired alternately. How will their momentum and
> energy be affected? Explain.
See above. There is a clear and obvious answer.
> 4) A laser at the periphery of the visible universe, under similar
> circumstances to those above, is fired toward an open region of space,
> toward the outer boundary, such that it never strikes an absorbing body
> or mass. How will the laser assembly's momentum and energy be affected?
Rockets work in vacuum, even though there is nothing for their exhaust
to "push" against. Ditto for light.
> 4a) The laser above [4] being part of the universe, when or if it
> recoils, should lead to a change in momentum of the universe as a whole
> (not counting the outgoing radiation) wrt our inertial FoR.
But you must count the radiation. Balance is maintained.
> Unless the
> outgoing em radiation has mass, the center of mass of the universe will
> have obtained a net drift.
Such questions are problematical. If one stipulates that before the
laser turns on there is a specific globally-inertial frame in which the
total momentum of the universe is zero, then after they turn on that
still holds in that same frame. But in no cosmological model of the
universe is there such a _globally_ inertial frame, and in actuality
your question does not make sense.
> Does light have mass?
No. But it carries energy and momentum.
Your confusion is based on this:
In classical mechanics, the center of mass of a system is always at rest
in the inertial frame in which the system's total momentum is zero. In
modern physics "center of mass" is often inappropriate and/or useless,
but the frame in which the total momentum is zero remains useful. The
basic problem is that light carries momentum but not mass. The relevant
conservation law references total momentum, not center of mass. There
are also problems with "global inertial frames" alluded to above.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
RP
Paul Cardinale wrote:
> RP wrote:
>
>>Paul Cardinale wrote:
>>
>>>RP wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>1) Two lasers are adrift in open space, they are aligned parallel and
>>>>are adjacent one another. They both have on board power sources, and are
>>>>identical in every respect. They are both fired simultaneously for a
>>>>brief interval that is equal to less than r/c, where r is the distance
>>>>to the absorbing matter that they are aimed at. The beams are 180º out
>>>>of phase and directed so that their patterns superpose over each other
>>>>at the detector. Upon arrival at the detector no energy is transferred,
>>>>the light is undetectable, having canceled due to destructive interference.
>>>>How will the momentum and energy of the laser assemblies be affected wrt
>>>>a fixed inertial FoR? Explain.
>>>
>>>
>>>The light will go somewhere; it isn't destroyed by interference, it
>>>just doesn't go to the place(s) where there is cancelation. Where is
>>>does go, depends upon the particulars of the optical setup.
>>>
>>>Paul Cardinale
>>
>>Suppose photon A was already on its way to the detector, but just before
>>it struck the surface photon B was emitted from a source very near the
>>detector, the two photons nulling each other.
>
>
> You don't understand photons.
That is an understatement :)
> Photons never 'null each other'. Where
> the waves
If we have waves, then aren't the photons redundant?
> exactly cancel each other, there is a zero probablility of
> observing a photon; at other locations, the probability is non-zero.
Yes of course, standard QED. But apparently you didn't follow my
arguments.
If the photon exists, then it must exists in limbo, just waiting for the
probability waves to tell it where it should or shouldn't land.
If the photon propagates at c, then the probability waves must propagate
instantaneously. In the context of Special Relativity this is called a
causality violation. This corresponds roughly to the Feynman-Wheeler
advanced wave, which doesn't seem on the surface to violate causality,
when analyzed thoroughly enough it does. I presented an argument
showing, convincingly I thought, that such a wave of information was
contradictory, in that its existence prevented the very photon behavior
that it forecast. The only other option is that all electrons are
instantly aware of the positions and motions of each other, and don't
respond in ways that would, for instance, allow ejected photons to land
at the same point in space-time. I suppose in such a case the electrons
simply *wait* to eject their respective photons until such time as the
probabilities are more favorable to their not producing contradiction to
the prediction of QED. How courteous of them!
Another option is that photons are arbitrary and free creations of the
human mind, that unfortunately have no correspondence to reality.
One might as well invoke pixies, since photons are only pixies by
another name. The observables don't include photons, but rather relegate
these entities to the philosophical bin along with the aether. This was
the very point of absorber theory, to rid electromagnetic interactions
of unobservables. OTOH, absorber theory is incorrect, again, for the
reasons given above. It is contradictory.
When an electron responds to the local field (and well not attempt to
philosophize about what that means), the electron is accelerated. This
acceleration in turn generates an outgoing *retarded wave*. If there is
an advanced wave besides this on, then it corresponds to precisely the
same trajectory of the electron, and thus cannot be an additional source
of recoil, but is rather simply a matter of running the film in reverse.
IOW, we can look at the sequence in either time-like direction, but not
at the same time. And regardless of which direction we let time flow,
the recoil is simply a reaction to the local *retarded* field. The
outgoing radiation thus has no affect on the source electron except in
the case we run the film in reverse. But in my universe time flows in
one direction, and thus in my universe the electron does not self
interact. Outgoing radiation has no affect on its motion.
In the case of a laser beam, the source is actually many sources, and
there is a feedback such that all of the electrons involved are both
emitting and interacting with emitted radiation (em waves). If the
momentum of the whole changes as the result of (or better, *in
conjunction with*) the release of a pulse of light in one direction from
the assembly, then it is because of the individual interactions of the
electrons with incoming waves (incoming wrt each of them respectively),
some of which were emitted by the other electrons in the device. They
do not recoil because of their collective emission of radiation from the
apparatus. That emerging beam of light caused no recoil, but perhaps
light preceding that light did. This may be considered a nit pick, but
it is one that I think is necessary. It's by the bad habit of describing
only the superficial appearances of effects that we are preventing from
discerning the fundamental facts that underly those appearances.
