info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Raindrop Gravity
159 views
Skip to first unread message
john
Oct 22, 2016, 5:18:31 PM10/22/16
to
I've posted on this before.
But, it's good.
If LeSage's " ultra-mundane particles"
are all the same, then obviously going
faster in one direction will increase
Push gravity on the leading side, and
decrease pressure on the trailing
side. Which has a name I'm not
bothering to look up. Like raindrops
hit harder and more numerous on
your windshield, the faster you go.
And, that is not observed.
But, if the push is coming as a kindred
radiation frequency from other
matter travelling variously, then
there will be no such problem.
As you travel faster, you just absorb
selectively lower portions of what
comes towards you- which, it is
interesting to note, would be being
emitted by all matter travelling
the same way-formerly red shifted
compared to you, but now absorbable.
Absorbababble
And there would be no
Raindrop Argument
But, it's good.
If LeSage's " ultra-mundane particles"
are all the same, then obviously going
faster in one direction will increase
Push gravity on the leading side, and
decrease pressure on the trailing
side. Which has a name I'm not
bothering to look up. Like raindrops
hit harder and more numerous on
your windshield, the faster you go.
And, that is not observed.
But, if the push is coming as a kindred
radiation frequency from other
matter travelling variously, then
there will be no such problem.
As you travel faster, you just absorb
selectively lower portions of what
comes towards you- which, it is
interesting to note, would be being
emitted by all matter travelling
the same way-formerly red shifted
compared to you, but now absorbable.
Absorbababble
And there would be no
Raindrop Argument
john
Oct 22, 2016, 6:12:14 PM10/22/16
to
This construction would mean that
matter would 'draft' other matter,
seemingly pulling it along.
matter would 'draft' other matter,
seemingly pulling it along.
Michael Moroney
Oct 23, 2016, 1:01:21 AM10/23/16
to
john
Oct 23, 2016, 1:38:07 AM10/23/16
to
Michael
Why?
Cannot radiation be selectively absorbed,
according to its wavelength?
Why?
Cannot radiation be selectively absorbed,
according to its wavelength?
john
Oct 23, 2016, 1:48:10 AM10/23/16
to
Michael
"just babble. "
Haha.
Knew you couldn't resist.
Radiation can transfer momentum
when absorbed, right? But not
when reflected.
"just babble. "
Haha.
Knew you couldn't resist.
Radiation can transfer momentum
when absorbed, right? But not
when reflected.
Poutnik
Oct 23, 2016, 4:03:54 AM10/23/16
to
Dne 23/10/2016 v 07:48 john napsal(a):
You say by other words that
the law of momentum conservation is not valid.
As the reflected light
has the opposite momentum than incoming light.
So the rate of momentum transfer
is for total reflection doubled,
compared to total absorption.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
the law of momentum conservation is not valid.
As the reflected light
has the opposite momentum than incoming light.
So the rate of momentum transfer
is for total reflection doubled,
compared to total absorption.
--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
HVAC
Oct 23, 2016, 4:55:16 AM10/23/16
to
John what in the blue fuck are you on about now?
john
Oct 23, 2016, 7:06:00 AM10/23/16
to
Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
Poutnik
Oct 23, 2016, 7:10:53 AM10/23/16
to
Dne 23/10/2016 v 13:05 john napsal(a):
> Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
>
It does, both linear and angular one.
A photon has the linear momentum h.f/c
and angular momentum h .sqrt(2)
with the axis projection one of h . [-1|0|+1]
> Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
>
It does, both linear and angular one.
A photon has the linear momentum h.f/c
and angular momentum h .sqrt(2)
with the axis projection one of h . [-1|0|+1]
Poutnik
Oct 23, 2016, 7:20:27 AM10/23/16
to
Dne 23/10/2016 v 13:10 Poutnik napsal(a):
the specially generated light beam
can have also orbital angular momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light
> Dne 23/10/2016 v 13:05 john napsal(a):
>> Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
>>
>
> It does, both linear and angular one.
>
> A photon has the linear momentum h.f/c
> and angular momentum h .sqrt(2)
> with the axis projection one of h . [-1|0|+1]
>
And, while photons have spin angular momentum,
>> Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
>>
>
> It does, both linear and angular one.
>
> A photon has the linear momentum h.f/c
> and angular momentum h .sqrt(2)
> with the axis projection one of h . [-1|0|+1]
>
the specially generated light beam
can have also orbital angular momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light
jay moseley
Oct 23, 2016, 9:42:15 AM10/23/16
to
Poutnik
these different terms. Nothing to do with momentum. That is a made up
classification.
If you couldn't measure the polarisation of a light beam, could you
distinguish between spin and orbital states of light?
>And, while photons have spin angular momentum,
>the specially generated light beam
>can have also orbital angular momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light
If you study spin, orbital angular momentum etc. It is only polarisation that dictates
>the specially generated light beam
>can have also orbital angular momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light
these different terms. Nothing to do with momentum. That is a made up
classification.
If you couldn't measure the polarisation of a light beam, could you
distinguish between spin and orbital states of light?
Poutnik
Oct 23, 2016, 9:47:45 AM10/23/16
to
Dne 23/10/2016 v 15:42 jay moseley napsal(a):
As spin means spin angular momentum
and Light polarization means patterns
in orientation of photon spin angular momentum.....
Not all light angular momentum is spin angular momentum.
and Light polarization means patterns
in orientation of photon spin angular momentum.....
Not all light angular momentum is spin angular momentum.
jay moseley
Oct 23, 2016, 9:57:07 AM10/23/16
to
Poutnik
is only different states of polarisation of beam. Nothing to do with
momentum or lack of momentum in light beam.
>As spin means spin angular momentum
>and Light polarization means patterns
>in orientation of photon spin angular momentum.....
