Can a single photon create an interference pattern in a double-slit experiment?

[ken quirici]

I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.

[jay moseley]

Ken. You sort of have the right answer. But for the wrong reasons. Look at this link...

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=_KekfbrzO74

Photons are a fabrication devised by Elvis Einstein. They do not exist.
Waves can interfere with each other and be recorded doing so at detectors.
Only idiots assume this pattern has been created by particles of light.
Being a mathematician and thus,.. an incompetent physicist, Albert needed
attention and made up photons. Which of course attracted the attention
of incompetent mathematicians the world over. Like Bore, and Heisenbored.

[ken quirici]

Jay. I think we share a similar discomfort with certain modern physical views, but I'm fully prepared to accept an explanation if there was one presented. Assuming I could understand it.

For example, the Wikipedia article on "Double-Slit Experiment" seems a little skimpy on an actual physical explanation of what's going on.

I think part of the problem is that quantum physics accepts the math and doesn't bother so much with the, well, the physics. They are buttressed in this attitude by the fact that the math actually describes everything, but doesn't really explain it. Unless you have that kind of intuition, which I don't. If you don't, sometimes it's hard to accept that it exists, since it's in somebody else's head and not really accessible. Unless they explain it.

[Yousuf Khan]

On 26/07/2016 9:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.

Yup, that's what the results of the entire double-slit experiment are
about.

Yousuf Khan

[Y.Porat]

====================
and now some news even for you :
E= hf
IS NOT THE RIGHT FORMULA FOR THE REAL SINGLE PHOTON!!
IT IS THE FORMULA FOR
A HUGE BUNDLE OF SIMGLE PHOTONS
THE REAL ENERGY OF THE SINGLE PHOTON IS
E min = h f times n
while
0> n <<<< 1.0000
old copyright by
Y.Porat
2
the mass (yes mass yrs the only mass
of the single photon is
about
exp - 90 Kilogram !!!!
-----
no one will ever
be able (even ) just to *** detect it** !!!
old Copyright
3
if you don't understand it
just ask !!
========================
Eng
Yehiel Porat

TIA
Y.Porat
==================================

[pcard...@volcanomail.com]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:05:13 AM UTC-7, ken quirici wrote:
> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.

No. A single photon can be detected in only one place. An interference pattern occupies a region of space, and can only be created with a large number of photons. Note however that an interference pattern can be created by sending photons through a double slit one at a time.

[ken quirici]

Little steps. The photon is also a wave. Imagine we have a 2-dimensional graph of the photon, where the x-axis represents time. Then the photon as wave will appear like a sine wave. What is the y-axis measuring?

[Michael Moroney]

A single photon will appear in only one place at the detector. Where it
appears will be somewhat random. I say "somewhat" in that it is likely
to appear where the interference pattern has a bright spot and is unlikely
to appear where the interference pattern has a dark spot. The interference
pattern is actually the sum result of many, many photons exhibiting this
behavior.

It's like radioactive material. You have no idea when a particular atom
will decay, but a macroscopic chunk of the stuff will have a very predictible
half-life.

[Odd Bodkin]

I think you'll find that free web pages like Wikipedia are not written
to explain concepts. They are often too dense and terse to do that well,
and so you are likely to get frustrated in using those kinds of
resources. Worse, though, would be thinking that if the explanation
you're looking for isn't in the free web resources you're perusing, then
the explanation isn't available at all. This leads to the mistaken view
you describe above, that physicists rely on math solely without having a
conceptual basis.

I could explain this, but I honestly think you'll do better by reading a
couple of thin books by Feynman: 1) The Character of Physical Law, and
2) QED. It's not hard to understand, but it takes some real estate to
explain the concepts plainly.

Feynman, by the way, once famously said that "Nobody really understands
quantum mechanics." However, this is a bit of a self-deprecating
comment, because he's done more to make quantum mechanics intuitively
understandable than most, as you'll see in those books.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Poutnik]

Dne 26/07/2016 v 15:05 ken quirici napsal(a):

> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>

As a photon can interfere with itself, it can.
But only if you do not register which slit it passes.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[ken quirici]

Thanks all for the helpful comments.

But nobody dealt with my question: what does the y-axis represent in a graph of the photon wave? At least as far as I can tell. (ALAFAICT)

Maybe I'm taking the word 'wave' too literally, or using old uses of the word.

[Odd Bodkin]

There's a property of all quantum fields called "phase". Feynman
describes this as being *something like* a turning hand on a clock face
that just goes around. (See the books I mentioned.) Don't make too much
of it other than that, except to note that every kind of oscillation or
rotation has some kind of property that is phase. Phase is a property
like momentum is a property, and it doesn't make sense to ask what
momentum is made of or what is momentuming. Likewise, phase is a
property of the object and it doesn't make sense to ask what the phase
is made of or what is rotating.

So when you see any kind of waviness and you want to ask, what is waving
back and forth, it's the phase of the field.

Note, this does NOT mean back and forth MOVEMENT to and fro. That's only
true for certain kinds of waves where there is actual displacement
through space, but is not a general feature.

>
> Maybe I'm taking the word 'wave' too literally, or using old uses of the word.
>

[pcard...@volcanomail.com]

A photon never "will appear like a sine wave". The wave function of a quantum object does not represent oscillation of a physical quantity.

[ken quirici]

Past two posts are nicely telling me what the waviness of a photon isn't, but nobody is telling me what it is.