In any case, the photon should be discarded. So should the probability
wave. The waves are the fields themselves, retarded for only god knows
what reason, and the electrons respond to the field directly, not via
pixies. The field is also just *that which influences the electron's
motion* and shouldn't be made into anything that isn't observable.
Richard Perry
Ken S. Tucker
Timo, have a look at,
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/KST/GR_Charge_Couple3.pdf
if that makes sense, then we can move to Action Dynamics.
Ken
tdp...@gmail.com
It is interesting to see that Androcles
thinks that photons are shot out of "electric dipoles" by gunpowder.
Hexenmeister
<tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140437212.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hexenmeister wrote:
>> <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140352273.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Photons are dragged out of electric dipoles by the 377 ohm
>> > universe just as much as they are launched.
>>
>> Good point!
>>
>>
>> Oh, ok. Bullets are sucked out of gun barrels by air resistance.
>> Must be a good point, right?
>> Do you know what an incompetent shithead is?
>>
>> Androcles.
>
> It is interesting to see that Androcles
> thinks that photons are shot out of "electric dipoles" by gunpowder.
If that is what you find interesting then you have no clue what an analogy
is,
or even a 377 ohm universe is.
Come to think of it, I have no idea what a 377 ohm universe is either.
It sure isn't impedance or resistance. Maybe it is related to the viscosity
of your aether, which has the consistency of axle grease at 40 below.
BTW, you didn't answer the question.
Do you know what an incompetent shithead is?
It is someone that thinks the universe has a resistance or impedance
of 377 ohms, although I have no idea at what characteristic frequency
this impedance is supposed to be.
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<tdp...@gmail.com>
wrote
on 20 Feb 2006 04:06:52 -0800
<1140437212.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
>
> Hexenmeister wrote:
>> <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1140352273.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Photons are dragged out of electric dipoles by the 377 ohm
>> > universe just as much as they are launched.
>>
>> Good point!
>>
>>
>> Oh, ok. Bullets are sucked out of gun barrels by air resistance.
>> Must be a good point, right?
>> Do you know what an incompetent shithead is?
>>
>> Androcles.
>
> It is interesting to see that Androcles
> thinks that photons are shot out of "electric dipoles" by gunpowder.
Interesting, but not horribly enlightening. :-) But photons are
strange beasts anyway. One way of looking at it (which is of
course uniquely SR) is that a photon is created and immediately
destroyed as it takes no time at all (in its own reference frame)
to transit from source (an electronic transition or thermal
radiation) to destination (another electronic transition or increase
of atomic entropy).
And that's about as far as I know about it; the entanglement of
photons throws a weird variant into the mix as well.
To be sure, gunpowder does generate some photons upon explosion --
the muzzle flash of a firing gun is well known. So Androcles is not
being a total idiot.
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Hexenmeister
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:ko8pc3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In sci.physics.relativity, tdp...@gmail.com
> <tdp...@gmail.com>
> wrote
> on 20 Feb 2006 04:06:52 -0800
> <1140437212.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> Hexenmeister wrote:
>>> <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1140352273.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > Photons are dragged out of electric dipoles by the 377 ohm
>>> > universe just as much as they are launched.
>>>
>>> Good point!
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, ok. Bullets are sucked out of gun barrels by air resistance.
>>> Must be a good point, right?
>>> Do you know what an incompetent shithead is?
>>>
>>> Androcles.
>>
>> It is interesting to see that Androcles
>> thinks that photons are shot out of "electric dipoles" by gunpowder.
>
> Interesting, but not horribly enlightening. :-) But photons are
> strange beasts anyway. One way of looking at it (which is of
> course uniquely SR) is that a photon is created and immediately
> destroyed as it takes no time at all (in its own reference frame)
> to transit from source (an electronic transition or thermal
> radiation) to destination (another electronic transition or increase
> of atomic entropy).
The only thing strange here is your weird ideas.
Whether you believe it or not, it takes time for light to travel from
source to destination. Even it its own reference frame it takes time
for the destination to come to the photon and the source to move
away, shithead. Lay off the cocaine.
[rest snipped]
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<vanq...@broom.Mickey>
wrote
on Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:59:28 GMT
<4snKf.25804$DM....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
And you know this precisely how? Is this a variant of "tired light"
theory?
> [rest snipped]
> Androcles.
Hexenmeister
http://oisc.net/Speed_of_Light.htm
You should immediately write "[rest snipped]" at this point and not read on,
your neuron cannot take more than one pixel of information at a time.
What follows is for lurkers.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/products/pdfs/cassini_msn.pdf
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
I expect a moron such as yourself to reject the Copernican heliocentic
solar system in favour of a geocentric Ptolemaic system and believe
all triangles are isosceles as Einstein learned at age 13 and put to great
use to his own advantage.
http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/every.htm
Any phuckwit capable of believing time stops for a photon
has no concept of frequency or of physics in general.
Even Dork Van de merde squawked in
news:tj_Jf.266785$nR7.8...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
on 19 Feb 2006 (historic occasion):
" Polly want a kwacker
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
Polly want a kwacker"
-- Dirk Vdm
Good grief! Radiation with a known frequency defines a second.
You have sunk lower than Van de merde, something I didn't think possible.
How horribly unenlightening.
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<vanq...@broom.Mickey>
wrote
<PasKf.27917$DM....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
This proves absolutely nothing either way; c' = c+v and SR will both
satisfy MMX and this modified Fizeau apparatus. The best one can
hope for here is a disproof of absolute luminiferous aether theory.
>
> You should immediately write "[rest snipped]" at this point and not read on,
Not necessarily; the true scientist is interested in all data.
I am still waiting for Cassini time data, BTW. What you have is merely
a synopsis of the mission.
> your neuron cannot take more than one pixel of information at a time.
> What follows is for lurkers.