>Not all light angular momentum is spin angular momentum.
All you refer to as light angular momentum and spin angular momentum
>and Light polarization means patterns
>in orientation of photon spin angular momentum.....
>Not all light angular momentum is spin angular momentum.
is only different states of polarisation of beam. Nothing to do with
momentum or lack of momentum in light beam.
Poutnik
Oct 23, 2016, 10:09:25 AM10/23/16
to
Dne 23/10/2016 v 15:57 jay moseley napsal(a):
If the light beam is constructed by a special way,
that the light propagates effectively in spirale
( and therefore its vacuum group speed
is slower than vacuum plane wave phase speed ),
than the light beam has orbital angular momentum,
as the sine of angle of momentum and radius is nonzero.
>
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
>
--
> Poutnik
>> As spin means spin angular momentum
>> and Light polarization means patterns
>> in orientation of photon spin angular momentum.....
>
>> Not all light angular momentum is spin angular momentum.
>
> All you refer to as light angular momentum and spin angular momentum
> is only different states of polarisation of beam. Nothing to do with
> momentum or lack of momentum in light beam.
I guess you would agree the light has linear momentum.
>> As spin means spin angular momentum
>> and Light polarization means patterns
>> in orientation of photon spin angular momentum.....
>
>> Not all light angular momentum is spin angular momentum.
>
> All you refer to as light angular momentum and spin angular momentum
> is only different states of polarisation of beam. Nothing to do with
> momentum or lack of momentum in light beam.
If the light beam is constructed by a special way,
that the light propagates effectively in spirale
( and therefore its vacuum group speed
is slower than vacuum plane wave phase speed ),
than the light beam has orbital angular momentum,
as the sine of angle of momentum and radius is nonzero.
>
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
>
jay moseley
Oct 23, 2016, 10:54:34 AM10/23/16
to
Poutnik
>I guess you would agree the light has linear momentum.
Lite imparts energy which could be classified as momentum.
But the only difference between orbital and spin is only
due to differences in polarisation over time. For instance,...
Polarisation changes over time in circular polarised light.
And it also changes in what you call light
with orbital angular momentum. The only difference I can see
between circular polarised light and that called orbital, is that
In circular polarised light the entire beam changes angle of
polarisation in unison. Whereas in orbital different parts of
a beam cross section are at different linear polarisation but
they are still just changing polarisation over time.
Think of it this way. Five clocks in a line with rotating clock
hour hands.
Circular polarised light is the five clock hands rotating in sync.
So all are pointing in the same hour at any one time.
Orbital is just the five clock hands rotating but all pointing to
different hours at any one time.
Both examples are imparting energy or what you call
momentum. But the only way to distinguish between the two
examples is the state and rate of observed polarizations
>If the light beam is constructed by a special way,
>that the light propagates effectively in
- show quoted text -
>I guess you would agree the light has linear momentum.
But the only difference between orbital and spin is only
due to differences in polarisation over time. For instance,...
Polarisation changes over time in circular polarised light.
And it also changes in what you call light
with orbital angular momentum. The only difference I can see
between circular polarised light and that called orbital, is that
In circular polarised light the entire beam changes angle of
polarisation in unison. Whereas in orbital different parts of
a beam cross section are at different linear polarisation but
they are still just changing polarisation over time.
Think of it this way. Five clocks in a line with rotating clock
hour hands.
Circular polarised light is the five clock hands rotating in sync.
So all are pointing in the same hour at any one time.
Orbital is just the five clock hands rotating but all pointing to
different hours at any one time.
Both examples are imparting energy or what you call
momentum. But the only way to distinguish between the two
examples is the state and rate of observed polarizations
>If the light beam is constructed by a special way,
>that the light propagates effectively in
> ( and therefore its vacuum group speed
>is slower than vacuum plane wave phase speed ),
>than the light beam has orbital angular momentum,
>as the sine of angle of momentum and radius is nonzero
--
>is slower than vacuum plane wave phase speed ),
>than the light beam has orbital angular momentum,
>as the sine of angle of momentum and radius is nonzero
- show quoted text -
Michael Moroney
Oct 23, 2016, 2:10:56 PM10/23/16
to
john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:
>Michael
>Why?
Yes, why LeSage type gravitation, when it has been known to be a failed
theory for something like two centuries.
>Michael
>Why?
Yes, why LeSage type gravitation, when it has been known to be a failed
theory for something like two centuries.
Michael Moroney
Oct 23, 2016, 2:13:44 PM10/23/16
to
So if you know it's just babble, why do you continue to babble here?
>Radiation can transfer momentum
>when absorbed, right? But not
>when reflected.
It actually transfer almost twice as much momentum when reflected, but I
don't see how that relates to babbling.
>Radiation can transfer momentum
>when absorbed, right? But not
>when reflected.
don't see how that relates to babbling.
Poutnik
Oct 23, 2016, 4:05:03 PM10/23/16
to
Dne 23/10/2016 v 16:54 jay moseley napsal(a):
Energy of light is just proportional to momentum as E = p.c
> But the only difference between orbital and spin is only
> due to differences in polarisation over time. For instance,...
"The orbital angular momentum of light (OAM) is the component of angular
momentum of a light beam that is dependent on the field spatial
distribution, and not on the polarization"
> Poutnik
>
>> I guess you would agree the light has linear momentum.
>
> Lite imparts energy which could be classified as momentum.
Energy cannot be classified as momentum.
>
>> I guess you would agree the light has linear momentum.
>
> Lite imparts energy which could be classified as momentum.
