The nature of light?
John Vogel
explain the nature of light to me, as a physicist would see it.
I believe someone earlier explained that light is a wave in the aether (a
semi-rigid gel-like "substance"). But to be honest, I just can't get my mind
to accept this... is there a better explanation or description of what light
is?
T I A
Uncle Al
Light is a stream of photons that play de Broglie's game.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
josX
>I am wondering if one of the more esteemed physicists here (Uncle Al? ;) can
>explain the nature of light to me, as a physicist would see it.
>
>I believe someone earlier explained that light is a wave in the aether (a
>semi-rigid gel-like "substance"). But to be honest, I just can't get my mind
>to accept this...
It is an idea from a century ago.
Notice that it isn't very bad at all, if that "jello substance" is in fact
electro-magnetic (force) fields. In the same vein, an automobile is a
horse with circular legs to a man from the 1300's, with eyes that give
light, growling constantly like a lion or a waterfalls.
>to accept this... is there a better explanation or description of what light
>is?
It is a wave in the electro-magnetic fields, of what they are composed seems
to be unknown.
This is the best we can do because science is locking up science, there
won't be progress on lighttheory as long as special relativity is the
reigning dogma. You can't do science in a relativity environment.
--
jos
Jim
OR:
Light is everywhere all the time. It's only visible when vibrated.
No aether or particles needed.
Jim
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
>> It is a wave in the electro-magnetic fields, of what they are composed seems
> to be unknown.
Light is not a wave -in- an electromagnetic field. It is a electric and
magnetic field that travels through space. The electric field E is
transverse to the magnetic field B and the waves travel along the
Poynting vector E X B. That is the direction of the beam.
Bob Kolker
Sam Wormley
MasterCougar
posted news:E4Ds9.32478$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net:
> I believe someone earlier explained that light is a wave in the aether
> (a semi-rigid gel-like "substance"). But to be honest, I just can't
> get my mind to accept this... is there a better explanation or
> description of what light is?
>
>
Joel,
Is this a troll?
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
Douglas Eagleson
John Vogel wrote:
Here is a relation of the photon that
is distinct from matter.
It may travel at the speed of light
without a relativity mass change.
And the time change of relativity does
not apply because photons do not
decay.
Another relation is to remember that
shading the eyes from light is distinctly
different than shading the approaching
arrow. A real arrow in this example of the
difference in the inertia of a mass relative
to a photon.
So theorists would say the photon causes inertia
while a mass has a measurable inertia.
And a movement of energy in analogy to
a water wave movement is unnecessary
because energy always moves like a quanta.
A material or a photon like quanta.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
Franz Heymann
"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
news:8616ruopnnius1bqb...@4ax.com...
Nonsense.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"josX" <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:aov034$aik$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> "John Vogel" <jvoge...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I am wondering if one of the more esteemed physicists here (Uncle Al?
;) can
> >explain the nature of light to me, as a physicist would see it.
> >
> >I believe someone earlier explained that light is a wave in the
aether (a
> >semi-rigid gel-like "substance"). But to be honest, I just can't get
my mind
> >to accept this...
>
> It is an idea from a century ago.
> Notice that it isn't very bad at all, if that "jello substance" is in
fact
> electro-magnetic (force) fields.
Crap. No pre-existing electric or magnetic field is necessary for an EM
wave to propagate in free space.
Has JosX ever considered how a light wave would negotiate a neutral
point in either a magnetic or an electric field?
Has JosX ever considered how a light wave would propagate inside a
mumetal box?
> In the same vein, an automobile is a
> horse with circular legs to a man from the 1300's, with eyes that give
> light, growling constantly like a lion or a waterfalls.
>
> >to accept this... is there a better explanation or description of
what light
> >is?
>
> It is a wave in the electro-magnetic fields, of what they are composed
seems
> to be unknown.
>
> This is the best we can do because science is locking up science,
there
> won't be progress on lighttheory as long as special relativity is the
> reigning dogma. You can't do science in a relativity environment.
John,
I presume you know that JosX is the resident village idiot. You would
do well to disregare anything he has to say, except for its possible
amusement value.
Franz Heymann
Al Hephy
John Vogel <jvoge...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:E4Ds9.32478$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Therefore we tend to think there's something special about it.
NASA's site has a nice poster showing how the Milky Way would look
if we could see it using other wavelengths. Order one. It's free.
And interesting.
Al
Jim
Hence its position in the thread. (Reply to josX)
Please see: "Pet crackpot theory".
Or don't. It was just a little nonsense humor.
Jim
John Vogel
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3DB308CB...@mchsi.com...
Thanks for the links. I have researched this a little myself, and have found
several differant theories of what light actual is, but haven't really been
satisfied by any of these definitions. Of course, one of my main problems is
my lack knowledge in physics, which is why I am posting to sci.physics, and
reading much more then I am posting, hopefully actually learning something
:-D
Thanks again.
John Vogel
"MasterCougar" <master...@snotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92ADA45A9...@207.107.250.115...
> On the dark and dreary 20 Oct 2002 "John Vogel" <jvoge...@Hotmail.com>
> posted news:E4Ds9.32478$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net:
>
> > I believe someone earlier explained that light is a wave in the aether
> > (a semi-rigid gel-like "substance"). But to be honest, I just can't
> > get my mind to accept this... is there a better explanation or
> > description of what light is?
> >
> >
>
> Joel,
> Is this a troll?
No, I'm not a troll. Why would you ask this? Is it the way I phrased my
question, or the nature of my question in general? Or are you talking about
my inability to accept that light is a wave in jello? Sorry, but that's
basically what someone (don't recall who) said, or at least what I
understood of it.
Anyway, sorry if I seem to be trolling. I am fishing for knowledge, not
trolling for flames.
Thanks
John Vogel
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DB307AF...@attbi.com...
So photons are electromagnetic particles... these particles move through
space...
Have I got it so far? I'm basically including what Uncle Al said, about "de
Broglie's game" and what you said... can I also assume then, that the field
is generated by the photons?
Patrick Reany
John Vogel wrote:
> [snip]
>
> No, I'm not a troll. Why would you ask this? Is it the way I phrased my
> question, or the nature of my question in general? Or are you talking about
> my inability to accept that light is a wave in jello? Sorry, but that's
> basically what someone (don't recall who) said, or at least what I
> understood of it.
>
> Anyway, sorry if I seem to be trolling. I am fishing for knowledge, not
> trolling for flames.
>
> Thanks
Believe what you want to believe. It's a basic
freedom. But physics can't tell us the true
nature of Nature. All physics can do is to
search for successful models. A successful
model is not necessarily a "true" model. A
false model is not necessarily unuseful, such
as the continuous model of macroscopic
matter.