>
> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/products/pdfs/cassini_msn.pdf
A short "for the layperson" description of the Cassini spacecraft
and the mission, plus some data on Saturn and Titan, and the
Huygens probe.
> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
A short description on the various times needed to track the mission.
In particular:
UTC - Coordinated Universal Time, a worldwide standard. (This standard
has some quirks as the clocks run at slightly different rates.)
SCET - the time according to the spacecraft.
OWLT - one way light time, the time it takes light (or a radio signal)
to get from the spacecraft to Earth.
ERT/ - Earth received time
Ground UTC - The time the signal is received at mission control, equal
to SCET + OWLT
Local time - UTC, plus timezone offset.
No data here.
Additional standards are available, such as a rotating time/coordinate
standard used in GPS satellite work.
> http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
A short bio on Galileo Galilei followed by what appears to be translated
text from the work _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_,
marked as 1632, though I don't know whether that's the year written,
or the year published. The translation is credited to Stillman Drake.
The two world systems, of course, are the Archimedian earth-centered
view, and the then-heretical Copernican Sun-centered view. The
truth is actually somewhere in between the two (although far more
Copernican since the Sun encompasses 98% of the systems' mass;
much of the rest is taken by Jupiter), further complicated by the
black hole in the center of the galaxy and a few other things,
of decreasing importance.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
A rather peculiar animation that shows (or attempts to
show) that the length of a rod (a wine bottle) does not
change because of a spinning Mickey. and a curved Sagnac
line description which is claimed to be straight by SRians.
(Of note here: first, SRians make no such claim AFAIK. Second,
the actual path of the beam may indeed be curved but without some
work one cannot use SR for the calculations, as there is an
acceleration involved -- namely, centripetal acceleration of
the mirrors used in the Sagnac experiment. Third, Newtonian
math is disproven by Sagnac.)
>
> I expect a moron such as yourself to reject the Copernican heliocentic
> solar system in favour of a geocentric Ptolemaic system and believe
> all triangles are isosceles as Einstein learned at age 13 and put to great
> use to his own advantage.
> http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/every.htm
All triangles are in fact equilateral, and this is easily proven.
First, one must establish the coordinate system for the
existing triangle, then apply a combination of a linear
shear tensor and a rotation such that the first point
of the triangle (call it A for brevity) is mapped to the
origin, A'. The second point (call it B) is then happed to
the new point B', such that B' = (1,0). This establishes
the first axis of the tensor.
The third point is then mapped to C' = (1/2, sqrt(3)/2).
Since all three of A'B', B'C', and A'C' have length 1,
the triangle A'B'C' is equilateral. Therefore, the original
triangle ABC is also equilateral. QED.
(Spot the Flaw.)
>
> Any phuckwit capable of believing time stops for a photon
> has no concept of frequency or of physics in general.
> Even Dork Van de merde squawked in
> news:tj_Jf.266785$nR7.8...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
> on 19 Feb 2006 (historic occasion):
>
> " Polly want a kwacker
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
> The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
> radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
> hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
> Polly want a kwacker"
> -- Dirk Vdm
>
> Good grief! Radiation with a known frequency defines a second.
How should a second be defined, then? In any event, we'll never
know how long a photon has to experience the Universe, since
we can't accelerate anything massive (e.g., a camera unit) to
lightspeed.
However, I mentioned "tired light" theory. Any wave will spread
out over the course of its travels, if it experiences time during
such.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE425.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html
cover some of the more common errors regarding this theory,
at least as evidenced in talk.origins (but presumably applicable
here as well).
> You have sunk lower than Van de merde, something I didn't think possible.
> How horribly unenlightening.
Oh, you poor thing. Did you still want that cookie? :-P
Sue...
Both ya seem to be in violent agreement.
> If the photon exists, then it must exists in limbo, just waiting for the
> probability waves to tell it where it should or shouldn't land.
Probability waves propagate on paper ...and not necessarily
from the source structure under consideration...
the second laser is a good example.
> If the photon propagates at c,
It may not propagate at c if it doesn't see 377 ohms.
I.E a a discontinuity that causes an E plane reflection.
This is why we *believe?* the SUMO clock will have
no moving mass to effect (not affect) a valid LPI experiment.
> then the probability waves must propagate
> instantaneously.
Instaneously... Yes. It is only the *potential* for an
electron to move. If the receiving structure is an
atomic oscillator, it will sum up the forces and move
an electron if forces are sufficient.
Magnetic force, too, has FTL *looking* components
which is why we have 2 sets of Maxwell equations,
one set to include retarded_potential:
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
> In the context of Special Relativity this is called a
> causality violation. This corresponds roughly to the Feynman-Wheeler
> advanced wave, which doesn't seem on the surface to violate causality,
> when analyzed thoroughly enough it does.
Indeed!
"Advanced potentials"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node51.html
> I presented an argument
> showing, convincingly I thought, that such a wave of information was
> contradictory, in that its existence prevented the very photon behavior
> that it forecast. The only other option is that all electrons are
> instantly aware of the positions and motions of each other, and don't
> respond in ways that would, for instance, allow ejected photons to land
> at the same point in
<< ?space-time? >> .[ether?]
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
>I suppose in such a case the electrons
> simply *wait* to eject their respective photons until such time as the
> probabilities are more favorable to their not producing contradiction to
> the prediction of QED. How courteous of them!
Can one end of a rope "wait" for an impulse to arrive from
the other end? Rope ends are equipped with Feynman's
clocks, no doubt. :o)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/waves/string.html
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html
>
> Another option is that photons are arbitrary and free creations of the
> human mind, that unfortunately have no correspondence to reality.
They are *real* the *instant* an atomic oscillator measures out a chunk
of
EM radiation. But !never! real again. The absorbed photon can't have
the same identity as the emitted photon except perhaps in a two
atom universe.