Is the waviness simply the quantum ambiguity in the position, which suggests a kind of probabilistic waviness? Although a wave has a regularity - periodicity - that I don't get from quantum probabilities.

[Y.Porat]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 8:38:40 PM UTC+3, pcard...@volcanomail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:05:13 AM UTC-7, ken quirici wrote:
> > I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>
> No. A single photon can be detected in only one place.

======================
you didn t understated what I claimed and proved
so again
NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE
EVN TO DERECT A SINGLE PHOTON
AND I EXCPLAINED ABOVE WHY !!!

if you have questions about it
just ask

it is not a shame to ask
especially in physics science
especially while the current 'understanding is
weird

ATB
Y.Porat
============================

[Y.Porat]

==============================
nasty criminal against mankind!!
after my proves and explanations
no one will ever be able even to** detect** a
real ''single single photon
so go F only yourself with the BOOKS you
recommend !!!
========================
Y.Porat
=============================

[pnal...@gmail.com]

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-eye-photon-20160719-snap-story.html

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 27 ביולי 2016 בשעה 09:31:43 UTC+3, מאת pnal...@gmail.com:
> http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-eye-photon-20160719-snap-story.html

===========================================
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:31:43 AM UTC+3, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-human-eye-photon-20160719-snap-story.html

==============================
(:-)

you are funny !!
you want to learn physics
from Los Angeles news ???


so listen again :

Energy of photon is E =h f
f is defined as number of Cycles PER SECOND
AGAIN PER SECOND !!
EVEN IF YOU TAKE JUSTONE SECOND
IT IS A HUGE TIME FOR PHOOTNENERGY TO BE EMITTED
you don't believe me ??
you don't need the Cern company to make s simple experiment
)you don't need billions to pay them in order to make that 'historic ' experiment

(btw
I hope you understand that
during 2 seconds of photon emission
you get more photon energy than during one second
right ??!!
so now
go to you light switch in your room
open it just for say
1/10 second
now comes the 1 billion '' question
did you got during 1/10 seconds light emission
photon energy ??
was that energy that you got
during 1/10 second
more or less energy that during one second ??
need I gave to goon with it
2
more or less like our above experiment
we can realize that
photon energy can be emitted during
even 1/1000 of a second ??
so my question is

considering the above experiments
when did we got ''a single photon'
during experiment no 1
or during experiment 2
or may be
in non of them !!!???

that above are experiments that should get into
history of science !!??
(actually I published it
decades ago in this very n g
you can get in in Google achieves
(the pig Paul Draper P D (Bodkin
was bitterly attacking it
then and now!!
==
but it want help him and other blockhead pigs like him
=====================================
you cant cheat every body forever !!!
=========================================
3
the real single photon energy is as follows :

E Photon min energy
is

E photon min = h f times n
while

0 > n <<<<< 1.0000

later u I equated that n
to be
the** scalar part*** of plank time !!
why ?
because the plank time
is the smallest fraction of timer =we know
and I got
smallest photon MASS
to be
about
exp - 90 KILOGRAM !!! THE ONLY*** KILOGRAN!!**

NOT RELATIVISTIC
AND NOT SCHMELATIVISTIC MASS
JUST MASS !!!
======
old REVOLUTIONARY copyright
=====
ENG
Yehiel Porat
==========================

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/26/2016 9:10 PM, ken quirici wrote:
> Past two posts are nicely telling me what the waviness of a photon isn't, but nobody is telling me what it is.
>
> Is the waviness simply the quantum ambiguity in the position, which suggests a kind of probabilistic waviness?
> Although a wave has a regularity - periodicity - that I don't get from quantum probabilities.

Actually you do. It is called a wavefunction for a reason. The quantum
field itself has a periodicity, and that's expressed in a property
called phase.

It's a mistake to blanket quantum mechanics as just being about
fuzziness and probability. The eigenvalues of a quantum state are as
rigid as anything in classical physics.

Read the Feynman books I recommended. Really.

[Michael Moroney]

"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> writes:

>you didn t understated what I claimed and proved
>so again
>NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE
>EVN TO DERECT A SINGLE PHOTON
>AND I EXCPLAINED ABOVE WHY !!!

Single photons are detected all the time.

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 27 ביולי 2016 בשעה 16:30:34 UTC+3, מאת Michael Moroney:

==================================
lire idiot
I am proving to you that
no one will ever detect the real single photon
and a cock like you
is blowing wind in th4air
as good as to say
our earth is flat
h f
is one second defined
GOT IT BLOCKHEAD PARROT crock
you are a criminal against mankind
as well as the other gangster criminal
Paul Draper (P D

you cant cheat every body forever

=======================================
Y.Porat
========================

[ken quirici]

Thanks Odd. My library had 'QED' and I got the audiobook for the lectures 'The Character of Physical Law' from Itunes. Also library had his lectures on Physics which I vaguely remember liking. He's meant to be good at explaining difficult concepts.

Regards

Ken

[reber g=emc^2]

Reality is photons,electrons are coupled together so close together they can appear as one. The twin eperiment is proving this.These twins can move apart,and still be in contact.This was also proven,and helps prove my twin particle theory. This goes well with two other theories of mine.I love it when things start to fit well.It opens up a much brighter light at the end of a very long tunnel TreBert

[ken quirici]

Just ordered V.1 of the lectures.