Patrick
Spaceman
>Crap. No pre-existing electric or magnetic field is necessary for an EM
>wave to propagate in free space.
<ROFLOL>
"translation to large world"
No pre existing H2O molecules need exist for water to have
a wave effect under water.
<LOL>
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Franz Heymann
Serves you right for not including a smiley.
:-)
Franz Heymann
Jim
John Vogel
"Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
news:3DB3F24B...@asu.edu...
I agree with you that physics can not tell us the true nature of Nature.
However it can lead us to understanding in more detail the nature of what we
perceive to be physically real. Some models are not as good as others, but
the best (or most successful) model is one which opens up new doors to more
understanding and knowledge about "the true nature of Nature".
Patrick Reany
John Vogel wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Believe what you want to believe. It's a basic
> > freedom. But physics can't tell us the true
> > nature of Nature. All physics can do is to
> > search for successful models. A successful
> > model is not necessarily a "true" model. A
> > false model is not necessarily unuseful, such
> > as the continuous model of macroscopic
> > matter.
> >
> > Patrick
>
> I agree with you that physics can not tell us the true nature of Nature.
> However it can lead us to understanding in more detail the nature of what we
> perceive to be physically real. Some models are not as good as others, but
> the best (or most successful) model is one which opens up new doors to more
> understanding and knowledge about "the true nature of Nature".
The instrumentalist's doctrine: The best models are the
most useful and the most useful models are the best.
Understanding is subjective, depending on a
bunch of arbitrary things, such as metrical variables,
conventional meaning to operational definitions, specific
models, individual theories's that we take for granted, etc.
Patrick
Martin Hogbin
"John Vogel" <jvoge...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:E4Ds9.32478$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> explain the nature of light to me, as a physicist would see it.
Light is light. It is not exactly like anything else, that is to say it does not consist
of particles or waves, although it can exhibit the properties of both.
The best description of what it is, in my opinion, can be found in:
QED - The strange theory of light and matter
by Richard P Feynman
Penguin science paperback
ISBN 0-14-012505-1
> I believe someone earlier explained that light is a wave in the aether (a
> semi-rigid gel-like "substance").
The aether was dismissed as a redundant concept nearly a century ago.
Martin Hogbin
Franz Heymann
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:20021021092527...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> >From: "Franz Heymann" Franz....@btopenworld.com
>
> >Crap. No pre-existing electric or magnetic field is necessary for an
EM
> >wave to propagate in free space.
>
> <ROFLOL>
> "translation to large world"
> No pre existing H2O molecules need exist for water to have
> a wave effect under water.
> <LOL>
Hey, Spacemannikin, you snipped context.
The essence of what you snipped was my question about how an EM wave is
supposed to propagate inside a mumetal box if it is simply a waggling of
a pre-existing field. Can you answer it instead of inanely LOLling?
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
One of the earliest things you should learn is that there are so many
nerds and crackpots in this ng that you must indicate quite clearly when
you are being humorous, because you might just be saying something one
expects a crackpot to say. Sad but true.
Franz Heymann
Jim
>
>"Jim" <lose...@workfromhome.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>> Poor netiquette on my part. Still learning.
>
>One of the earliest things you should learn is that there are so many
>nerds and crackpots in this ng that you must indicate quite clearly when
>you are being humorous, because you might just be saying something one
>expects a crackpot to say. Sad but true.
>
>Franz Heymann
>
>
Point taken.
One of my other problems is, often, when I think I'm being humorous,
few agree. :)
Jim
MasterCougar
posted news:nlOs9.33065$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net:
> No, I'm not a troll. Why would you ask this? Is it the way I phrased
> my question, or the nature of my question in general? Or are you
> talking about my inability to accept that light is a wave in jello?
> Sorry, but that's basically what someone (don't recall who) said, or
> at least what I understood of it.
>
>
Actually, it was you seeming to take the idea that light moved in
aether seriously that made me ask that question.
MasterCougar
posted news:20021021092527...@mb-dh.aol.com:
> No pre existing H2O molecules need exist for water to have
> a wave effect under water.
>
Moron, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Tom Potter
"John Vogel" <jvoge...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MhOs9.33064$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> Thanks for the links. I have researched this a little myself, and have
found
> several differant theories of what light actual is, but haven't really
been
> satisfied by any of these definitions. Of course, one of my main problems
is
> my lack knowledge in physics, which is why I am posting to sci.physics,
and
> reading much more then I am posting, hopefully actually learning something
Light and photons do not exist.
The only thing that exists between cause and effect is a time interval.
One could just as correctly assert that angels carry changes between
causes and effects, as one does light or photons.
Light does not exist in isolated ( Unobserved ) quiescent systems,
although such systems possess all properties, such as period, space,
mass and energy. Forces exist between the bodies which comprise the
system, but these properties are not light.
If we observe some change in a body or system, we infer that it has
been affected by light ( More fundamentally, bosons. ) in some way. If
the "action" of the system increases, we infer that we are observing
some effect which was "caused" by some affect.
When we observe an effect, we look for a cause.
Sometimes we attribute an effect to a cause that is microns away and
sometimes we attribute it to a cause light years away. For example, we
attribute the decay of a neutron to a very close cause, while we
attribute starlight to a cause far away in time-space.
Now, both cause and effect involve integer amounts of change of action.
Action has the property of angular momentum and units of "Plancks
Constant".
So, we observe a system change by an integer amount of action and we
call it an effect. We trace back the effect to places in time-space and
look for correlations between the change of action in the effect and
the change of action in that portion of time-space. When we find a
large correlation, we assume that we have "discovered" our cause. ( And
if it proves out, we might even get a Nobel Prize. )
Although action comes only in integer amounts, it is a composite
property. We cannot observe action directly, but must compute it from
other properties, which are observable. When action is the product of
two properties, one of the properties is called a "conserved" property,
and the other is called a "homogeneous" property.
We try to track changes in systems through time-space and we call the
changes we observe, properties. Some of these properties seem more real
to us than others. Some properties seem localized and some seem diffuse
or even infinite. We come to accept mass ( and to some extent energy )
as a very localized property, and we come to perceive highly localized
properties as matter. We come to perceive non-localized properties as
time, space and magnetic flux.
As we seem to be able to track localized properties through sequences
of interactions, we call these properties "conserved" properties. As we
think that they do not change as we are observing them, we call the
properties they must "traverse" in getting from cause to effect,
"homogeneous" properties. In other words, the homogeneous properties
must not have any "lumps" in them, or else we would see the conserved
property change when it hit the lumps.