> One might as well invoke pixies, since photons are only pixies by
> another name. The observables don't include photons, but rather relegate
> these entities to the philosophical bin along with the aether. This was
> the very point of absorber theory, to rid electromagnetic interactions
> of unobservables. OTOH, absorber theory is incorrect, again, for the
> reasons given above. It is contradictory.
Do pixies practice identity theft? :o)
The SUMO cavity is probably a good exercise in absorber theory.
>
> When an electron responds to the local field (and well not attempt to
> philosophize about what that means), the electron is accelerated. This
> acceleration in turn generates an outgoing *retarded wave*. If there is
> an advanced wave
An advanced wave isn't needed. Near-field Maxwell
(Greens? Stokes? ) anomanies create the illusion.
> besides this on, then it corresponds to precisely the
> same trajectory of the electron, and thus cannot be an additional source
> of recoil, but is rather simply a matter of running the film in reverse.
That doesn't work well.
A free atom will direct eliptically polarised light in opposite
directions so the recoil is zero.
Some Maxwell-Feynman-Wheeler-Bellhop magic had the
light going in opposite *temporal* directions. OOps!
> IOW, we can look at the sequence in either time-like direction, but not
> at the same time. And regardless of which direction we let time flow,
> the recoil is simply a reaction to the local *retarded* field. The
> outgoing radiation thus has no affect on the source electron except in
> the case we run the film in reverse. But in my universe time flows in
> one direction, and thus in my universe the electron does not self
> interact. Outgoing radiation has no affect on its motion.
Coulomb coupling (likely to very local matter) is involved in
outgoing radiation, so recoil is more often than not.
http://physics.njit.edu/~dgary/728/dipole.gif
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/nuclear/mossb.html
>
> In the case of a laser beam, the source is actually many sources, and
> there is a feedback such that all of the electrons involved are both
> emitting and interacting with emitted radiation (em waves). If the
> momentum of the whole changes as the result of (or better, *in
> conjunction with*) the release of a pulse of light in one direction from
> the assembly, then it is because of the individual interactions of the
> electrons with incoming waves (incoming wrt each of them respectively),
> some of which were emitted by the other electrons in the device. They
> do not recoil because of their collective emission of radiation from the
> apparatus. That emerging beam of light caused no recoil, but perhaps
> light preceding that light did. This may be considered a nit pick, but
> it is one that I think is necessary. It's by the bad habit of describing
> only the superficial appearances of effects that we are preventing from
> discerning the fundamental facts that underly those appearances.
The laser is an endfire array. This:
http://physics.njit.edu/~dgary/728/dipole.gif
...folded in half and squashed narrower.
The Coulomb coupling doesn't get the same gain
as the AC component. Once you spoil the isotropy
to a cardioid, further gain doesn't give you increased
recoil.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/nuclear/mossb.html
>
> In any case, the photon should be discarded.
Awe shucks! Then we'll have to study electromagnetics.
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
> So should the probability
> wave. The waves are the fields themselves, retarded for only god knows
> what reason, and the electrons respond to the field directly, not via
> pixies. The field is also just *that which influences the electron's
> motion* and shouldn't be made into anything that isn't observable.
Some research can benefit from a atomic oscillator's ability
to measure out chunks of energy and in that case the
photon has some utility. As a shortcut to avoid the learning
curve that Maxwell, Weber ect had to endure, the concept
causes more confusion than it is worth.
I agree violently too. :o)
Sue...
>
> Richard Perry
Sue...
Sue... wrote:
OOps!
The http PHP dipole doesn't like being back linked.
Same picture here:
http://www.marcspages.co.uk/tech/antgain1.gif from
http://www.marcspages.co.uk/tech/antgain.htm
Sue...
snip
tdp...@gmail.com
Hexenmeister wrote:
> <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140437212.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Hexenmeister wrote:
> >> <tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1140352273.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > Photons are dragged out of electric dipoles by the 377 ohm
> >> > universe just as much as they are launched.
> >>
> >> Good point!
> >>
> >>
> >> Oh, ok. Bullets are sucked out of gun barrels by air resistance.
> >> Must be a good point, right?
> >> Do you know what an incompetent shithead is?
> >>
> >> Androcles.
> >
> > It is interesting to see that Androcles
> > thinks that photons are shot out of "electric dipoles" by gunpowder.
>
> If that is what you find interesting then you have no clue what an analogy
> is,
> or even a 377 ohm universe is.
> Come to think of it, I have no idea what a 377 ohm universe is either.
Considering that Androcles admits that he does not comprehend the
"377 ohm universe" I suggest that he visit my web site,
and download the PDF file that I just uploaded,
that outlines this in graphic detail.
I am sure that after he reads this article,
that he will have a good understanding of
the "377 ohm universe".
This PDF file develops the four forces from time periods
and time intervals, and shows how the various
physical constants such as pi, e, Z0, mu0, permittivity, C, and G
come into being.
I mentioned in January that I would be uploading this article,
and I apologize for taking so long to upload it.
I will add discussions of "h' and the FSC when I get time,
and a summary of the significance of the article.
Sue...
You must be a fan of Dmitri Mendeleev. :-)
http://web.buddyproject.org/web017/web017/history.html
Sue...
Hexenmeister
You asked me how *I* know "Whether you believe it or not,
it takes time for light to travel from source to destination."
I've told you. I'm not under obligation to prove anything to
you, the speed of light is 186,282.3960 miles per second,
plus or minus 3.6 feet per second according to that document
and *I* believe it. I do not believe you.
>>
>> You should immediately write "[rest snipped]" at this point and not read
>> on,
>
> Not necessarily; the true scientist is interested in all data.
You are not a true scientist, or even a scientist.