[noTthaTguY]

is this thought to be a single wavelength of the waveform

[Michael Moroney]

pora...@gmail.com writes:

>> "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >you didn t understated what I claimed and proved
>> >so again
>> >NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE
>> >EVN TO DERECT A SINGLE PHOTON
>> >AND I EXCPLAINED ABOVE WHY !!!
>>
>> Single photons are detected all the time.

>lire idiot
>I am proving to you that
>no one will ever detect the real single photon

Sorry, quantum mechanics proves you wrong. Bubble chambers
where a gamma is produced and detected at the same time,
Einstein and the photoelectric effect, single atom gamma decays,
Geiger counters (when shielded from all but gammas),
lots of extremely low level light work etc.

[noTthaTguY]

what is it about electrons,
when absorbing or emmitting lightwaves,
requires a paticle of any sort,
other than the electrons & their protonic centers

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 27 ביולי 2016 בשעה 16:30:34 UTC+3, מאת Michael Moroney:

==============================
imbecile parrot criminal !!

a few questions to you and other idiot crock parrots :
--

PHOTON EMISSION IS AN ENERGY PHENOMENON ??
2
CAN AN ENERGY PHENOMENON BE DONE
DURING 'NO TIME'
?
------
3 THE PHOTON ENERGY OF A 'SINGLE PHOTON
IS DONE DURING
A
ONE SECOND
B
2 SECONDS
C
1/10 SECOND
D 1/1000 SECOND
E
DURING
/ONE BILLION OF A SECOND

etc etc etc

TIA
Y.Porat
======================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 27 ביולי 2016 בשעה 15:29:59 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:

===========================
shameless criminal against mankind
see my new post from 28 July (today
with questions t Moroney
and pigs like you
Y.Porat
=================================

[Odd Bodkin]

The only reason I see this post is that your username got changed, and
so I have to now do a click to add this new username to my killfile, so
that I can go back to having my feed scrubbed clean of your posts.

I don't know if you've been trying to reply to my posts in the past. If
you have, please understand that you are talking at a closed, locked,
noise-proofed door.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>

An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.

However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.

Interestingly, this I believe is true regardless of the physical
dimensions of the apparatus, with the caveat that the angle between any
maximum in the interference pattern and the adjacent minimum is
determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the separation distance
between the slits. (So it's possible to have that ratio such that the
angle mentioned is more than 90 degrees, in which case you wouldn't see
the pattern anyway.)

[noTthaTguY]

congrats on e-nuking po.rat. now,
you ne'er reply to me, and I think that
I know, why that may be, or not

actually, self-interference of wavey phenomena depends
upon the aperatures that are involved,
as is easy to see at a breakwater with at least no aperatures;
can also be described in terms of f-stops, presumably

[B Gates]

So you believe that single photons diffract even if you can only see it
when they are in herds? Diffraction is far more general than just the
simplistic two slits that most physicists understand. Every point (which
is a fantasy, natch) is a diffraction point. That has a name, I'm sure
you know. As it turns out any pattern of modulation in space creates a
diffraction pattern on single photons. If you consider angles greater
than 90 it causes the functions to become imaginary (which should be
right up your alley) and hence they represent near field energy. My
diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to finish
it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC imagines.

I could explain it all to you boinker, but you wouldn't listen anyway.

Yes, it's me Benj! And why I'm suddenly B Gates is a long network
nightmare. Why are digital people ALL such utter morons? Can you explain
that to me?

[noTthaTguY]

even Fermat used "ray-tracing to work properties of light;
see _Light, a history:
the Fermat's complete correspondence on light_

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
> imagines.

What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?

[noTthaTguY]

deaR Mister gaTes, note that
Liebniz's brachistochtone is just a single ray\normal
to the wavefront

> even Fermat used "ray-tracing to work properties of light;
> see _Light, a history:
> the Fermat's complete correspondence on light_

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום חמישי, 28 ביולי 2016 בשעה 17:28:15 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:

=========================
I have no intension to discuss with Paul Draper
the anonymous crook
criminal
by intention is that
OTHERES
WILL KNOW
WHO IS THAT*** ANONYMOUS** CRIMINAL AGAINST MANKIND !!
AND THIEF

===========================
Y . PORAT
==================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שלישי, 26 ביולי 2016 בשעה 20:38:40 UTC+3, מאת pcard...@volcanomail.com:

> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:05:13 AM UTC-7, ken quirici wrote:
> > I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>

> No. A single photon can be detected in only one place. An interference pattern occupies a region of space, and can only be created with a large number of photons. Note however that an interference pattern can be created by sending photons through a double slit one at a time.

===========================
though my long explanations
you stil didn't get
WHAT IS THE*** REAL SINGLE PHOTON*** !!
I explained it step by step !!

not only now in this very thread above and below
but along many years !
only a blackhead will not understand it
======================
Y.Porat
====================================

====

[brandon...@gmail.com]

the wave is perfectly omnidirectional, and
all properties are those of waves. one can use photon as only a quantum
of a certain energy per cycle e.g.

also, see Lanscoz' quaternionic treatment
of special relativity ... I did not get it,
when I first saw his bOOk, _Variational mechanicS, but
he was reputedly Einstein's secretary

[reber g=emc^2]

Feynman's Sum over history is his answer,and in reality only hecould have come up with it.Its weird,but so is QM. Trebert

[B Gates]

On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
>> imagines.
>
> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>

Better ask HVAC about that one. It's his fantasy.