So, action is the product of a "conserved" property and a "homogeneous"
property. Some of the conserved-homogeneous property pairs whose
factors equal action include: ( energy * time ), ( momentum * space ),
( charge * flux ), ( mass * diffusity ), ( baryon number * potter1 ),
( hypercharge * potter2 ), etc. ( PotterN = unnamed homogeneous
properties. )
So the moral of the story is:
Light is not a property, photons and light do not exist.
They are names given to the mysterious interval between cause and
effect. We know nothing about this interval, because we have no way to
observe it. It we set up an experiment to observe the interval, we just
create an effect system that absorbs the action from the cause.
All we can ever know about the interval is that we can count on the
statistics between cause and effect to always come out fitting certain
patterns. We throw the dice. God plays around with them while they are
rolling ( The interval between cause and effect. ) in order to make
sure that both the statistics and the karma comes out right.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Light and photons do not exist.
>
See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tom+potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
John Vogel
> On the dark and dreary 21 Oct 2002 "John Vogel" <jvoge...@Hotmail.com>
> posted news:nlOs9.33065$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net:
>
> > No, I'm not a troll. Why would you ask this? Is it the way I phrased
> > my question, or the nature of my question in general? Or are you
> > talking about my inability to accept that light is a wave in jello?
> > Sorry, but that's basically what someone (don't recall who) said, or
> > at least what I understood of it.
> >
> >
>
> Actually, it was you seeming to take the idea that light moved in
> aether seriously that made me ask that question.
Oh, I see. Thanks for clarifying.
No, I'm not a troll... just sometimes a little too naiive perhaps ;)
John Vogel
"Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:ap1mng$ggu$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Thanks for the info, I will definitly get the book, and look into it.
So are you (or is this book) saying that light is not made up of photons?
Martin Hogbin
"John Vogel" <jvoge...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bu6t9.33518$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
>
> So are you (or is this book) saying that light is not made up of photons?
Not at all. Light consists of photons, by definition. The question is,
what is a photon?
Martin Hogbin
John Vogel
Seems to me that a photon is just a realllly small wave/particle of light
(or energy?)... but I guess I will have to read the book.
Spaceman
>Hey, Spacemannikin, you snipped context.
Still can't even copy and paste huh?
>The essence of what you snipped was my question about how an EM wave is
>supposed to propagate inside a mumetal box if it is simply a waggling of
>a pre-existing field. Can you answer it instead of inanely LOLling?
trapped field dingbat.
sheesh.
you are gone!
Spaceman
>On the dark and dreary 21 Oct 2002 agents...@aol.combination (Spaceman)
>posted news:20021021092527...@mb-dh.aol.com:
>
>> No pre existing H2O molecules need exist for water to have
>> a wave effect under water.
>>
>
> Moron, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You should be ashamed for trimming a post like that,
you infer that I said that "directly"
yet I did not.
you are a troll.
Screw off wingnut.
you are sad.
seek help ...
puke.
How does light happen without any electrons?
<LOL>
you are a lost dungpile
drying up and feeding the ground already!
Franz Heymann
Tom Potter has previously established the point that he is a crackpot.
There is no need to hammer it home.
Franz Heymann
Tom Potter
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ap3ij5$e85$2...@venus.btinternet.com...
> [...]
>
> Tom Potter has previously established the point that he is a crackpot.
> There is no need to hammer it home.
Sticks and stones,
may break my bones,
but only immature fools
call folks names.
Particularly when they are incapable of
addressing the points under discussion,
in a mature, rational, intelligent, logical way.
Hammer away,
if you have a hammer.
For a starter,
tell me where a photon hangs out
between a cause and an effect.
Franz Heymann
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> >From: "Franz Heymann" Franz....@btopenworld.com
>
> >Hey, Spacemannikin, you snipped context.
>
> Still can't even copy and paste huh?
>
>
> >The essence of what you snipped was my question about how an EM wave
is
> >supposed to propagate inside a mumetal box if it is simply a waggling
of
> >a pre-existing field. Can you answer it instead of inanely LOLling?
>
> trapped field dingbat.
> sheesh.
> you are gone!
> <LOL>
>
mumetal box goes unanswered.
Hey, Spacemannikin, do you know what a mumetal box is?
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
>I notice that my question about how an EM wave is propagated inside a
>mumetal box goes unanswered.
>Hey, Spacemannikin, do you know what a mumetal box is?
Do you know what a "field" is made of dingbat?
you have trapped a bucket of water and gas and it's still waving
you are a fool.
Franz Heymann
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> >From: "Franz Heymann" Franz....@btopenworld.com
>
> >I notice that my question about how an EM wave is propagated inside a
> >mumetal box goes unanswered.
> >Hey, Spacemannikin, do you know what a mumetal box is?
>
> Do you know what a "field" is made of dingbat?
> you have trapped a bucket of water and gas and it's still waving
>
> you are a fool.
I presume that since you did not try twice now, that you have no clue as
to the answer.
I thought so.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3db5...@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ap3ij5$e85$2...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > [...]
> >
> > Tom Potter has previously established the point that he is a
crackpot.
> > There is no need to hammer it home.
>
> Sticks and stones,
> may break my bones,
> but only immature fools
> call folks names.
>
> Particularly when they are incapable of
> addressing the points under discussion,
> in a mature, rational, intelligent, logical way.
>
> Hammer away,
> if you have a hammer.
>
> For a starter,
> tell me where a photon hangs out
> between a cause and an effect.
>
It shifts along like the clappers from the cause to the effect, at the
speed of light.
If Tom Potter is bereeft of powers of deduction from experimental data,
he must not assume that everyone else is also similarly handicapped.
Franz Heymann
John Vogel
\o
MasterCougar
posted news:3db5...@post.newsfeed.com:
> Particularly when they are incapable of
> addressing the points under discussion,
> in a mature, rational, intelligent, logical way.
>
>
Oh, the irony.
MasterCougar
posted news:Ns6t9.33517$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net:
> No, I'm not a troll... just sometimes a little too naiive perhaps ;)
>
>
It happens to the best of us.
MasterCougar
(Spaceman) posted news:20021022085444...@mb-mv.aol.com:
> You should be ashamed for trimming a post like that,
> you infer that I said that "directly"
> yet I did not.
>
>
Yes you did.
puppe...@hotmail.com
> For a starter,
> tell me where a photon hangs out
> between a cause and an effect.
Refer to Feynman's book on QED.
Socks
Martin Hogbin
"John Vogel" <jvoge...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Nc9t9.33521$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
>
> >
> > Light consists of photons, by definition. The question is,
> > what is a photon?
> >
>
> (or energy?)... but I guess I will have to read the book.
Do not think of a photon as either a wave or a particle. There is no
reason to suppose that light must be describable in terms of either.
Thinking of light as either a classical particle or a wave leads to
paradoxes (such as a particle that can go through two slits at the
same time) where there need be none.