Energy of light is just proportional to momentum as E = p.c
> But the only difference between orbital and spin is only
> due to differences in polarisation over time. For instance,...
momentum of a light beam that is dependent on the field spatial
distribution, and not on the polarization"
Serigo
Oct 23, 2016, 5:00:03 PM10/23/16
to
On 10/23/2016 3:05 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 23/10/2016 v 16:54 jay moseley napsal(a):
>> Poutnik
>>
>
> Dne 23/10/2016 v 16:54 jay moseley napsal(a):
>> Poutnik
>>
>
> "The orbital angular momentum of light (OAM) is the component of angular
> momentum of a light beam that is dependent on the field spatial
> distribution, and not on the polarization"
>
that part I do not understand, the OAM,
> momentum of a light beam that is dependent on the field spatial
> distribution, and not on the polarization"
>
and isnt field spatial distribution not polarization anyway ?
Double-A
Oct 23, 2016, 6:10:22 PM10/23/16
to
Double-A
john
Oct 23, 2016, 6:48:33 PM10/23/16
to
AA
of the electrons, which they
complain must then
run out,
except it is absorbed by the protons
and returned.
The two complaints cancel.
"- show quoted text -
The trouble with LeSage's " ultra-mundane particle theory is how the particles can deliver enough push for gravity, and yet not deliver so much energy to a body so as to overheat it. However, I don't think the problem is necessarily insoluble. "
The energy comes from the acceleration
of the electrons, which they
complain must then
run out,
except it is absorbed by the protons
and returned.
The two complaints cancel.
reber g=emc^2
Oct 23, 2016, 7:34:05 PM10/23/16
to
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 4:06:00 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
Photons are strong energy coming at you. Photons are weak going away from you.One is a blue dot other is red.Going past you they are not dots of light but long streaks of red. This can be used nicely when in a space ship going at 73% of c TreBewer
> Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
Photons are strong energy coming at you. Photons are weak going away from you.One is a blue dot other is red.Going past you they are not dots of light but long streaks of red. This can be used nicely when in a space ship going at 73% of c TreBewer
reber g=emc^2
Oct 23, 2016, 7:34:52 PM10/23/16
to
reber g=emc^2
Oct 23, 2016, 8:35:26 PM10/23/16
to
hanson
Oct 23, 2016, 10:06:40 PM10/23/16
to
"reber g=emc^2" <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine> wrote:
>> Photons are strong energy coming at you. Photons are weak going away from
>> you.One is a blue dot other is red.Going past you they are not dots of
>> light but long streaks of red. This can be used nicely when in a space
>> ship going at 73% of c TreBewer
>
> Dumbbell fits great with gravity when very large (million LYs) TreBert
>
about which
>> Photons are strong energy coming at you. Photons are weak going away from
>> you.One is a blue dot other is red.Going past you they are not dots of
>> light but long streaks of red. This can be used nicely when in a space
>> ship going at 73% of c TreBewer
>
> Dumbbell fits great with gravity when very large (million LYs) TreBert
>
Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
"Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup."
"Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__."
"Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!."
>
"Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street."
"Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage."
"Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can."
>
"reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" .
"reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.:
"reber, you don't believe in science."
>
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr....@gmail.com>
"Harlow Campbell" succinctly added & wrote:
>
Damn, Glazier you're a stupid mother fucker
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker"....
"Bert you are senile, dazed & confused"
"Bert, you are Fucked in the head.
>
"Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike."
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
>
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
>
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot"... .... .... about which....
>
Aviation Consultant and lecturer at Uni of Irvine and at
Fullerton college Jim Pennino ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit...
Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts.
You know nothing about government nor physics.
You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself.
>
Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saul...@cox.net> wrote:
>
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
>
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
I know, you reber are an idiot. Glazier, you are babbling
desperately. Is it sympathy or pity you're grasping for?
Stop it, either way.
>
benj" Benjamin Franklin Jacoby <nob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was
lobotomized, and is still waiting "to be loved by all"...
>
hanson wrote:
There, there, Glazier. Are they or you on the money? Get the picture.
jay moseley
Oct 24, 2016, 5:42:46 AM10/24/16
to
Poutnik wrote
>Energy cannot be classified as momentum.
>Energy of light is just proportional to momentum as E = p.c
>> But the only difference between orbital and spin is only
>> due to differences in polarisation over time. For instance,...
>"The orbital angular momentum of light (OAM) is the component of angular
>momentum of a light beam that is dependent on the field spatial
>distribution, and not on the polarisation.
In that case if you couldn't measure the polarisation of two beams
of light.....
A beam of circular polarised light and a beam that supposedly has
what you call "orbital angular momentum".
How would you know which beam has the orbital component?
>Energy cannot be classified as momentum.
>Energy of light is just proportional to momentum as E = p.c
>> But the only difference between orbital and spin is only
>> due to differences in polarisation over time. For instance,...
>"The orbital angular momentum of light (OAM) is the component of angular
>momentum of a light beam that is dependent on the field spatial
In that case if you couldn't measure the polarisation of two beams
of light.....
A beam of circular polarised light and a beam that supposedly has
what you call "orbital angular momentum".
How would you know which beam has the orbital component?
Poutnik
Oct 24, 2016, 5:57:58 AM10/24/16
to
Note that OAM of a photon for |m| >= 2 is higher
than the photon spin angular momentum.
jay moseley
Oct 24, 2016, 6:02:14 AM10/24/16
to
Double A wrote...
model HAS to incorporate a detectable aether. Yet there is nothing prerequisite
in any post-MMX classical model that necessitates a detectable aether or vacuum.
Seeing as MMX disproved this possibility.
The same goes for LeSage. The push idea wasn't discredited, contrary to relativists
claims. Just the particle bit. A wave model of push gravity does not need to heat
up. As the wave energy passes through the atom. In the same way that a raised
nodal point of water in a vibrating tray of water is manifested from wave energy
that passes through the nod.