[Odd Bodkin]

Well, let me back up then. How are you being disallowed from finishing a
theory? Have your pencils and paper been taken away?

[B Gates]

On 07/28/2016 09:43 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> even Fermat used "ray-tracing to work properties of light;
> see _Light, a history:
> the Fermat's complete correspondence on light_

Ray tracing does not do diffraction, NTT.

Get with the topic.

[B Gates]

On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
>> imagines.
>
> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>

I see you trimmed the line in my post: "I could explain it all to you

boinker, but you wouldn't listen anyway."

I love it when experiment confirms my theory. Out of all I said the only
thing you heard was a reference to HVAC's childish lies. No more
interest in physics or science than HVAC has.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/29/2016 4:10 PM, B Gates wrote:
> On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like HVAC
>>> imagines.
>>
>> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>>
> I see you trimmed the line in my post: "I could explain it all to you
> boinker, but you wouldn't listen anyway."

You said you could not finish your diffraction theory. You said you were
not allowed to finish it.

Now, you think you can "explain all this" with an unfinished theory?
And can you let me know what's holding you back from finishing it?

>
> I love it when experiment confirms my theory. Out of all I said the only
> thing you heard was a reference to HVAC's childish lies. No more
> interest in physics or science than HVAC has.
>

[B Gates]

you see, some of us have to work for a living rather than make things
from bits of wood. In real life, if the boss tells you to work on
something, it's what you work on. In your lib world you just have a
fantasy and pretend you are writing another paper or book or something.
And then hit your stash again.

[B Gates]

Actually I was working on finishing it (not that you would understand
that a partially complete theory gives considerable information if not
all of it) but then I put the stack of papers somewhere where they
wouldn't get lost and I can't remember where that was! Anyway I'm moving
now and hardly have time to come out and play with you! When done (paper
is mostly done except for that) EM paper will appear on my website along
with EM1. Say I never heard a peep out of you or HVAC on paper #1. With
your understanding of math and science you should have lots to say.
Anyway, Server just got moved and trashed all my websites. Digital
morons. It never ends.

[Poutnik]

Dne 26/07/2016 v 15:05 ken quirici napsal(a):

> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>

It cannot, but its wave function amplitude square
at the target has the same interference patterns.

Those patterns are macro, resp quantum manifestation
of the probability of the photon impact.

---------
A photon passing 2 slits WITHOUT pass detectors
is ( in some sense ) analogical to linearly polarized light.

Each photon is quantum superposition
of 2 equally probable quantum states:

slit scenario:a photon passing slit 1 + photon passing slit 2,
light scenario: photon left polarized + right polarized.

The amplitude square of the wave function for such photons
on the target plane has the same patterns
as the interference patterns as sum of impacts many photons.
----------
A photon passing 2 slits WITH pass detectors
is ( in some sense ) analogical to non polarized light.

The photon flow of such light consists
of half photons in quantum state 1,
the other one in the quantum state 2.

slit scenario: either passing slit 1, either slit 2.
light scenario: either polarized left, either right.

The amplitude square of the wave functions
for such photons of state1 and state2 is independent each other
and the target patterns are sum of 2 circularly symmetric patterns.
---
QM experts may correct me.


--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/29/2016 7:13 PM, B Gates wrote:
> On 07/29/2016 05:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 4:03 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>> On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>>>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>>>>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like
>>>>> HVAC
>>>>> imagines.
>>>>
>>>> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>>>>
>>> Better ask HVAC about that one. It's his fantasy.
>>
>> Well, let me back up then. How are you being disallowed from finishing a
>> theory? Have your pencils and paper been taken away?
>>
> you see, some of us have to work for a living rather than make things
> from bits of wood. In real life, if the boss tells you to work on
> something, it's what you work on.

So now that you're not working for a boss, what is keeping you from
finishing the theory?

> In your lib world you just have a
> fantasy and pretend you are writing another paper or book or something.
> And then hit your stash again.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/29/2016 7:13 PM, B Gates wrote:

> you see, some of us have to work for a living rather than make things
> from bits of wood. In real life, if the boss tells you to work on
> something, it's what you work on. In your lib world you just have a
> fantasy and pretend you are writing another paper or book or something.
> And then hit your stash again.

Where was Einstein working when he produced the papers of 1905? Do you
think his boss told him to work on those papers?

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/29/2016 7:25 PM, B Gates wrote:
> Actually I was working on finishing it (not that you would understand
> that a partially complete theory gives considerable information if not
> all of it) but then I put the stack of papers somewhere where they
> wouldn't get lost and I can't remember where that was! Anyway I'm moving
> now and hardly have time to come out and play with you! When done (paper
> is mostly done except for that) EM paper will appear on my website along
> with EM1. Say I never heard a peep out of you or HVAC on paper #1. With
> your understanding of math and science you should have lots to say.
> Anyway, Server just got moved and trashed all my websites. Digital
> morons. It never ends.

You seem to be full of excuses for not finishing a theory that would
explain it all.

So you have lost your papers. You didn't back up any of your digital
files and those are lost now too. You're just a disaster waiting to
happen! No wonder you're not working.