Martin Hogbin
Edward Green
> >From: "Franz Heymann" Franz....@btopenworld.com
>
> >I notice that my question about how an EM wave is propagated inside a
> >mumetal box goes unanswered.
> >Hey, Spacemannikin, do you know what a mumetal box is?
>
> Do you know what a "field" is made of dingbat?
> you have trapped a bucket of water and gas and it's still waving
>
> you are a fool.
The advantage of the web, for dingbats like you, is that once you
learn the language, your "you are a fool" looks about as convincing,
to you, anyway, as anybody else's. How democratic.
Franz Heymann occasionally makes mistakes and usually admits them.
You invariably make mistakes and seldom admit them.
You are _way_ ahead of Heymann in this department ... he can't hold a
candle to you, it is true.
Edward Green
>
>
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ap3ij5$e85$2...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > [...]
> >
> > Tom Potter has previously established the point that he is a crackpot.
> > There is no need to hammer it home.
>
> Sticks and stones,
> may break my bones,
> but only immature fools
> call folks names.
Uh huh. And "immature fool" is what part of speech again?
I wonder whether an immature fool is an immature person who is also a
fool, but may grow out of it, or an immature form of a fool, who will
more fully grow into it.
Tom Potter
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7976c46.02102...@posting.google.com...
It is interesting to see that in sci.physics,
when a poster does not comprehend a point
enough to comment intelligently on it,
in order to appear knowledgeable,
they give you a reference, usually to
Feynman, Einstein, Google, or some status symbol book.
In some newsgroups they say "John 3, 16"
when they don't know the answer.
I suppose that one answer is just as good as the other.
Folks who don't comprehend hide behind some God.
Frankly, I prefer the "Google God"
as it is "all knowing", "all-powerful", fast, unbiased,
and devoid of popups, advertising, donations, and cost.
Tom Potter
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ap404j$gs0$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
I "deduce" from the fact that the only thing that can be measured,
between a cause and an effect, is an interaction time, and that fact that
aggregates of effects are statistically correlated to aggregates of causes,
that one could just as accurately assert that angels,
rather than photons, convey changes between causes and effects.
It is interesting to observe that "Franz Heymann" is under the delusion
that the folks who don't "deduce" things the same as he does,
are ":bereeft of powers of deduction from experimental data".
Most folks in mental institutions have this same delusion.
Hopefully, "Franz Heymann" will explain how he arrives at his "deductions".
If he has a bullet proof way of "deducing" reality,
I'd certainly like to learn more about it.
Until he explains his bullet proof way of "deducing" reality
I have to "deduce" that he is either immature or nuts.
Mike Hanson
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ap404j$gs0$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:3db5...@post.newsfeed.com...
> > > For a starter,
> > > tell me where a photon hangs out
> > > between a cause and an effect.
> >
> > It shifts along like the clappers from the cause to the effect, at the
> > speed of light.
> > If Tom Potter is bereeft of powers of deduction from experimental data,
> > he must not assume that everyone else is also similarly handicapped.
>
> I "deduce" from the fact that the only thing that can be measured,
> between a cause and an effect, is an interaction time, and that fact that
> aggregates of effects are statistically correlated to aggregates of causes,
> that one could just as accurately assert that angels,
> rather than photons, convey changes between causes and effects.
That would be a substitution of labels. Call it an angel if you will.
As you rightly point out, these entities are - by definition -
unobserved when they are in flight.
But physics does not presume to know what a photon is doing between
emission and absorption, nor even what a photon 'really is'. There is
a mathematical representation (as opposed to description) which
concurs with experiment. Are you sure that Franz really claims
knowledge beyond this, or does he merely refer to the maths in a
succinct manner?
Mike.
Franz Heymann
>
> "John Vogel" <jvoge...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Nc9t9.33521$Lg2.8...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> >
> > >
> > > Light consists of photons, by definition. The question is,
> > > what is a photon?
> > >
> >
> > Seems to me that a photon is just a realllly small wave/particle of
light
> > (or energy?)... but I guess I will have to read the book.
>
> Do not think of a photon as either a wave or a particle. There is no
> reason to suppose that light must be describable in terms of either.
The form factor of the photon has been determined at CERN. When
translated into spatial dimensions, the data is consistent with a point
particle, to a resolution of better than 10^(-18) m (memory).
It is therefore better to think of the photon as a point particle whosw
dynamics is governed by a wave. A classical EM wave simply consists of
a fantastically large number of photons all "governed" by the same wave.
>
> Thinking of light as either a classical particle or a wave leads to
> paradoxes (such as a particle that can go through two slits at the
> same time) where there need be none.
This one has been disposed of quite neatly by Bohm and Hiley.
Nobody has been able to fault their interpretation of QM yet.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
I suggest you invest in a ruler as well.
How about using the relationship between time and distance to
tentatively deduce the numerical value of something which has the
dimensions of a speed.
How about repeating the experiment as many times as necessary with
different distances between the source and the target
Lo and behold, this calculated number with the dimensions of a speed
indeed turns out to be the same for all these observations
Next: It is easy to determine the wavelength of an RF wave. It is also
easy to determine its frequency. Thirdly, it is easy to insert enough
instrumentation in a Lecher Line system to observe the wave being
propagated.
Now say to yourself, this wave is only a collection of a vast number of
photons all in the same state.
End your exercise by thinking a little about the experiment.
Franz Heymann
> and that fact that
> aggregates of effects are statistically correlated to aggregates of
causes,
> that one could just as accurately assert that angels,
> rather than photons, convey changes between causes and effects.
>
> It is interesting to observe that "Franz Heymann" is under the
delusion
> that the folks who don't "deduce" things the same as he does,
> are ":bereeft of powers of deduction from experimental data".
> Most folks in mental institutions have this same delusion.
That is an incorrect characterisation of my opinion. My opinion in this
case is specifically concerned with the fact that *you*, and not
necesarrily anybody else, is bereft of powers of deduction. My opinion
is founded on observation.
>
> Hopefully, "Franz Heymann" will explain how he arrives at his
"deductions".
> If he has a bullet proof way of "deducing" reality,
> I'd certainly like to learn more about it.
You should study the subject called "the scientific method" a little,
and then reconsider the crap you wrote in the paragraph above.
>
> Until he explains his bullet proof way of "deducing" reality
> I have to "deduce" that he is either immature or nuts.
You could not have illustrated the veracity of my opinion about your
intellectual powers better than you did in the above sentence.
Goodbye until you produce a new piece of crap to be rubbished.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c7976c46.02102...@posting.google.com...
> > "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<3db5...@post.newsfeed.com>...
> > [snip]
> > > For a starter,
> > > tell me where a photon hangs out
> > > between a cause and an effect.