> I am still waiting for Cassini time data, BTW. What you have is merely
> a synopsis of the mission.
You asked me how *I* knew. I've told you.
I'm not under obligation to prove anything to you.
>> your neuron cannot take more than one pixel of information at a time.
>> What follows is for lurkers.
>>
>> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/products/pdfs/cassini_msn.pdf
>
> A short "for the layperson" description of the Cassini spacecraft
> and the mission, plus some data on Saturn and Titan, and the
> Huygens probe.
You are a layperson.<shrug>
>> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
>
> A short description on the various times needed to track the mission.
> In particular:
>
> UTC - Coordinated Universal Time, a worldwide standard. (This standard
> has some quirks as the clocks run at slightly different rates.)
> SCET - the time according to the spacecraft.
> OWLT - one way light time, the time it takes light (or a radio signal)
> to get from the spacecraft to Earth.
> ERT/ - Earth received time
> Ground UTC - The time the signal is received at mission control, equal
> to SCET + OWLT
> Local time - UTC, plus timezone offset.
>
> No data here.
The data given by Einstein:
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity."
"Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation
takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec". (Both
statements by Einstein.)
Children at school and NIST and JPL know more than Einstein or you.
Not surprising to *me*, really. *I* believe the children at school rather
than
you or Einstein. <shrug>
Why not snip? You are losing.
>
> Additional standards are available, such as a rotating time/coordinate
> standard used in GPS satellite work.
>
>> http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
>
> A short bio on Galileo Galilei followed by what appears to be translated
> text from the work _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_,
> marked as 1632, though I don't know whether that's the year written,
> or the year published. The translation is credited to Stillman Drake.
Ok. I did read the same document by a different translator
years ago. AFAIK that is the only version on the WWW.
You asked me how I know "Even it its own reference frame it takes time
for the destination to come to the photon and the source to move away,
shithead. Lay off the cocaine."
The text contains a description of the PoR. <shrug>
>
> The two world systems, of course, are the Archimedian earth-centered
> view, and the then-heretical Copernican Sun-centered view. The
> truth is actually somewhere in between the two (although far more
> Copernican since the Sun encompasses 98% of the systems' mass;
> much of the rest is taken by Jupiter), further complicated by the
> black hole in the center of the galaxy and a few other things,
> of decreasing importance.
How do you know there is black hole in the centre of the galaxy?
(Not that it matters, I don't believe you anyway. Just curious.)
>
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
>
> A rather peculiar animation that shows (or attempts to
> show) that the length of a rod (a wine bottle) does not
> change because of a spinning Mickey. and a curved Sagnac
> line description which is claimed to be straight by SRians.
Nope. It shows the PoR in action, as the text indicates.
Now you are a desperate liar, clutching at straws.
It's the right pace to snip, you are losing your argument.
And remember, you asked me how *I* know.
> (Of note here: first, SRians make no such claim AFAIK.
Non sequitur, I never said they did.
> Second,
> the actual path of the beam may indeed be curved but without some
> work one cannot use SR for the calculations
Non sequitur. I never suggested an SRian should make a calculation.
I'm responding to "And you know this precisely how?"
>, as there is an
> acceleration involved -- namely, centripetal acceleration of
> the mirrors used in the Sagnac experiment.
Non sequitur, I've been assured by Professor Phuckwit Baez that SR accounts
for acceleration.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
> Third, Newtonian
> math is disproven by Sagnac.)
That is an outright lie. You are a liar.
Snip, you are losing your argument.
>> I expect a moron such as yourself to reject the Copernican heliocentic
>> solar system in favour of a geocentric Ptolemaic system and believe
>> all triangles are isosceles as Einstein learned at age 13 and put to
>> great
>> use to his own advantage.
>> http://www.jimloy.com/geometry/every.htm
>
> All triangles are in fact equilateral, and this is easily proven.
> First, one must establish the coordinate system for the
> existing triangle, then apply a combination of a linear
> shear tensor and a rotation such that the first point
> of the triangle (call it A for brevity) is mapped to the
> origin, A'. The second point (call it B) is then happed to
> the new point B', such that B' = (1,0). This establishes
> the first axis of the tensor.
>
> The third point is then mapped to C' = (1/2, sqrt(3)/2).
> Since all three of A'B', B'C', and A'C' have length 1,
> the triangle A'B'C' is equilateral. Therefore, the original
> triangle ABC is also equilateral. QED.
>
> (Spot the Flaw.)
Not I. I'm not that interested in your deliberate flaws but I'll
discuss Einstein's deliberate flaws with you.
Sorry, you wasted your time on that, I didn't bother to read it
once I saw your deliberately false statement. Einstein did much the
same but was a better huckster than you.
You asked me how I know. Try to stay on subject.
>> Any phuckwit capable of believing time stops for a photon
>> has no concept of frequency or of physics in general.
>> Even Dork Van de merde squawked in
>> news:tj_Jf.266785$nR7.8...@phobos.telenet-ops.be
>> on 19 Feb 2006 (historic occasion):
>>
>> " Polly want a kwacker
>> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
>> The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
>> radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
>> hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
>> Polly want a kwacker"
>> -- Dirk Vdm
>>
>> Good grief! Radiation with a known frequency defines a second.
>
> How should a second be defined, then?
You are asking me?
I'm a true scientist. I accept what is, investigate and try to explain the
phenomena
of Nature but I have no idea of "why" or "how".
Ask a theologian those questions.
I'm limited to "does it exist?" and "what is it?" and I don't have all the
answers. I'm quite good at saying what it isn't, but then most people are,
so that isn't exceptional. I'm content with NIST's definition and
reject Eistein's definition. My reasons for doing so are embodied
here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
> In any event, we'll never
> know how long a photon has to experience the Universe, since
> we can't accelerate anything massive (e.g., a camera unit) to
> lightspeed.