[benj]

On 7/30/2016 1:44 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 7:13 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> On 07/29/2016 05:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 7/29/2016 4:03 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>>> On 07/29/2016 08:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/2016 6:35 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>>>>> My diffraction theory explains all this but I was never allowed to
>>>>>> finish it. I'm guessing I was "fired" for believing in ghosts like
>>>>>> HVAC
>>>>>> imagines.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does getting fired from a job have to do with finishing a theory?
>>>>>
>>>> Better ask HVAC about that one. It's his fantasy.
>>>
>>> Well, let me back up then. How are you being disallowed from finishing a
>>> theory? Have your pencils and paper been taken away?
>>>
>> you see, some of us have to work for a living rather than make things
>> from bits of wood. In real life, if the boss tells you to work on
>> something, it's what you work on.
>
> So now that you're not working for a boss, what is keeping you from
> finishing the theory?

Having trouble with reading comprehension, Boinker? I suggest you take a
speed reading course. I did. Comprhension is important. Of course you
and HVAC know it all BEFORE you start to read to understanding isn't a
problem for you.

[benj]

On 7/30/2016 1:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/29/2016 7:13 PM, B Gates wrote:
>> you see, some of us have to work for a living rather than make things
>> from bits of wood. In real life, if the boss tells you to work on
>> something, it's what you work on. In your lib world you just have a
>> fantasy and pretend you are writing another paper or book or something.
>> And then hit your stash again.
>
> Where was Einstein working when he produced the papers of 1905? Do you
> think his boss told him to work on those papers?
>

It's best if bosses don't know anything. You'd make a good boss,
Boinker. So you say Einstein should have cheated his employer and not
done the work he was paid to do. You atheists don't believe in morality
and ethics, do you?

[benj]

Who says I'm not working? There are lots of important things that need
to be done. That theory is down the list. You do understand that being
Maxwellian, it's wrong even before it's done. That is a given. Oh ya!

[Wally W.]

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>>
>
>An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
>photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
>than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
>
>However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
>even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
>such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
>you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.

So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.

When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
same slit.

Why would they when they are fired one at a time?

Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
in either case?

If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?

[benj]

On 7/30/2016 6:05 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
>>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
>>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>>>
>>
>> An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
>> photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
>> than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
>>
>> However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
>> even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
>> such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
>> you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
>
> So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
>
> When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
> same slit.
>
> Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
>
> Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
> in either case?
>
> If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
> radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?

Wally, Google is your friend (well, except for their political decision)
See Wikipedia for how a pattern builds up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Note that if you fire single photons, what is known is that each ONLY
GOES THROUGH ONE OF THE SLITS. Yes, some go though one and some go
through the other but each one ONLY can go through one of the slits.

And the range of photon interactions is such that the distance to the
other slit seems to say it is impossible for any photon to "sense" the
presence of the other slit.

But oddly if you fire ENOUGH single photons at the slits the pattern on
the target starts to build up. And NO it is NOT a "diffraction pattern".
The reason being and that it is made up of discrete actions or points
while a TRUE diffraction pattern would be a continuous differentiable
function. BUT if you eyeball what you get you soon see that the array of
impact dots very much approximates the shape of what is known in
Maxwellian theory as the diffraction pattern.

This basically is the mystery of light that puzzled Einstein and has
been termed the wave-particle duality.

OK?

You are right to be puzzled as to why the center of the pattern is
between the slits even when single photons are sent. The pattern does
not depend on large numbers of photons being sent at once. You can send
a large number with each one sent singly and you get the same result.

It will be fun to watch Boinker try to find an "official" book to
explain all this.

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום שלישי, 26 ביולי 2016 בשעה 20:38:40 UTC+3, מאת pcard...@volcanomail.com:

> On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:05:13 AM UTC-7, ken quirici wrote:
> > I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>

> No. A single photon can be detected in only one place. An interference pattern occupies a region of space, and can only be created with a large number of photons. Note however that an interference pattern can be created by sending photons through a double slit one at a time.

============================
Bravo !!
you started to get it !!!
now look for my old definition of the **real single*** photon energy:

E Min photon energy = h f times n
while

0 > n <<<<< 1.0000 !!!!!
--------
old copyright
Eng
Yehiel Porat
==========================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 27 ביולי 2016 בשעה 16:30:34 UTC+3, מאת Michael Moroney:
> "Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >you didn t understated what I claimed and proved
> >so again
> >NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE
> >EVN TO DERECT A SINGLE PHOTON
> >AND I EXCPLAINED ABOVE WHY !!!
>
> Single photons are detected all the time.
=====================
shameless liar !!!
Y.Porat
==================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 31 ביולי 2016 בשעה 01:05:26 UTC+3, מאת Wally W.:

===========================
E=hf is not the energy of the real single photon
it is a huge bundle of single photons
see my new thresd
=
CAN ANY ENERGY EVENT /PHENOMENON - BE DONE AT NO TIME ??!!
2
h f -IS ***only !!! ONE SECOND DEFINED !!
(IN CASE YOU STILL DIDNT NOTICED IT !!
maybe it will take you all of ''you 'another
100 years to notice it !!!....

TIA
Y.Porat
=========================================

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/30/2016 5:00 PM, benj wrote:
> On 7/30/2016 1:47 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/29/2016 7:25 PM, B Gates wrote:
>>> Actually I was working on finishing it (not that you would understand
>>> that a partially complete theory gives considerable information if not
>>> all of it) but then I put the stack of papers somewhere where they
>>> wouldn't get lost and I can't remember where that was! Anyway I'm moving
>>> now and hardly have time to come out and play with you! When done (paper
>>> is mostly done except for that) EM paper will appear on my website along
>>> with EM1. Say I never heard a peep out of you or HVAC on paper #1. With
>>> your understanding of math and science you should have lots to say.
>>> Anyway, Server just got moved and trashed all my websites. Digital
>>> morons. It never ends.
>>
>> You seem to be full of excuses for not finishing a theory that would
>> explain it all.
>>
>> So you have lost your papers. You didn't back up any of your digital
>> files and those are lost now too. You're just a disaster waiting to
>> happen! No wonder you're not working.
>
> Who says I'm not working? There are lots of important things that need
> to be done.