> >
> > Refer to Feynman's book on QED.
> > Socks
>
> It is interesting to see that in sci.physics,
> when a poster does not comprehend a point
> enough to comment intelligently on it,
> in order to appear knowledgeable,
> they give you a reference, usually to
> Feynman, Einstein, Google, or some status symbol book.
Balls. You have been told before. Here it is again: It is a point
particle, it travels with the speed of light, carrying a momentum of
h/lambda and an energy of h*nu. Both these quantities have been
measured quite specifically and quite precisely for individual photons.
>
> In some newsgroups they say "John 3, 16"
> when they don't know the answer.
>
> I suppose that one answer is just as good as the other.
> Folks who don't comprehend hide behind some God.
>
> Frankly, I prefer the "Google God"
> as it is "all knowing", "all-powerful", fast, unbiased,
> and devoid of popups, advertising, donations, and cost.
Good luck to you.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Mike Hanson" <hanso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11d49fef.02102...@posting.google.com...
Since nobody has any experience of directly observing objects and
phenomena on the time and space scales of elementary particles, it would
be presumptious to go too far in establishing analogies between such
phenomena and those of "everyday scales". The best we can do is to make
pretty picures of the maths. Such pictures have limited use, and may
well differ from person to person. In the end, we have to fall back on
the maths.
It would be difficult to explain to Tom Potter why an electron has, so
to speak, to be turned through 360 degrees twice before it "looks" like
the original one.
Franz Heymann
hanson
>
> Since nobody has any experience of directly observing objects and
> phenomena on the time and space scales of elementary particles, it would
> be presumptious to go too far in establishing analogies between such
> phenomena and those of "everyday scales". The best we can do is to make
> pretty picures of the maths. Such pictures have limited use, and may
> well differ from person to person. In the end, we have to fall back on
> the maths.
Franz, this is cool!
I'll be back on this with some questions.
Till later,
hanson
Tom Potter
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ap69on$phd$4...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> Whether you can calculate thickness of the cathode of photomultiplier
> tubes in terms of 422.7 nm waves for light?
Here is an excerpt from a post "Franz Heymann" also made today.
Quote
I can answer that one with ease, and quite correctly. Here it is:
NO. I have never designed a photocathode in my life. I know it has to
be thick enough to give a reasonable absorption probability, and yet
thin enough to allow the photoelectron to escape on the far side.
Unquote.
Note that in responding to me, he posted:
that a photon "is a point particle".
One has to wonder how "thick" a photon would have to be
to interact with a "photocathode" with zero "thickness".
( Or vice versa. )
Tom Potter
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ap3ij5$e85$2...@venus.btinternet.com...
> [...]
>
> Tom Potter has previously established the point that he is a crackpot.
> There is no need to hammer it home.
As this immature post attacks the person, rather than addresse the
subject under discussion, I have responded to it in a new thread.
"Is Franz Heymann immature or what? was Re: The nature of light?"
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3DB4BFE9...@mchsi.com...
> Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> >
> > Light and photons do not exist.
> >
>
> See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tom+potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
As this immature post attacks the messenger
rather than address the message in a mature, intelligent way,
I have answered it in a new thread:
"Is Sam Wormley immature or what? was Re: The nature of light?"
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3DB4BFE9...@mchsi.com...
> Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> >
> > Light and photons do not exist.
> >
>
> See: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tom+potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Sticks and stones,
may break my bones,
but only immature fools
call folks names.
Particularly when they are incapable of
addressing the points under discussion,
in a mature, rational, intelligent, logical way.
Hammer away,
if you have a hammer.
For a starter,
tell me where a photon hangs out
between a cause and an effect.
--
Mike Hanson
> "Mike Hanson" <hanso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11d49fef.02102...@posting.google.com...
> > these entities are - by definition - unobserved when they are in
> > flight.
> >
> > But physics does not presume to know what a photon is doing between
> > emission and absorption, nor even what a photon 'really is'. There is
> > a mathematical representation (as opposed to description) which
> > concurs with experiment.
<snip>
> Since nobody has any experience of directly observing objects and
> phenomena on the time and space scales of elementary particles, it would
> be presumptious to go too far in establishing analogies between such
> phenomena and those of "everyday scales". The best we can do is to make
> pretty picures of the maths. Such pictures have limited use, and may
> well differ from person to person. In the end, we have to fall back on
> the maths.
>
> It would be difficult to explain to Tom Potter why an electron has, so
> to speak, to be turned through 360 degrees twice before it "looks" like
> the original one.
Of all aspects of QM, I find half-integer spin to be the least
intuitive. But pictures do not necessarily need to be involved when
explaining physics to laymen such as myself. Mathematics, or at least
the gist of it, can often be rendered as prose in a meaningful way -
that is to say, it is usually possible to impart enough detail such
that the reader does not end up being misled.
I know it is hard work to compose effective prose explanations of
maths, but if anyone feels in the mood to make sense of spin for me, I
would greatly appreciate the effort.
Mike.
Y.Porat
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ap6p8f$t8l$4...@helle.btinternet.com...
> >
> > Since nobody has any experience of directly observing objects and
> > phenomena on the time and space scales of elementary particles, it would
> > be presumptious to go too far in establishing analogies between such
> > phenomena and those of "everyday scales".
well saied
The best we can do is to make
> > pretty picures of the maths. Such pictures have limited use, and may
> > well differ from person to person. In the end, we have to fall back on
> > the maths.
-------------
not well saied.
Maths is not a 'magic dorn'
the pretiest girl in Washington can offer only what she has!
and nothing more
stop that over Idoling of maths ,it is only a machine.
a machine can give output, that is the only result of the input.
if you feed it with wrong assumptions, you get wrong results.
the only real way for advance is (inspight of all the pompus
pretentions of our day physics) is *trial and error*
treial and error of *physical models* and physical gueses
(while dealind with the still big lack of knowledge
of microcosm)
all the best
Y.Porat
-------------------
jmfb...@aol.com
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Since nobody has any experience of directly observing objects and
>phenomena on the time and space scales of elementary particles, it would
>be presumptious to go too far in establishing analogies between such
>phenomena and those of "everyday scales". The best we can do is to make
>pretty picures of the maths. Such pictures have limited use, and may
>well differ from person to person. In the end, we have to fall back on
>the maths.
>
>It would be difficult to explain to Tom Potter why an electron has, so
>to speak, to be turned through 360 degrees twice before it "looks" like
>the original one.
Somebody figured out how to "model" it for us newbies. I can't
recall who or how. I think it was described in the research
newsgroup (it may have been here) about six years ago. I'm
pretty sure that -jb (Baez) was involved in the discussion..
and..maybe Nathan.