And a push model can appear to be instantaneous at any position in a
gravitational field even if the wave energy in the model has a finite speed.
Because every point in that field already has a " pressure" imbalance.
A simple analogy would be waves on a lake. Even though the waves
have a finite speed from the source, any point on that lake will always
instantly experience waves passing through that point. You don't
have to wait for the waves to reach you from a distant source. At any
one time there are already waves that have travelled from that source to
your distant location. If you move on that lake, you don't have to wait
for new waves to leave the source and travel across the lake to your
distant location.
>The trouble with LeSage's " ultra-mundane particle theory is how the particles can deliver enough push for gravity, and yet not deliver so much energy to a body >so as to overheat it. However, I don't think the problem is necessarily insoluble.
I agree. The same problem occurs with classical physics. Relativists assume that a classical
model HAS to incorporate a detectable aether. Yet there is nothing prerequisite
in any post-MMX classical model that necessitates a detectable aether or vacuum.
Seeing as MMX disproved this possibility.
The same goes for LeSage. The push idea wasn't discredited, contrary to relativists
claims. Just the particle bit. A wave model of push gravity does not need to heat
up. As the wave energy passes through the atom. In the same way that a raised
nodal point of water in a vibrating tray of water is manifested from wave energy
that passes through the nod.
And a push model can appear to be instantaneous at any position in a
gravitational field even if the wave energy in the model has a finite speed.
Because every point in that field already has a " pressure" imbalance.
A simple analogy would be waves on a lake. Even though the waves
have a finite speed from the source, any point on that lake will always
instantly experience waves passing through that point. You don't
have to wait for the waves to reach you from a distant source. At any
one time there are already waves that have travelled from that source to
your distant location. If you move on that lake, you don't have to wait
for new waves to leave the source and travel across the lake to your
distant location.
Poutnik
Oct 24, 2016, 6:02:54 AM10/24/16
to
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 10:04:48 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/23/2016 6:05 AM, john wrote:
> Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
>
Yes.
> Does light/radiation transfer momentum?
>
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 10:07:40 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/23/2016 8:42 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Poutnik
>> And, while photons have spin angular momentum,
>> the specially generated light beam
>> can have also orbital angular momentum.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light
>
> If you study spin, orbital angular momentum etc. It is only polarisation that dictates
> these different terms. Nothing to do with momentum.
Nonsense.
> Poutnik
>> And, while photons have spin angular momentum,
>> the specially generated light beam
>> can have also orbital angular momentum.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light
>
> If you study spin, orbital angular momentum etc. It is only polarisation that dictates
> these different terms. Nothing to do with momentum.
> That is a made up
> classification.
> If you couldn't measure the polarisation of a light beam, could you
> distinguish between spin and orbital states of light?
>
Odd Bodkin
Oct 24, 2016, 10:08:31 AM10/24/16
to
On 10/23/2016 9:54 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Lite imparts energy which could be classified as momentum.
No, momentum and energy are different things and have different
> Lite imparts energy which could be classified as momentum.
conservation laws.
HVAC
Oct 24, 2016, 10:30:25 AM10/24/16
to
Dumbbell fits great with gravity when very large (million LYs) TreBert
I agree Bert. You're a dumbbell
jay moseley
Oct 24, 2016, 2:21:25 PM10/24/16
to
Poutnik Fornntp
>See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light#Exchange_of_spin_and_orbital_angular_momentum_with_matter
If you look at what is making the test particle spin, it is the oscillating
magnetic field in the beam. Regardless of whether the beam has OAM or SAM.
And the direction or angle of the oscillating field is the polarisation of
the beam. The changing polarisation in both types of beams creates the
spin in the test particles.
In a circular polarised beam every point in the oscillating magnetic field is
oriented in the same direction if one takes the cross section of the beam.
Any part of the beam cross section rotates in the same way as the
whole. So any part of a SAM beam cross section that hits a test particle
will impart the same rotation to the test particle. In other words it doesn't
matter where the test particle sits in the beam. It will always rotate on its
axis.
But with OAM, a cross section reveals that the polarisations of the oscillating
magnetic fields all *have different angles of polarisation* through the cross section
in a spiral shape. With the spiral centre of axis being the beams axis. Hence
the beam forces the particle to rotate on the beam axis.
And notice it still is only polarisation that is doing the turning.
In both OAM and SAM.
>See also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light#Exchange_of_spin_and_orbital_angular_momentum_with_matter
If you look at what is making the test particle spin, it is the oscillating
magnetic field in the beam. Regardless of whether the beam has OAM or SAM.
And the direction or angle of the oscillating field is the polarisation of
the beam. The changing polarisation in both types of beams creates the
spin in the test particles.
In a circular polarised beam every point in the oscillating magnetic field is
oriented in the same direction if one takes the cross section of the beam.
Any part of the beam cross section rotates in the same way as the
whole. So any part of a SAM beam cross section that hits a test particle
will impart the same rotation to the test particle. In other words it doesn't
matter where the test particle sits in the beam. It will always rotate on its
axis.
But with OAM, a cross section reveals that the polarisations of the oscillating
magnetic fields all *have different angles of polarisation* through the cross section
in a spiral shape. With the spiral centre of axis being the beams axis. Hence
the beam forces the particle to rotate on the beam axis.
And notice it still is only polarisation that is doing the turning.
In both OAM and SAM.
Poutnik
Oct 24, 2016, 2:57:15 PM10/24/16
to
Dne 24/10/2016 v 20:21 jay moseley napsal(a):
>
> But with OAM, a cross section reveals that the polarisations of the oscillating
> magnetic fields all *have different angles of polarisation* through the cross section
> in a spiral shape. With the spiral centre of axis being the beams axis. Hence
> the beam forces the particle to rotate on the beam axis.