Right, but you're not employed by another person as a paid employee.
So you get to call your shots what to work on.

> That theory is down the list.

OK, so you're saying that this theory that you were NOT ALLOWED to
finish is not done because it's lower in your priority list, and you
lost all the papers and the digital files to boot.

> You do understand that being
> Maxwellian, it's wrong even before it's done. That is a given. Oh ya!
>
>

[ken quirici]

So why do 'they' say that the interference pattern demonstrates the wave part of the particle/wave duality of the photon?

I'm more confused than ever.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/30/2016 5:05 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
>>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
>>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>>>
>>
>> An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
>> photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
>> than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
>>
>> However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
>> even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
>> such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
>> you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
>
> So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
>
> When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
> same slit.
>
> Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
>
> Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
> in either case?

It doesn't. That's the point. See Feynman's The Character of Physical Law.

If classical physics were in play, then you would expect to see two
maxima, each centered on a line passing through the source and one of
the slits. The maxima may be broadened by scattering, but the location
of the maxima would be set by that. That is in fact not what is see,
even when you're firing the photons one at a time.

>
> If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
> radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?

If this were the case, you would expect that at low rate, there would be
a single-slit diffraction pattern behind each slit, lined up so the
central maximum is colinear with slit and source, as described above.
This is not what is seen.

>
>
>> Interestingly, this I believe is true regardless of the physical
>> dimensions of the apparatus, with the caveat that the angle between any
>> maximum in the interference pattern and the adjacent minimum is
>> determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the separation distance
>> between the slits. (So it's possible to have that ratio such that the
>> angle mentioned is more than 90 degrees, in which case you wouldn't see
>> the pattern anyway.)
>

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/30/2016 5:41 PM, benj wrote:
> OK?
>
> You are right to be puzzled as to why the center of the pattern is
> between the slits even when single photons are sent. The pattern does
> not depend on large numbers of photons being sent at once. You can send
> a large number with each one sent singly and you get the same result.
>
> It will be fun to watch Boinker try to find an "official" book to
> explain all this.

I've already recommended a couple of books on this.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/31/2016 2:24 PM, ken quirici wrote:
> So why do 'they' say that the interference pattern demonstrates the wave part of the particle/wave duality of the photon?
>
> I'm more confused than ever.

I don't think quantum mechanics implies that the distribution will be
continuous, as Ben was alluding to. (Quite the opposite in fact.)

But even in the "lumpy" distribution you get (which approaches
continuity if you let this deposit happen for a very long time), the
shape -- that is, the location of the maxima and minima -- only make
sense if you treat each photon as being a wave that behaves like it
travels through both slits at once. Now, you can ask, how is it possible
that this photon which is a small thing can pass through both slits at
once? And can I put detectors to sense that it is going through both
slits at once? The problem is thinking that the photon is a small thing.
It deposits all of its energy in one small spot, yes, but that does not
mean that it is also small in flight. It behaves exactly as though it
were a thing that extends over a LARGE REGION, even though if you try to
observe it, it will only result in an energy deposit in one small spot.

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:26:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>On 7/30/2016 5:05 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
>>>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
>>>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
>>> photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
>>> than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
>>>
>>> However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
>>> even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
>>> such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
>>> you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
>>
>> So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
>>
>> When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
>> same slit.
>>
>> Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
>>
>> Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
>> in either case?
>
>It doesn't. That's the point. See Feynman's The Character of Physical Law.

I refer to the radiation patterns in this image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ebohr1_IP.svg

There is a radiation pattern centered at the left side of the image.

When the waves encounter slits in the middle of the image, two
radiation patterns emerge: each centered on a slit.

The explanation for water waves is simple: the medium exists on both
sides of the two slits, and the energy re-radiates from where the two
sides are connected.

If there is no medium for the propagation of light, the reason for the
emergence of two new centers of radiation must have a different
explanation for photons in the double-slit experiment.

>If classical physics were in play, then you would expect to see two
>maxima, each centered on a line passing through the source and one of
>the slits.

Based on the radiation pattern in the image cited above, the brighter
spots might be expected to be at the locations on the target
perpendicular to the new centers of radiation.

> The maxima may be broadened by scattering, but the location
>of the maxima would be set by that. That is in fact not what is see,
>even when you're firing the photons one at a time.

Just pondering out loud: Every photon near the slit doesn't go through
the slit. Some are stopped on the solid parts of the wall where the
slits are not. If the photons that *do* go through the slit need to do
so along a certain portion of their wavelength, then all photons
through the slit are "in phase" even if fired one at a time.

What happens to a photon that hits the wall at the point in its
wavelength when the electric portion of the wave has an amplitude of
zero? Would it make a mark on the wall?