Sorry to be so vague but I never got around to building the
thing and watching it (which is the only way to learn stuff
permanently). It was such a simple construct.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Sam Wormley
>
>
> As this immature post attacks the person, rather than addresse the
> subject under discussion, I have responded to it in a new thread.
> "Is Franz Heymann immature or what? was Re: The nature of light?"
>
Grow up Potter -- Go learn some Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).
puppe...@hotmail.com
> I know it is hard work to compose effective prose explanations of
> maths, but if anyone feels in the mood to make sense of spin for me, I
> would greatly appreciate the effort.
Done and posted in sci.physics.research just a week or two ago
in the thread "Spin Questions." It's at google if your server
does not have it.
Socks
Edward Green
> Since nobody has any experience of directly observing objects and
> phenomena on the time and space scales of elementary particles, it would
> be presumptious to go too far in establishing analogies between such
> phenomena and those of "everyday scales". The best we can do is to make
> pretty picures of the maths. Such pictures have limited use, and may
> well differ from person to person. In the end, we have to fall back on
> the maths.
>
> It would be difficult to explain to Tom Potter why an electron has, so
> to speak, to be turned through 360 degrees twice before it "looks" like
> the original one.
Uncle Al once posted a description of a kind of cat's cradle
arrangement which had this property in ordinary space (in other words,
you could build the damn thing and play with it). The property hinged
on the construction's not being an isolated object, but being tied to
other object in the environment so that when you turned it through
360, IIRC, some strings crossed, but when turned in the same direction
through an additional 360, miraculously, the strings uncrossed instead
of becomming more tightly wound.
Now of course we are not supposed to think this _really_ represents
the behavior of a spin 1/2 (?) particle, whose quantum behavior is
supposed to remain ineffable. But I'm a simple-minded kind of person,
and this suggests strongly to me that this mysterious property in fact
does involve the electron's connection to the rest of the world.
I wish I could recall the details of the set-up.
Edward Green
> Of all aspects of QM, I find half-integer spin to be the least
> intuitive. But pictures do not necessarily need to be involved when
> explaining physics to laymen such as myself. Mathematics, or at least
> the gist of it, can often be rendered as prose in a meaningful way -
> that is to say, it is usually possible to impart enough detail such
> that the reader does not end up being misled.
>
> I know it is hard work to compose effective prose explanations of
> maths, but if anyone feels in the mood to make sense of spin for me, I
> would greatly appreciate the effort.
Prose is a two-edged sword, which must be rotated through 720 to bring
it back to the same position in the wound.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
I had not seen your post when I also changed this subject line -- I
was trying to remember some ordinary man-sized analogue of the
mysterious rotation property. Perhaps someone will recall under that
other subject.
Since I am posting via Google, and they limit the number of posts/day,
I am motivated to squeeze many off-topic irrelevancies into one post,
rather than space them out. I started a thread yesterday on the
feasibility of deploying technology which could track unexpected rifle
shots back to their origin -- and it hasn't shown up. Very
suspicious, if you ask me. Probably, by posting anything on this
topic, Google forwarded my post directly to the FBI tips line.
Well, not to worry -- turns out they had the actual killer on line
several times, and just blew him off. This kind of boggles -- I mean,
a basic principle of some kinds of screening operations is, you take
any "joke" seriously. In other words, if somebody "jokes" they have a
bomb, or are the killer, you don't try to perform a Bayesian triage,
but treat it as a serious threat. Later, if it turns out to have been
a joke, you prosecute their ass. This simultaneously reduces the
entertainment value of joking with screeners, and ensurers that their
time will be wasted with less "jokes" in the future -- the
alternative, as I said, is to allow the screeners to perform a kind of
Bayesian triage on random remarks "I've got an AK-47 in my checked
luggage -- ha, ha, ha", and therefore invite instances exactly like
the one we have now -- actual criminal/terrorist advertises his
presence, and is ignored.
Now I say this boggles, because while at least on of the operators who
blew the real killer off -- apparently -- was described as an "FBI
trainee", by implication not very experienced -- this principle seems
very simple, and even if "trainee" means "hired from the job agency
this morning to handle expected increase in call volume", even a
1-hour "training" would be expected to include the simple precept
"treat all claims to be actual killer seriously".
I mean, are you going to tell me that the possibility that the killer
would his or herself call the tipline _never_ occured to the people --
the experienced people -- who set up the line?
I don't like FBI bashing, nor am I down with bizarre fed conspiracy
theories, but on a simple level of _competence_, my faith in the
Elliot Ness-like feds is daily erroded. J. Edgar Hoover may have put
innocent citizens on watch lists, but you had the feeling at least
that he was _competent_ about it. Now you have presumably experienced
people setting up a telephone tip line for information on a serial
killer, apparently never even considering the contingency that the
killer himeself would call! Similarly, you had the midwestern office
_begging_ the DC office to look at some individual who I think turned
out to be one of the 19 of 9/11, and being ignored.
Well ... maybe if somebody forwards this screed to the FBI they will
put me on a watch list -- but the conclusion that there is some major
buffoonery, a culture, as one of their field agents put it "of job
security", seems very, very plausible.
Conspiracy theory: Who benefits most from the serial killer? What
police chief has suddenly been catapulted to national prominence, with
a very promising career in political appointement and office ahead of
him?
Charles Moose.
puppe...@hotmail.com
[the infamous electron in a box demo]
> I wish I could recall the details of the set-up.
There is an understandable picture of this process in
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's _Gravitation_.
Socks
Franz Heymann
I did once see a macroscopic demonstration of something that had a
vaguely spinor-like property. It involved a loop of string, but I have
forgotten it all by now. Can any reader point us to a reference?
Other than that, I just say to myself that a spinor wave function is a
funny thing which transforms under rotation in such a way that after 360
deg, Phi -> -Phi and leave it at that.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB4BFE9...@mchsi.com...
> > Tom Potter wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Light and photons do not exist.
> > >
> >
> > See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tom+potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
>
> Sticks and stones,
> may break my bones,
> but only immature fools
> call folks names.
>
> Particularly when they are incapable of
> addressing the points under discussion,
> in a mature, rational, intelligent, logical way.
>
> Hammer away,
> if you have a hammer.
>
> For a starter,
> tell me where a photon hangs out
> between a cause and an effect.
>
get to grips with it.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ap3ij5$e85$2...@venus.btinternet.com...
> > [...]
> >
> > Tom Potter has previously established the point that he is a
crackpot.
> > There is no need to hammer it home.
>
> As this immature post attacks the person, rather than addresse the
> subject under discussion, I have responded to it in a new thread.
> "Is Franz Heymann immature or what? was Re: The nature of light?"