> And notice it still is only polarisation that is doing the turning.
> In both OAM and SAM.
>
I do not dispute the way the twisting beam is created.
It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
forming orbital angular momentum,
that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
Also notice that circular polarization due SOM
makes a single helix of polarization plane,
while a beam with OAM can create
several inter-twinned helixes of wavefronts.
>
> But with OAM, a cross section reveals that the polarisations of the oscillating
> magnetic fields all *have different angles of polarisation* through the cross section
> in a spiral shape. With the spiral centre of axis being the beams axis. Hence
> the beam forces the particle to rotate on the beam axis.
> And notice it still is only polarisation that is doing the turning.
> In both OAM and SAM.
>
It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
forming orbital angular momentum,
that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
Also notice that circular polarization due SOM
makes a single helix of polarization plane,
while a beam with OAM can create
several inter-twinned helixes of wavefronts.
kenseto
Oct 25, 2016, 9:34:03 AM10/25/16
to
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Odd Bodkin
Oct 26, 2016, 10:30:47 AM10/26/16
to
paid attention to, then by your own policy you would have to step
forward morally and buy the book.
john
Oct 26, 2016, 11:16:54 AM10/26/16
to
Odd
isn't it?
If you feel that ALL new ideas are false,
and everything is in peer-reviewed
publications, then you are truly an
idiot.
"John, if you feel that ALL ideas that could save the world need to be "
It's really black or white, for you,
isn't it?
If you feel that ALL new ideas are false,
and everything is in peer-reviewed
publications, then you are truly an
idiot.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 27, 2016, 5:13:59 PM10/27/16
to
On 10/26/2016 10:16 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "John, if you feel that ALL ideas that could save the world need to be "
>
> It's really black or white, for you,
> isn't it?
John, YOU are the one that was saying that all of these fringe ideas
> Odd
> "John, if you feel that ALL ideas that could save the world need to be "
>
> It's really black or white, for you,
> isn't it?
that could potentially save the world need to be looked at seriously IN
CASE they are right. I didn't say that. You did.
Now you seem to be waffling.
> If you feel that ALL new ideas are false,
> and everything is in peer-reviewed
> publications, then you are truly an
> idiot.
john
Oct 27, 2016, 5:27:24 PM10/27/16
to
Odd
then consider?
"I didn't say that either. "
Well, which new ideas would you
then consider?
jay moseley
Oct 28, 2016, 1:24:41 PM10/28/16
to
Poutnik Fornntp
Dne 24/10/2016 v 20:21 jay moseley napsal:
>
>> But with OAM, a cross section reveals that the polarisations of the oscillating
>> magnetic fields all *have different angles of polarisation* through the cross section
>> in a spiral shape. With the spiral centre of axis being the beams axis. Hence
>> the beam forces the particle to rotate on the beam axis.
>> And notice it still is only polarisation that is doing the turning.
>> In both OAM and SAM.
>I do not dispute the way the twisting beam is created.
But the point I'm making here which some dispute is that
one can define and explain SAM and OAM purely as polarisation
Of a light *wave*. No photons needed. The only prerequisite is
that each point in a cross section of a light beam has an oscillating
magnetic field with a particular polarisation direction that either
stays constant in direction( linear) or changes ( OAM,SAM).
This assumption is based on observation.
I have created a short video to hilite the two examples of
Spin and Orbital. Showing how a test particle will have
an induced rotation of its surface by the rotation of the
polarisation fields of the two incident light beams.
https://youtu.be/GODPF5K87wU
Notice that the SAM example will supply rotation
of the test particle always at the particles centre.
Regardless of whether the particle covers the entire
beam or is in one corner of it. As observed.
Whereas the OAM example only induces
symmetrical rotation about the particles axis if the
test particle is receiving the whole beam.
If the particle is only in one part of the beam
as per the bottom right hand square in the video,
the induced rotation is asymmetrical.
It is obvious in the OAM case that the induced
rotation of magnetic fields in the test particle are
not one that has its centre as the test particle centre.
And that this can be described by a wave only model
of light.
>It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
>as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
>forming orbital angular momentum,
>that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
Interesting. You say the same intensity of light
beam will impart faster spin to a test particle if the
beam light has OAM.
>Also notice that circular polarization due SOM
>makes a single helix of polarization plane,
>while a beam with OAM can create
>several inter-twinned helixes of wavefronts?
Dne 24/10/2016 v 20:21 jay moseley napsal:
>
>> But with OAM, a cross section reveals that the polarisations of the oscillating
>> magnetic fields all *have different angles of polarisation* through the cross section
>> in a spiral shape. With the spiral centre of axis being the beams axis. Hence
>> the beam forces the particle to rotate on the beam axis.
>> And notice it still is only polarisation that is doing the turning.
>> In both OAM and SAM.
>I do not dispute the way the twisting beam is created.
one can define and explain SAM and OAM purely as polarisation
Of a light *wave*. No photons needed. The only prerequisite is
that each point in a cross section of a light beam has an oscillating
magnetic field with a particular polarisation direction that either
stays constant in direction( linear) or changes ( OAM,SAM).
This assumption is based on observation.
I have created a short video to hilite the two examples of
Spin and Orbital. Showing how a test particle will have
an induced rotation of its surface by the rotation of the
polarisation fields of the two incident light beams.
https://youtu.be/GODPF5K87wU
Notice that the SAM example will supply rotation
of the test particle always at the particles centre.
Regardless of whether the particle covers the entire
beam or is in one corner of it. As observed.
Whereas the OAM example only induces
symmetrical rotation about the particles axis if the
test particle is receiving the whole beam.
If the particle is only in one part of the beam
as per the bottom right hand square in the video,
the induced rotation is asymmetrical.