And you know this precisely how?
> However, I mentioned "tired light" theory.
Non sequitur.
[rest snipped, be on the receiving end of snipping for a change] :-)
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
<tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140533137.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ok, I'll look.
The Fundamental Principles of the Universe
"Z" ( Impedance) is an exponential space ratio,
and it appears that permittivity and permeability
are tangent functions ordered symmetrically about "Z".
Z = k * exp(space(1) / space(2))
permittivity = tangent(x) * C / Z
permeability = Z / ( tangent(x) * C)
Ok, I now have an excellent understanding of assertive driveland fully
comprehend it.When you've visited space and measured permittivity and
permeability
you might measure the volume of a gas at zero degrees Kelvin, zero pressure
as well. You may just find you don't have any gas to measure.
"It ***appears*** that permittivity and permeability..."
are zero, phuckwit. 377 ohms my arse.
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<vanq...@broom.Mickey>
wrote
<b_NKf.31440$Q22....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
OK, I believe that you have explained how you know. I do not believe
what you know.
>
>>>
>>> You should immediately write "[rest snipped]" at this point and not read
>>> on,
>>
>> Not necessarily; the true scientist is interested in all data.
>
> You are not a true scientist, or even a scientist.
>
>> I am still waiting for Cassini time data, BTW. What you have is merely
>> a synopsis of the mission.
>
> You asked me how *I* knew. I've told you.
> I'm not under obligation to prove anything to you.
True.
>
>>> your neuron cannot take more than one pixel of information at a time.
>>> What follows is for lurkers.
>>>
>>> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/products/pdfs/cassini_msn.pdf
>>
>> A short "for the layperson" description of the Cassini spacecraft
>> and the mission, plus some data on Saturn and Titan, and the
>> Huygens probe.
>
> You are a layperson.<shrug>
True.
>
>
>>> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
>>
>> A short description on the various times needed to track the mission.
>> In particular:
>>
>> UTC - Coordinated Universal Time, a worldwide standard. (This standard
>> has some quirks as the clocks run at slightly different rates.)
>> SCET - the time according to the spacecraft.
>> OWLT - one way light time, the time it takes light (or a radio signal)
>> to get from the spacecraft to Earth.
>> ERT/ - Earth received time
>> Ground UTC - The time the signal is received at mission control, equal
>> to SCET + OWLT
>> Local time - UTC, plus timezone offset.
>>
>> No data here.
>
> The data given by Einstein:
> "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
> infinitely great velocity."
That is not data. Einstein is a collosol fraud, a waste of government
money, a true lackey in all senses of the term. Everyone knows that
c' = c+v, and that all data so far supports this, with the possible
exception of the LHC, the GPS, and the tau lepton, but never mind them;
AQL1493 proves that c'=c+v for anyone who knows, and besides, Einstein's
velocity is zero anyway and of course ground-based muons have energies
in the hundreds of giga-electronvolts. (Except that they don't; the
typical value is 2 GeV. Someone's really screwing up the measurements
in the documentation here! Fraud! Waste! Incompetence! And it
predates this Administration, too...)
> "Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation
> takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec". (Both
> statements by Einstein.)
This is not the case. First, c = 299792458 m/s is the accepted norm.
Second, the assumption is that this is in vacuo. Third, this is *not*
a constant, but merely a definition. (It's a reasonably good working
definition, according to scientists, but it *is* a definition.)
>
> Children at school and NIST and JPL know more than Einstein or you.
> Not surprising to *me*, really. *I* believe the children at school rather
> than
> you or Einstein. <shrug>
> Why not snip? You are losing.
Because I like to ensure that I have all the information available
that I can digest.
>
>>
>> Additional standards are available, such as a rotating time/coordinate
>> standard used in GPS satellite work.
>>
>>> http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
>>
>> A short bio on Galileo Galilei followed by what appears to be translated
>> text from the work _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_,
>> marked as 1632, though I don't know whether that's the year written,
>> or the year published. The translation is credited to Stillman Drake.
>
> Ok. I did read the same document by a different translator
> years ago. AFAIK that is the only version on the WWW.
Fraud! Waste! Incompetence!
> You asked me how I know "Even it its own reference frame it takes time
> for the destination to come to the photon and the source to move away,
> shithead. Lay off the cocaine."
> The text contains a description of the PoR. <shrug>
That it does, and it's fraudulent, as anyone who knows can tell.
>
>>
>> The two world systems, of course, are the Archimedian earth-centered
>> view, and the then-heretical Copernican Sun-centered view. The
>> truth is actually somewhere in between the two (although far more
>> Copernican since the Sun encompasses 98% of the systems' mass;
>> much of the rest is taken by Jupiter), further complicated by the
>> black hole in the center of the galaxy and a few other things,
>> of decreasing importance.
>
> How do you know there is black hole in the centre of the galaxy?
> (Not that it matters, I don't believe you anyway. Just curious.)
How do we know there's a black hole anywhere? For all I know
it's a Willusion.
>
>>
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
>>
>> A rather peculiar animation that shows (or attempts to
>> show) that the length of a rod (a wine bottle) does not
>> change because of a spinning Mickey. and a curved Sagnac
>> line description which is claimed to be straight by SRians.
>
> Nope. It shows the PoR in action, as the text indicates.
> Now you are a desperate liar, clutching at straws.
True.
>
> It's the right pace to snip, you are losing your argument.
> And remember, you asked me how *I* know.
>
>
>> (Of note here: first, SRians make no such claim AFAIK.
>
> Non sequitur, I never said they did.
>
>> Second,
>> the actual path of the beam may indeed be curved but without some
>> work one cannot use SR for the calculations
>
> Non sequitur. I never suggested an SRian should make a calculation.