>
generate a new thread. The linkages to the existing thread are all as
was.
Moreover, I have read his contribution and it was every bit as moronic
as we have learnt to expect from Tom Potter.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB4BFE9...@mchsi.com...
> > Tom Potter wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Light and photons do not exist.
> > >
> >
> > See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tom+potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
>
> As this immature post attacks the messenger
> rather than address the message in a mature, intelligent way,
> I have answered it in a new thread:
> "Is Sam Wormley immature or what? was Re: The nature of light?"
>
borne by silly old cows.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
The photon is indeed a point particle.
>
> One has to wonder how "thick" a photon would have to be
> to interact with a "photocathode" with zero "thickness".
> ( Or vice versa. )
. Tom might read up a little on the concept of a beam of particles
entering a target, the interaction cross section of the target material,
the thickness of the target and the total probability for that
interaction to occur in that target.
I am going to choose my words with extreme csre, lest I be sorry
afterwards. Here they are :-
Tom Potter is about the most stupid person on this newsgroup.
In view of tis fact, he is not empowered to comment on atonmic processes
which might take place in targets.
If he does not believe it, I invite him to reread my comment to which he
responded with his crass sentence and then to reaffirm the very
crassness of that sentence.
Franz Heymann
Ken Muldrew
>Uncle Al once posted a description of a kind of cat's cradle
>arrangement which had this property in ordinary space (in other words,
>you could build the damn thing and play with it). The property hinged
>on the construction's not being an isolated object, but being tied to
>other object in the environment so that when you turned it through
>360, IIRC, some strings crossed, but when turned in the same direction
>through an additional 360, miraculously, the strings uncrossed instead
>of becomming more tightly wound.
>
>I wish I could recall the details of the set-up.
The example I remember is with a coffee cup. You hold the cup using
your thumb in the handle (forearm facing up) and rotate the cup
through 360° under your elbow. Then you continue to rotate the cup by
passing it over your elbow and everything gets back to the way it was
with the cup rotating by 720°.
Ken Muldrew
kmul...@ucalgary.ca
Franz Heymann
"Edward Green" <null...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2a0cceff.02102...@posting.google.com...
Join the club. There are now three of us who cannot remember.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ap8i11$dse$5...@bob.news.rcn.net...
I wonder if it is the same thing as the one I have also forgotten.
Franz Heymann
Mike Varney
>
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:3DB4BFE9...@mchsi.com...
> > Tom Potter wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Light and photons do not exist.
> > >
> >
> > See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tom+potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
>
> As this immature post attacks the messenger
> rather than address the message in a mature, intelligent way,
> I have answered it in a new thread:
> "Is Sam Wormley immature or what? was Re: The nature of light?"
Notice how Crackpotter has taken on some of the traits of Hammond? Makes me
wonder if Hammond croaked and has started to posses crackpotter!
MarkK
Oh come on Franz. A "point particle" is in fact not a particle but a
measurement. You have no idea of the actual structure or non-structure
of what triggered your measuring equipment. Stop looking at particles
as discrete homogenous entities solely determined by the coarse
resolution of your test gear and the resulting abstract mathematical
quantisation.
Mark K.
>
> Franz Heymann
Tom Potter
"MarkK" <markk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e7b962f.02102...@posting.google.com...
It seems to me that Franz Heymann is all over the map with his positions.
First he talks about "thickness" as it relates to electron interactions,
and then he shifts to "cross section" when the weakness of this position is
exposed.
Perhaps someone should teach Franz Heymann that "thickness"
is orthogonal to "cross-section", and that "thickness" implies a global
property,
whereas the "cross-section" depends upon the nature of an interaction,
and the participants in an interaction.
But perhaps Franz Heymann is privy
to processes that us mortals are not privy to,
such as the "atonmic processes" he writes about.
Franz Heymann does make a good point when he says:
"Tom Potter is about the most stupid person on this newsgroup."
I am "about" Franz Heymann a lot in this newsgroup.
Tom Potter
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ap9erb$t7u$5...@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Franz Heymann" makes a good point!!!!
Mature, moral folks should rename threads to:
"Is <Flamer name> immature or what? was <Old thread name>"
anytime some flamer attacks the messenger
rather address the message in a mature, rational, intelligent way.
This would let the folks interested in mature, rational posts,
know that a flame war was going on,
and as the names of flamers would appear in many headers,
the readers would know whose posts to avoid.
Tom Potter
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ap9erd$t7u$8...@sparta.btinternet.com...
It seems to me that what "Franz Heymann" is saying,
is that he does not know:
"how "thick" a photon would have to be
to interact with a "photocathode" with zero "thickness".
( Or vice versa. )"
--
Franz Heymann
"Ken Muldrew" <kmul...@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
news:3db84f1b....@news.ucalgary.ca...
I either misunderstand Ken, or he is under the impression that I am made
of rubber.
Franz Heymann
Tom Potter
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ap9erf$t7u$9...@sparta.btinternet.com...
I suggest that all folks
who are interested in putting a spotlight on the flamers,
"change the title" or start a "new thread",
leaving the flamer's immature remarks intact,
and using the flamer's name in the title as I have done here.
It seems that these flamers are immature people,
who love to attract attention, and perhaps they
will be satiated if they see their names in hundreds of threads.
This also let's the mature, rational, intelligent folks know that
the thread is a flame war, and devoid of intellectual content.
Franz Heymann
Instead of waffling aimlessly, Mark, I suggest you read about the
concept of form factors involved in interactions and the relationships
between form factors and spatial distributions. Until you are familiar
with these concepts, you are not empowered to criticise the experiments
in which data relevant to the sizes of small particles are determined.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
Tom, you would do better to shut your trap rather than use it to expose
your gross ignorance.
Please read up enough to understand the relationships between a cross
section, the thickness of a target, the beam intensity and the number of
interactions per second. Until then, don't extend your crapping
session. It stinks.
>
> Perhaps someone should teach Franz Heymann that "thickness"
> is orthogonal to "cross-section", and that "thickness" implies a
global
> property,
> whereas the "cross-section" depends upon the nature of an interaction,
> and the participants in an interaction.
Please read my advice a few lines higher up, you poor ignoramus.
>
> But perhaps Franz Heymann is privy
> to processes that us mortals are not privy to,
> such as the "atonmic processes" he writes about.
Franz Heymann is adept at calculating the rates at which interactions
take place in targets. He has spent fifty years of his life measuring
and interpreting such things. Tom Potter, on the other hand, has now
blown so much shit about that he can no longer distinguish between his
arse and his elbow.
And on top of this, I predict that he will dig himself deeper into the
shonga by trying to reply to this.
>
> Franz Heymann does make a good point when he says:
> "Tom Potter is about the most stupid person on this newsgroup."