If all photons through a slit are in-phase and the distance
relationships are the same whether photons are fired one at a time or
in great numbers, the "interference pattern" may be the same for
reasons that are not so spooky.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 7/31/2016 4:12 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 14:26:19 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 7/30/2016 5:05 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:23:09 -0500, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/26/2016 8:05 AM, ken quirici wrote:
>>>>> I would have to surmise that the answer is Yes if the experiment in physical dimensions
>>>>> sufficiently small. Which answer makes me more comfortable with the quantum-theoretic view of reality.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An interference pattern is, by definition, an accumulation of many
>>>> photons. You cannot get an interference pattern from one photon any more
>>>> than you can get a landscape painting from one dollop of green paint.
>>>>
>>>> However, what is true is that an interference pattern will be formed
>>>> even if you fire photons one at a time through a double-slit apparatus,
>>>> such that the fired photon lands before the next one is fired, and so
>>>> you KNOW that no two fired photons are interfering with each other.
>>>
>>> So maybe the "interference pattern" shouldn't be so surprising.
>>>
>>> When many photons are fired at once, they don't all go through the
>>> same slit.
>>>
>>> Why would they when they are fired one at a time?
>>>
>>> Why does the center of the radiation pattern become centered on a slit
>>> in either case?
>>
>> It doesn't. That's the point. See Feynman's The Character of Physical Law.
>
> I refer to the radiation patterns in this image:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ebohr1_IP.svg
>
> There is a radiation pattern centered at the left side of the image.

Well, ok, there is a representation of a traveling wave, yes.

>
> When the waves encounter slits in the middle of the image, two
> radiation patterns emerge: each centered on a slit.

Right, traveling waves emerging from each.

But a traveling wave is a continuous delivery of energy, which is
observable over a large region of space at once.

Photons are not a continuous delivery of energy, and they are never
*observed* to be over a large region of space at once. However, a large
*collection* of photons will emulate continuous delivery of energy and
emulate a population over a large region of space at once.

>
> The explanation for water waves is simple: the medium exists on both
> sides of the two slits, and the energy re-radiates from where the two
> sides are connected.
>
> If there is no medium for the propagation of light, the reason for the
> emergence of two new centers of radiation must have a different
> explanation for photons in the double-slit experiment.

:-) Did you have something in mind?

>
>> If classical physics were in play, then you would expect to see two
>> maxima, each centered on a line passing through the source and one of
>> the slits.
>
> Based on the radiation pattern in the image cited above, the brighter
> spots might be expected to be at the locations on the target
> perpendicular to the new centers of radiation.

No, this turns out not to be the case. Here, I suggest taking a look at
Feynman's book as recommended where he specifically calls out the
difference between what you are thinking of and what is actually observed.

>
>> The maxima may be broadened by scattering, but the location
>> of the maxima would be set by that. That is in fact not what is see,
>> even when you're firing the photons one at a time.
>
> Just pondering out loud: Every photon near the slit doesn't go through
> the slit. Some are stopped on the solid parts of the wall where the
> slits are not. If the photons that *do* go through the slit need to do
> so along a certain portion of their wavelength, then all photons
> through the slit are "in phase" even if fired one at a time.

I think you're going to have a hard time proving that. Especially since
I can fire the photons in a random Poisson distribution.

>
> What happens to a photon that hits the wall at the point in its
> wavelength when the electric portion of the wave has an amplitude of
> zero? Would it make a mark on the wall?
>
> If all photons through a slit are in-phase and the distance
> relationships are the same whether photons are fired one at a time or
> in great numbers, the "interference pattern" may be the same for
> reasons that are not so spooky.
>
>>> If many photons encountering the slits develop new centers of
>>> radiation, why wouldn't a single photon do the same?
>>
>> If this were the case, you would expect that at low rate, there would be
>> a single-slit diffraction pattern behind each slit, lined up so the
>> central maximum is colinear with slit and source, as described above.
>> This is not what is seen.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Interestingly, this I believe is true regardless of the physical
>>>> dimensions of the apparatus, with the caveat that the angle between any
>>>> maximum in the interference pattern and the adjacent minimum is
>>>> determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the separation distance
>>>> between the slits. (So it's possible to have that ratio such that the
>>>> angle mentioned is more than 90 degrees, in which case you wouldn't see
>>>> the pattern anyway.)
>>>
>

[noTthaTguY]

of course, they do, even with a diffraction grating,
which is hte ultimate expression of Youbg's two-pinho;e moire' patterns

[noTthaTguY]

yes, but aray is just a sinlg enormal to the wavefront, and
I don't know (or thin that this is apparent
from the work of Fermat, Pascal et al.

all properties of light are known, up to & e'er after Newton
and his sylli corpuscle (he avverred tha light went faster
in a denser medium, like sound does, whether or not
he drew ana analogy with sound

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 31 ביולי 2016 בשעה 22:27:30 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:

===================
shameless blockhead criminal against mankind !!!

what is the one (again ONE) AT A TIME ???!!

Y.Porat
=============================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 31 ביולי 2016 בשעה 22:33:22 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:

==========================
imbecile pig!!
it is never a single photon


IT IS A HUGE ***BUNDLE OF SINGKE PHOTONS*** !!!
Y.Porat
=================================

[pora...@gmail.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 31 ביולי 2016 בשעה 22:26:20 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Ken Quirici asks:
> Can a single photon create an interference pattern
> in a double-slit experiment ?

It's a _probability_ wave of _coherent_ _particles_,
not a physical wave.  Coherency is key.

Too many "scientists" _refuse_ to understand this.