> I'm responding to "And you know this precisely how?"
>
>>, as there is an
>> acceleration involved -- namely, centripetal acceleration of
>> the mirrors used in the Sagnac experiment.
>
> Non sequitur, I've been assured by Professor Phuckwit Baez that SR accounts
> for acceleration.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
SR does *not* account for acceleration. Fraud! Waste! Incompetence!
The only true theory is c'=c+v. Ask Jim and Spaceman.
>
>
>> Third, Newtonian
>> math is disproven by Sagnac.)
>
> That is an outright lie. You are a liar.
> Snip, you are losing your argument.
If you say so.
Yes, I'm asking you. The current second is defined by an oscillation
of the Cs-133 atom locally. This is problematic because clocks
malfunction. Ask Spaceman; he knows all about it.
A centrally located clock would be far preferable, and would not be
broken.
> I'm a true scientist. I accept what is, investigate and try to explain the
> phenomena
> of Nature but I have no idea of "why" or "how".
> Ask a theologian those questions.
> I'm limited to "does it exist?" and "what is it?" and I don't have all the
> answers. I'm quite good at saying what it isn't, but then most people are,
> so that isn't exceptional. I'm content with NIST's definition and
> reject Eistein's definition. My reasons for doing so are embodied
> here:
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
>
>
>> In any event, we'll never
>> know how long a photon has to experience the Universe, since
>> we can't accelerate anything massive (e.g., a camera unit) to
>> lightspeed.
>
> And you know this precisely how?
I've been told such; it's admittedly a weak point. At some point I
do need to contact the LHC designers and tell them to up their beam
frequency to 1.38 GHz.
After all, that's the Newtonian-predicted speed for their accelerator.
The odd thing is that their old accelerator works fine, though I
don't know whether they used Newtonian or Einsteinian theory for
their protons, which inject.
>> However, I mentioned "tired light" theory.
>
> Non sequitur.
OK.
[rest snipped]
tdp...@gmail.com
Hey Guy!
You read the wrong article.
Download and read the pdf file.
It develops the idea step by step
using a graphic format.
Sue...
no dielectric properties will permit his bulletised
light to carry the velocity of the emitter wrt
the detector. (additive propagation)
When asked about the charges at either end
of a path and perhaps a few along the path
... he can tell you about the sites in and about
London. ;-)
Sue...
Hexenmeister
Ok, and as I said:
"Whether you believe it or not, it takes time for light to travel from
source
to destination." <shrug>
Non sequitur, that is the data Einstein gave.
Neither will convince the other, this conversation is moot.
Have a nice day, shithead.
>> "Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this
>> propagation
>> takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec".
>> (Both
>> statements by Einstein.)
>
> This is not the case.
That's what Einstein wrote. Sorry, shithead, but he did.
Neither will convince the other, this conversation is moot.
Have a nice day, shithead.
> First, c = 299792458 m/s is the accepted norm.
Which you do not believe.
Neither will convince the other, this conversation is moot.
Have a nice day, shithead.
> Second, the assumption is that this is in vacuo. Third, this is *not*
> a constant, but merely a definition. (It's a reasonably good working
> definition, according to scientists, but it *is* a definition.)
You don't believe it yourself. If you can't convince youself
then you have no chane of convincing anyone... <shrug>
"Whether you believe it or not, it takes time for light to travel from
source
to destination." <shrug>
Have a nice day, shithead.
>>
>> Children at school and NIST and JPL know more than Einstein or you.
>> Not surprising to *me*, really. *I* believe the children at school rather
>> than
>> you or Einstein. <shrug>
>> Why not snip? You are losing.
>
> Because I like to ensure that I have all the information available
> that I can digest.
You have no neuron with which to digest it and don't believe it anyway.
Futile.
Have a nice day, shithead.
>>
>>>
>>> Additional standards are available, such as a rotating time/coordinate
>>> standard used in GPS satellite work.
>>>
>>>> http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
>>>
>>> A short bio on Galileo Galilei followed by what appears to be translated
>>> text from the work _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_,
>>> marked as 1632, though I don't know whether that's the year written,
>>> or the year published. The translation is credited to Stillman Drake.
>>
>> Ok. I did read the same document by a different translator
>> years ago. AFAIK that is the only version on the WWW.
>
> Fraud! Waste! Incompetence!
Have a nice day, shithead.
>
>> You asked me how I know "Even it its own reference frame it takes time
>> for the destination to come to the photon and the source to move away,
>> shithead. Lay off the cocaine."
>> The text contains a description of the PoR. <shrug>
>
> That it does, and it's fraudulent, as anyone who knows can tell.
Have a nice day, shithead.
>
>>
>>>
>>> The two world systems, of course, are the Archimedian earth-centered
>>> view, and the then-heretical Copernican Sun-centered view. The
>>> truth is actually somewhere in between the two (although far more
>>> Copernican since the Sun encompasses 98% of the systems' mass;
>>> much of the rest is taken by Jupiter), further complicated by the
>>> black hole in the center of the galaxy and a few other things,
>>> of decreasing importance.
>>
>> How do you know there is black hole in the centre of the galaxy?
>> (Not that it matters, I don't believe you anyway. Just curious.)
>
> How do we know there's a black hole anywhere? For all I know
> it's a Willusion.
For every black hole there is bright green flying elephant laying her eggs
in it.
Is that proof enough?
Have a nice day, shithead.
>>>
>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/SpinWilson.htm
>>>
>>> A rather peculiar animation that shows (or attempts to
>>> show) that the length of a rod (a wine bottle) does not
>>> change because of a spinning Mickey. and a curved Sagnac
>>> line description which is claimed to be straight by SRians.
>>
>> Nope. It shows the PoR in action, as the text indicates.