It is obvious in the OAM case that the induced
rotation of magnetic fields in the test particle are
not one that has its centre as the test particle centre.
And that this can be described by a wave only model
of light.
>It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
>as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
>forming orbital angular momentum,
>that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
beam will impart faster spin to a test particle if the
beam light has OAM.
>Also notice that circular polarization due SOM
>makes a single helix of polarization plane,
>while a beam with OAM can create
kenseto
Oct 28, 2016, 7:37:24 PM10/28/16
to
jay moseley
Oct 29, 2016, 11:04:21 AM10/29/16
to
Poutnik Fornntp
I have added a new video link to show how the overall
magnetic field of each example rotates. Notice in the OAM
example there are two magnetic bars rather than one rotating.
Four if one considers that each of the two is comprised of
two parallel but opposite magnetic fields. It's possible this
gives more traction, applies more momentum to the test
particle than the single rotating field in SAM . Maybe this
can explain what you say is the greater rotational
momentum observed experimentally in OAM
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
Otherwise essentially the same simulation as explained in my
previous post.
24/10/2016 v 20:21 jay moseley napsal(a):
>
>> But with OAM, a cross section reveals that the polarisations of the oscillating
>> magnetic fields all *have different angles of polarisation* through the cross section
>> in a spiral shape. With the spiral centre of axis being the beams axis. Hence
>> the beam forces the particle to rotate on the beam axis.
>> And notice it still is only polarisation that is doing the turning.
>> In both OAM and SAM.
>I do not dispute the way the twisting beam is created.
>It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
>as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
>forming orbital angular momentum,
>that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
>Also notice that circular polarization due SOM
>makes a single helix of polarization plane,
>while a beam with OAM can create
>several inter-twinned helixes,...
>
>> But with OAM, a cross section reveals that the polarisations of the oscillating
>> magnetic fields all *have different angles of polarisation* through the cross section
>> in a spiral shape. With the spiral centre of axis being the beams axis. Hence
>> the beam forces the particle to rotate on the beam axis.
>> And notice it still is only polarisation that is doing the turning.
>> In both OAM and SAM.
>I do not dispute the way the twisting beam is created.
>It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
>as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
>forming orbital angular momentum,
>that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
>Also notice that circular polarization due SOM
>makes a single helix of polarization plane,
>while a beam with OAM can create
I have added a new video link to show how the overall
magnetic field of each example rotates. Notice in the OAM
example there are two magnetic bars rather than one rotating.
Four if one considers that each of the two is comprised of
two parallel but opposite magnetic fields. It's possible this
gives more traction, applies more momentum to the test
particle than the single rotating field in SAM . Maybe this
can explain what you say is the greater rotational
momentum observed experimentally in OAM
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
Otherwise essentially the same simulation as explained in my
previous post.
noTthaTguY
Oct 29, 2016, 4:14:13 PM10/29/16
to
the atoms are the aetheric entities,
providing photon-electron effects e.g;
after one second, the diameter of the wavefront
is 37,20,00 miles, or 372 kilomiles
providing photon-electron effects e.g;
after one second, the diameter of the wavefront
is 37,20,00 miles, or 372 kilomiles
Odd Bodkin
Oct 29, 2016, 6:12:00 PM10/29/16
to
have been pretty good at coming up with new ideas. I follow those.
jay moseley
Oct 30, 2016, 5:46:25 AM10/30/16
to
NoThatGuy wrote...
bubble of one angle of polarisation which, after one second will
have a diameter of 372 kilomiles
>the atoms are the aetheric entities,
>providing photon-electron effects e.g;
>after one second, the diameter of the wavefront
>is 37,20,00 miles, or 372 kilomiles
I suppose that means that the wavefront is an expanding
>providing photon-electron effects e.g;
>after one second, the diameter of the wavefront
>is 37,20,00 miles, or 372 kilomiles
bubble of one angle of polarisation which, after one second will
have a diameter of 372 kilomiles
Poutnik
Oct 30, 2016, 2:13:01 PM10/30/16
to
Dne 28/10/2016 v 19:24 jay moseley napsal(a):
> Poutnik Fornntp
>
> But the point I'm making here which some dispute is that
> one can define and explain SAM and OAM purely as polarisation
> Of a light *wave*. No photons needed.
But this point fails at quantum level.
with angular momentum of collective photon propagation.
> Poutnik Fornntp
>
> But the point I'm making here which some dispute is that
> one can define and explain SAM and OAM purely as polarisation
> Of a light *wave*. No photons needed.
>
>
>> It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
>> as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
>> forming orbital angular momentum,
>> that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
>
> Interesting. You say the same intensity of light
> beam will impart faster spin to a test particle if the
> beam light has OAM.
You confuse intrinsic photon angular momentum
>
>> It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
>> as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
>> forming orbital angular momentum,
>> that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
>
> Interesting. You say the same intensity of light
> beam will impart faster spin to a test particle if the
> beam light has OAM.
with angular momentum of collective photon propagation.
jay moseley
Oct 31, 2016, 1:35:05 PM10/31/16
to
Poutnik Fornntp
proves this imaginary assumption of yours?
If it's something like the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment
then you are out of luck. This is an experiment that plays with polarisation
only and is consistent at all levels with a classical model.
Like OAM and SAM.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_KekfbrzO74
>>> It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
>>> as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
>>> forming orbital angular momentum,
>>> that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
>
>> Interesting. You say the same intensity of light
>> beam will impart faster spin to a test particle if the
>> beam light has OAM.
>You confuse intrinsic photon angular momentum
>with angular momentum of collective photon propagation.
No I don't. You never mentioned individual vs groups of photons .