The first valuable comment Tom Potter has made in this thread.
> I am "about" Franz Heymann a lot in this newsgroup.
Tom, you would do better to shut up. Every time you put finger to
keyboard, yopu expose your ignorance more clearly.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
[...]
> It seems to me that what "Franz Heymann" is saying,
> is that he does not know:
> "how "thick" a photon would have to be
> to interact with a "photocathode" with zero "thickness".
> ( Or vice versa. )"
Tom, things are not what they seem to you.
Your powers of reading comprehension leaves at least as much to be
desired as your knowledge of physics.
I honestly suggest that you desisit from the line you are taking. Do
you not realise that you are making a laughing stock of yourself when
you insist on blethering about subjects about which you know sweet fanny
adams?
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
[...]
> This also let's the mature, rational, intelligent folks know that
> the thread is a flame war, and devoid of intellectual content.
Tom, if you insist on compounding the crap you throw into this
newsgroup, you must expect to be flamed.
If you would post some valid piece of physics, or ask a reasonable
question without your puffed up posturing, I would be happy to discuss
the matter. If you continue to waffle, I will point out quite clearly
that you are waffling. And I don't mince words.
Franz Heymann
jmfb...@aol.com
When you try it, don't put liquid in the cup. Circus acts do this..
the guy with the spinning plates or something.
The one I recall (I think) had a string attached to a ball, but
the point of attachment was not at the top or the bottom but
off to the side. There's a missing piece that produces a
tangle after the first 360 turn.
jmfb...@aol.com
null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
<snip>
>I don't like FBI bashing, nor am I down with bizarre fed conspiracy
>theories, but on a simple level of _competence_, my faith in the
>Elliot Ness-like feds is daily erroded. J. Edgar Hoover may have put
>innocent citizens on watch lists, but you had the feeling at least
>that he was _competent_ about it.
<snip>
I view this "incompetence" as a Hoover legacy. His style has
become the folklore of the entity. I don't think there is
any way to undo that. This is not written to denigrate the
members of the FBI; the whole is greater than its parts.
Sam Wormley
>
>
> It seems that these flamers are immature people,
> who love to attract attention, and perhaps they
> will be satiated if they see their names in hundreds of threads.
>
> This also let's the mature, rational, intelligent folks know that
> the thread is a flame war, and devoid of intellectual content.
>
jmfb...@aol.com
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
><jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:ap8i11$dse$5...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>I wonder if it is the same thing as the one I have also forgotten.
I don't know. We can be befuddled together ;-). I've x-posted
a request to the s.p.research newsgroup. There are at least
three people over there who may remember.
This is bugging the shit out of me. I used to have steel-trap
recall.
Tom Potter
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:apb4h0$msa$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> "Tom Potter" <t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3db9...@post.newsfeed.com...
>
> [...]
>
> > This also let's the mature, rational, intelligent folks know that
> > the thread is a flame war, and devoid of intellectual content.
>
> Tom, if you insist on compounding the crap you throw into this
> newsgroup, you must expect to be flamed.
Who's compounding the crap?
I'm simply reposting your crap
giving you credit for it.
Tom Potter
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3DB929B1...@mchsi.com...
As can be seen, "Sam Wormley"
added no intellectual content to the thread.
and his post was simply an effort to get
someone to pay attention to him.
Give him a lot of attention and love,
that he did not get in the home,
and in time, he'll be satiated and happy,
and will become a well adjusted person,
who interacts with folks in a mature, rational, moral way.
puppe...@hotmail.com
[snip]
> I "deduce" from the fact that the only thing that can be measured,
> between a cause and an effect, is an interaction time, and that fact that
> aggregates of effects are statistically correlated to aggregates of causes,
> that one could just as accurately assert that angels,
> rather than photons, convey changes between causes and effects.
Angels are non-interacting.
Socks
hanson
> > "Tom Potter"
> > > This also let's the mature, rational, intelligent folks know that
> > > the thread is a flame war, and devoid of intellectual content.
> >
> > Tom, if you insist on compounding the crap you throw into this
> > newsgroup, you must expect to be flamed.
>
> Who's compounding the crap?
> I'm simply reposting your crap giving you credit for it.
Tom, why do you flame back if you don't like flaming?
Try some feng shui or reiki or just plain old hexing and vexing
or probably some intense voodoo if nothing else works.
Then there is of course also the remote possibility that simply
disregarding unwelcome stuff or ignoring disagreeable
lines might bring you your much sought after cyber peace.
hahahahaha.....hahahahahanson
Randy Poe
> It seems to me that Franz Heymann is all over the map with his positions.
I'm always glad when crackpots add a comment like "it
seems to me". It makes it clear that a screwball observation
can indicate a problem in the observer.
> First he talks about "thickness" as it relates to electron interactions,
> and then he shifts to "cross section" when the weakness of this position is
> exposed.
>
> Perhaps someone should teach Franz Heymann thatf "thickness"
> is orthogonal to "cross-section", and that "thickness" implies a global
> property,
Perhaps someone should teach you that "cross-section" has
to do with interaction and scattering probabilities, depends
on three-dimensional structure and the nature of the forces,
and has only a little relation to a physical cross-sectional
area.
> whereas the "cross-section" depends upon the nature of an interaction,
> and the participants in an interaction.
Yet you seem to recognize this with the above phrase. Yes,
it depends on the nature of an interaction and the participants.
"Cross-section" is not a measure of physical cross-section
area. It does indeed depend on thickness.
> But perhaps Franz Heymann is privy
> to processes that us mortals are not privy to,
You overgeneralize when you think that your ignorance of
physics extends to all mortals.
OK, this isn't freshman physics. A scattering cross
section is something a physicist or engineer might not
see until sophomore or junior year. But actually plenty
of mortals make it to the sophomore or junior year of
physics or engineering school.
- Randy
Franz Heymann
> As can be seen, "Sam Wormley"
> added no intellectual content to the thread.
> and his post was simply an effort to get
> someone to pay attention to him.
Since Sam is too much of a gentleman to add the intellectual content
which this thread lacks, I will do it :-
Fuck off Tom, and take a running jump at yourself in the process.
Franz Heymann
Boris
Mike Hanson
> Of all aspects of QM, I find half-integer spin to be the least
> intuitive.
English grammar offers an easy shortcut :
The Wheel(s/2) Turn(s/2)
Tom Potter
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:apbls...@enews1.newsguy.com...
"It seems to me"
that kids comprehend the difference between
"thickness" and "cross-sectional area"
in grammar school.
Did you have trouble with these concepts?
I must mention,
that us polite folks sometimes say "it seems to me",
so we don't hurt the feeling of folks who don't get it.