Without ignorance, there is no (semi)randomness.
The more ignorant you are, the more you believe in "free will".
We're robots, programmed by nature ( to eat, breathe, etc. ).

Primarily, we consume "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ),
just like everything else in the cosmos.

[noTthaTguY]

has been used in cellphones for at least a decade, that
polarization is minimally three-dimensional (although
still retaining handedness, I suppose

[noTthaTguY]

suppose that a jump from one electronic orbit
to another electronic orbit (lower or higher,
is presumed to emit or absorb only one wavelength oflight
of a particular period (1/frequency

[Michael J. Strickland]

In the case of an electron dropping to a lower orbit (circular orbit
for simplicity's sake) around a proton, the total energy (E) of the
system (atom) remains the same. It has lost potential energy (U) by
moving closer to the positive charge. It has gained an equal amount of
kinetic energy (K) because it's velocity must increase for its new
centrifugal force (mv^2/r) to balance the stronger electrostatic force
(ke^2/r^2). It has to move faster (more kinetic energy) in its tighter
orbit because the attractive force is greater at this reduced distance
(more negative potential energy). Total energy (E = U + K ) remains
constant.

This orbiting electron radiates a changing electric field into the
universe due to the motion of its source (the orbiting electron). This
field, and the changes in it, move out (propagate) out from the
electron in all directions at the speed of light. This is similar to
how the static electric field produced by a stationary electron moves
away at the speed of light. In the case of an isolated atom (as Bohr
postulated) the orbiting electron can lose no energy due to radiating
this changing electric field because there is no other charge in the
universe to absorb energy from this field (convert some of its
potential energy into kinetic energy). If another charge is present,
the electric field exerts a force on it and it's electric field exerts
a force on the orbiting electron and each of them can then gain or
lose energy.

The electron remains in a stable orbit and does not spiral in to the
nucleus, contrary to what many of us were taught in Physics 214
(Tippler). This was the third and last college physics course for EEs.
10-20 years ago I figured out why - lol. Too much of it is wrong like
that electron spiraling into the nucleus story which is a clear
violation of electrodynamics.

In the real universe, the orbiting electron's radiated electric field
(E = kq/r^2) exerts a force on all other charges (q) in the universe
including those of the proton it is orbiting. This force (F = Eq) adds
or subtractss kinetic energy (velocity) to/from all other charges in
the universe. These other charges, in turn, radiate an electric field
that adds to or subtracts from the kinetic energy (velocity) of our
orbiting electron. Assuming an equal distribution of charge in the
universe, this force balances out to a net of zero on a large scale
and our electron does not gain or lose any kinetic energy (on average)
from the universe at large. It remains in a stable orbit so the atom
remains stable.

Up close to the orbiting electron, things are quite different. The
electron "feels" an ever changing central force from the nucleus which
does not exactly balance its constant centrifugal force of orbit. This
is due to the positive and negative charges of the proton (and
probably its quark constituents) constantly moving. Therefore the
"center of charge" of the nucleus is constantly moving. The constantly
changing distance and direction to the center of charge causes the
force felt by the orbiting electron to constantly change in magnitude
and direction.

The total force the orbiting electron feels at any time is the sum of
the varying forces from other charges (positive and negative) in the
universe together with the varying and much stronger force from the
closer charges of its nucleus that it is trying to orbit. This force
is almost constant and balances the centrifugal force of the orbiting
electron.

Occasionally, though, a "rogue wave/pulse" of electric field with
sufficient amplitude (strength) hits the electron. This electric field
(force) is sufficient to either eject the electron from orbit
(ionization) or inject the orbit into the nucleus (de-orbit the
electron into the nucleus) which is called electron capture (a form of
radioactive decay).

This ever changing electric field (force) at the electron's location
is practically impossible to calculate so a statistical treatment is
usually employed to predict how often, on average, such "rogue
wave/pulses" will arrive and either eject the electron from the atom
or inject it into the nucleus.

The same applies to electrons or positrons ejected from the nucleus
(beta decay) which also react to the ever changing electric field
produced by all the charges of a nucleus constantly in motion. This is
why radioactive half-lives refer to bulk matter and the actual
ionization of and individual atom or decay of and individual nucleus
is not practically predictable.

These radiated electric fields circumvent the problem of how one
particle causes "action at a distance" on another particle. According
to classical mechanics, this seemed to require a material or medium to
convey the energy and contain the energy as it was in transit from one
particle to the other. The energy of a sound wave is contained in the
potential energy of the compressed air (like a compressed spring
stores energy) as it moves from source to receiver. Maxwell, Mach, and
others, wanted a medium to contain the electric energy while it was
being transferred between the two charged particles in a vacuum. What
was the "nature" of the kinetic energy (K = .5mv^2) and what contained
it while it was in transit between the particles and thereby belonged
to neither of the particles. As kinetic energy is classically defined
as mass in motion, Maxwell proposed the transit occurred through an
aether medium which was extremely rigid yet extremely rarified. These
two attributes seemed contradictory to him. I find it noteworthy that
Maxwell signed off his "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" with
the following statement concerning the propagation of light (an
electromagnetic wave): "The idea of an aether cannot be got rid of."

---------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA
---------------------------------------------------

[noTthaTguY]

I haven't rtead it, yet;
my unpatented mode is to scroll to the end,
delete the sigfile & repost the last paragraph-or-so

[noTthaTguY]

it seems to be coherence of various orbits,
which have to be paired in orbits e.g;
there is a new solution due to this guy