You said above that an OAM beam has angular momentum several
times bigger than a spin angular momentum beam. What could that mean
but greater angular momentum for the OAM light beam. And I responded
by saying that this is an interesting fact (if it were true.)
You never specified that you meant a group of photons have more
momentum than an individual photon.
If you had, I would have not responded to something so obvious.
jay moseley napsal(a):
> Poutnik Fornntp
>>
>> But the point I'm making here which some dispute is that
>> one can define and explain SAM and OAM purely as polarisation
>> Of a light *wave*. No photons needed.
>But this point fails at quantum level.
As usual you have no proof of this. What experiment
> Poutnik Fornntp
>>
>> But the point I'm making here which some dispute is that
>> one can define and explain SAM and OAM purely as polarisation
>> Of a light *wave*. No photons needed.
>But this point fails at quantum level.
proves this imaginary assumption of yours?
If it's something like the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment
then you are out of luck. This is an experiment that plays with polarisation
only and is consistent at all levels with a classical model.
Like OAM and SAM.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_KekfbrzO74
>>> It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
>>> as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
>>> forming orbital angular momentum,
>>> that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
>
>> Interesting. You say the same intensity of light
>> beam will impart faster spin to a test particle if the
>> beam light has OAM.
>You confuse intrinsic photon angular momentum
>with angular momentum of collective photon propagation.
You said above that an OAM beam has angular momentum several
times bigger than a spin angular momentum beam. What could that mean
but greater angular momentum for the OAM light beam. And I responded
by saying that this is an interesting fact (if it were true.)
You never specified that you meant a group of photons have more
momentum than an individual photon.
If you had, I would have not responded to something so obvious.
Poutnik
Oct 31, 2016, 1:53:56 PM10/31/16
to
Dne 31/10/2016 v 18:35 jay moseley napsal(a):
> Poutnik Fornntp
>
of quantum physic and chemistry. Wave only classical light theory
is dead for very long time.
> If it's something like the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment
> then you are out of luck. This is an experiment that plays with polarisation
> only and is consistent at all levels with a classical model.
> Like OAM and SAM.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_KekfbrzO74
A light beam of power P and frequency f
provides P/(h.f) photons, each of AM -1/0/+1 . h.
therefore maximum rate of providing SAM related to the polarization
is +/- P/f
OAM of light can provide OM rate +/- N . P/f
with OM / per photon n . f
>
>> You confuse intrinsic photon angular momentum
>> with angular momentum of collective photon propagation.
>
> No I don't. You never mentioned individual vs groups of photons .
> You said above that an OAM beam has angular momentum several
> times bigger than a spin angular momentum beam. What could that mean
> but greater angular momentum for the OAM light beam. And I responded
> by saying that this is an interesting fact (if it were true.)
> You never specified that you meant a group of photons have more
> momentum than an individual photon.
> If you had, I would have not responded to something so obvious.
>
Yes, it is obvious tha OM n., abs(n) > 1
cannot be provided by polarization.
> Poutnik Fornntp
>
>> But this point fails at quantum level.
>
> As usual you have no proof of this. What experiment
> proves this imaginary assumption of yours?
1905 - Einstein - photoelectricity effect and many later experiments
>
> As usual you have no proof of this. What experiment
> proves this imaginary assumption of yours?
of quantum physic and chemistry. Wave only classical light theory
is dead for very long time.
> If it's something like the Delayed choice quantum eraser experiment
> then you are out of luck. This is an experiment that plays with polarisation
> only and is consistent at all levels with a classical model.
> Like OAM and SAM.
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_KekfbrzO74
provides P/(h.f) photons, each of AM -1/0/+1 . h.
therefore maximum rate of providing SAM related to the polarization
is +/- P/f
OAM of light can provide OM rate +/- N . P/f
with OM / per photon n . f
>
>> You confuse intrinsic photon angular momentum
>> with angular momentum of collective photon propagation.
>
> No I don't. You never mentioned individual vs groups of photons .
> You said above that an OAM beam has angular momentum several
> times bigger than a spin angular momentum beam. What could that mean
> but greater angular momentum for the OAM light beam. And I responded
> by saying that this is an interesting fact (if it were true.)
> You never specified that you meant a group of photons have more
> momentum than an individual photon.
> If you had, I would have not responded to something so obvious.
>
cannot be provided by polarization.
noTthaTguY
Oct 31, 2016, 3:17:49 PM10/31/16
to
this is only his interpretation of the experiment,
before any experiment was concieved
before any experiment was concieved
Poutnik
Oct 31, 2016, 4:19:12 PM10/31/16
to
Many later...
Do not beat a dead horse of the classical wave theory,
it was refuted by huge experimental evidence long time ago.
Dne 31/10/2016 v 20:17 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
Do not beat a dead horse of the classical wave theory,
it was refuted by huge experimental evidence long time ago.
Dne 31/10/2016 v 20:17 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
> this is only his interpretation of the experiment,
> before any experiment was concieved
>
>> 1905 - Einstein - photoelectricity effect and many later experiments
>> of quantum physic and chemistry. Wave only classical light theory
>> is dead for very long time.
>>
> before any experiment was concieved
>
>> 1905 - Einstein - photoelectricity effect and many later experiments
>> of quantum physic and chemistry. Wave only classical light theory
>> is dead for very long time.
>>
Poutnik
Oct 31, 2016, 4:26:09 PM10/31/16
to
In fact, it was already Planck in 1900 who gave a strong hint,
solving the "UV catastrophe" failure of classical theories
for the black body radiation.
But he was not yet aware
of the discrete nature of the EM radiation.
Dne 31/10/2016 v 20:17 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
solving the "UV catastrophe" failure of classical theories
for the black body radiation.
But he was not yet aware
of the discrete nature of the EM radiation.