>> Now you are a desperate liar, clutching at straws.
>
> True.
Ok.
>>
>> It's the right pace to snip, you are losing your argument.
>> And remember, you asked me how *I* know.
>>
>>
>>> (Of note here: first, SRians make no such claim AFAIK.
>>
>> Non sequitur, I never said they did.
>>
>>> Second,
>>> the actual path of the beam may indeed be curved but without some
>>> work one cannot use SR for the calculations
>>
>> Non sequitur. I never suggested an SRian should make a calculation.
>> I'm responding to "And you know this precisely how?"
>>
>>>, as there is an
>>> acceleration involved -- namely, centripetal acceleration of
>>> the mirrors used in the Sagnac experiment.
>>
>> Non sequitur, I've been assured by Professor Phuckwit Baez that SR
>> accounts
>> for acceleration.
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Baez/people_v_Baez.htm
>
> SR does *not* account for acceleration. Fraud! Waste! Incompetence!
Take it up with Professor Phuckwit Baez, not me.
> The only true theory is c'=c+v. Ask Jim and Spaceman.
Jim is wrong, c' = c( 1+ v.cos(phi)/c).
Spaceman copied it from Jim.
Even Einstein knows that, he uses it in his Einstein shift equation
that he stole from Doppler and multiplied by gamma.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
>>
>>
>>> Third, Newtonian
>>> math is disproven by Sagnac.)
>>
>> That is an outright lie. You are a liar.
>> Snip, you are losing your argument.
>
> If you say so.
IF (I say so) THEN what?
I'd already given you the answer below. It's known as "Be more specific".
Moot, of course, you didn't read it or you would not be repeating yourself.
> The current second is defined by an oscillation
> of the Cs-133 atom locally. This is problematic because clocks
> malfunction.
Be more specific.
> Ask Spaceman; he knows all about it.
I'm not responsible for Spaceman's misunderstandings, or yours.
I have no intention of asking his opinion, or yours.
"How should a second be defined, then?" is your question, not mine.
>
> A centrally located clock would be far preferable, and would not be
> broken.
Be more specific. Centre of what?
>> I'm a true scientist. I accept what is, investigate and try to explain
>> the
>> phenomena
>> of Nature but I have no idea of "why" or "how".
>> Ask a theologian those questions.
>> I'm limited to "does it exist?" and "what is it?" and I don't have all
>> the
>> answers. I'm quite good at saying what it isn't, but then most people
>> are,
>> so that isn't exceptional. I'm content with NIST's definition and
>> reject Eistein's definition. My reasons for doing so are embodied
>> here:
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
>>
>>
>>> In any event, we'll never
>>> know how long a photon has to experience the Universe, since
>>> we can't accelerate anything massive (e.g., a camera unit) to
>>> lightspeed.
>>
>> And you know this precisely how?
>
> I've been told such; it's admittedly a weak point.
And you believe what you are told by your fellow phuckwits, but
not if I say it.
> At some point I
> do need to contact the LHC designers and tell them to up their beam
> frequency to 1.38 GHz.
Go ahead, inexperienced lay person. I won't because I'm an
experienced engineer and know there are many considerations
in the choice they made.
Tacoma Narrows bridge failed because the wind was not taken
into account. Something to do with resonance. Being a lay person
you would not understand that. I could probably explain to a musician
with a tuning fork, but to an infinity fairy that doesn't understand it take
time for light to go from source to destination but thinks it communicates
over an infinite distance in zero time, no chance.
[rest snipped]
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
<tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140609081.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It's your page. If it's wrong then correct it or withdraw it.
> Download and read the pdf file.
I see no URL with ".pdf" in it.
If you want me to read something then give a name, I never claimed to
be clairvoyant.
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1140609779.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
That is correct, and shown by such stars as V1493Aql and a host
of other luminescent variables.
(additive propagation)
> When asked about the charges at either end
> of a path and perhaps a few along the path
> ... he can tell you about the sites in and about
> London. ;-)
I can do that too, and win all the chips in Las Vegas.
Pay up.
Androcles.
The Ghost In The Machine
<vanq...@broom.Mickey>
wrote
<wgZKf.46655$YJ4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
*Theory*. Einstein had no data of his own. He instead concocted
the fantastic theory that things shrink and grow in accordance with
the Lorentz, never knowing that the "absolute aether theory" disproven
by the MMX had a far simpler replacement: c'=c+v.
(Never mind that other experiments seem to disprove c'=c+v. Last
I heard Wilson and Spaceman were sitll working on the kinks therein.)
>
> Neither will convince the other, this conversation is moot.
> Have a nice day, shithead.
And you.
Hexenmeister
[rest snipped]
Androcles.
tdp...@gmail.com
The name of the article is:
"Unifying the four forces PDF file"
Sue...
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp/unifying%20the%20forces.pdf from
http://no-turtles.com
>>
Periodic Table ADventure... man named Dmitri Mendeleev,
who created the first Periodic Table of the Elements. ...
On these cards, Mendeleev wrote information such as the elements' ...
http://web.buddyproject.org/web017/web017/history.html
Mendellev Cards... the process by which Dmitri Mendeleev
organized information into a periodic table. ... Use the element
cards sheets and the envelope form with student ...
http://www.thebakken.org/education/
SciMathMN/mendeleev-puzzle/mendeleev2.htm
©2006 Google
Sue...
Sue...
http://web.buddyproject.org/web017/web017/history.html
Hexenmeister
<tdp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140663209.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Why are you being deliberately obtuse?
Can it be to disguise your stupidity?
Post the fucking Universal Resource Locator if you want your shit to read
or shut the fuck up.
Androcles.
Hexenmeister
So the moron wants me to hunt for his crap and you are his secretary?
Let the lazy git tell me himself.
Androcles.