Dne 31/10/2016 v 20:17 noTthaTguY napsal(a):
> this is only his interpretation of the experiment,
> before any experiment was concieved
>
>> 1905 - Einstein - photoelectricity effect and many later experiments
>> of quantum physic and chemistry. Wave only classical light theory
>> is dead for very long time.
>>
> before any experiment was concieved
>
>> 1905 - Einstein - photoelectricity effect and many later experiments
>> of quantum physic and chemistry. Wave only classical light theory
>> is dead for very long time.
>>
noTthaTguY
Oct 31, 2016, 7:25:41 PM10/31/16
to
that is just the quantization of the orbital numbers,
all four of which are actually keplerian, but
I know of only one reference,
where hyperbolic orbitals are considered, but
taht is in terms of system Sol
so, when was the first experiment of the p.e effect?
it would be quite simple to explain it
in terms of waves being recieved
by the experimental set-up
> solving the "UV catastrophe" failure of classical theories
> for the black body radiation.
>
> But he was not yet aware
> of the discrete nature of the EM radiation.
all four of which are actually keplerian, but
I know of only one reference,
where hyperbolic orbitals are considered, but
taht is in terms of system Sol
so, when was the first experiment of the p.e effect?
it would be quite simple to explain it
in terms of waves being recieved
by the experimental set-up
> solving the "UV catastrophe" failure of classical theories
> for the black body radiation.
>
> But he was not yet aware
> of the discrete nature of the EM radiation.
jay moseley
Nov 1, 2016, 5:12:13 AM11/1/16
to
Poutnik Fornntp
I've already asked you and you avoid answering. You argue for
a photon model but offer no explanation or evidences to show
that a wave only model cannot be consistent with observation.
As all religious fanatics do. So I ask again..
Where is your experimental proof to back up the assumption that light cannot
be consistent with a wave only classical model?
Dne 31/10/2016 v 18:35 jay moseley napsal
>> As usual you have no proof of this. What experiment
>> proves this imaginary assumption of yours?
>1905 - Einstein - photoelectricity effect and many later experiments
>of quantum physic and chemistry. Wave only classical light theory
>is dead for very long time.
This is an erroneous assumption with no supporting evidence.
>> proves this imaginary assumption of yours?
>1905 - Einstein - photoelectricity effect and many later experiments
>of quantum physic and chemistry. Wave only classical light theory
>is dead for very long time.
I've already asked you and you avoid answering. You argue for
a photon model but offer no explanation or evidences to show
that a wave only model cannot be consistent with observation.
As all religious fanatics do. So I ask again..
Where is your experimental proof to back up the assumption that light cannot
be consistent with a wave only classical model?
jay moseley
Nov 1, 2016, 5:20:26 AM11/1/16
to
Poutnik..
explain the example. Then to show how classical cannot do this,...
you invoke the photon model!. What's your problem pouty?
Obviously you cant tell the difference between the two models.
>A light beam of power P and frequency f
>provides P/(h.f) photons, each of AM -1/0/+1 . h.
>therefore maximum rate of providing SAM related to the polarization
>is +/- P/f
>OAM of light can provide OM rate +/- N . P/f
>with OM / per photon n . f
This is an example of your problem. You say a classical model cannot
>provides P/(h.f) photons, each of AM -1/0/+1 . h.
>therefore maximum rate of providing SAM related to the polarization
>is +/- P/f
>OAM of light can provide OM rate +/- N . P/f
>with OM / per photon n . f
explain the example. Then to show how classical cannot do this,...
you invoke the photon model!. What's your problem pouty?
Obviously you cant tell the difference between the two models.
pora...@gmail.com
Nov 1, 2016, 5:20:32 AM11/1/16
to
On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 8:13:01 PM UTC+2, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 28/10/2016 v 19:24 jay moseley napsal(a):
> > Poutnik Fornntp
>
> >
> > But the point I'm making here which some dispute is that
> > one can define and explain SAM and OAM purely as polarisation
> > Of a light *wave*. No photons needed.
>
> But this point fails at quantum level.
> >
> >
> >> It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
> >> as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
> >> forming orbital angular momentum,
> >> that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
> >
> > Interesting. You say the same intensity of light
> > beam will impart faster spin to a test particle if the
> > beam light has OAM.
>
> You confuse intrinsic photon angular momentum
> with angular momentum of collective photon propagation.
>=================
> Dne 28/10/2016 v 19:24 jay moseley napsal(a):
> > Poutnik Fornntp
>
> >
> > But the point I'm making here which some dispute is that
> > one can define and explain SAM and OAM purely as polarisation
> > Of a light *wave*. No photons needed.
>
> But this point fails at quantum level.
> >
> >
> >> It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
> >> as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
> >> forming orbital angular momentum,
> >> that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
> >
> > Interesting. You say the same intensity of light
> > beam will impart faster spin to a test particle if the
> > beam light has OAM.
>
> You confuse intrinsic photon angular momentum
> with angular momentum of collective photon propagation.
sound reasonable for me
because according to my findings
E-h f
is not the single photon energy
IT IS RATHER THE ENERGY OF A HUGE BUNDLE OF SINGLE PHOTONS !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
===============================
Poutnik
Nov 1, 2016, 5:26:13 AM11/1/16
to
On 11/01/2016 10:12 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Poutnik Fornntp
> Dne 31/10/2016 v 18:35 jay moseley napsal
>
>>> As usual you have no proof of this. What experiment
>>> proves this imaginary assumption of yours?
>
>> 1905 - Einstein - photoelectricity effect and many later experiments
>> of quantum physic and chemistry. Wave only classical light theory
>> is dead for very long time.
> This is an erroneous assumption with no supporting evidence.
>
> I've already asked you and you avoid answering. You argue for
> a photon model but offer no explanation or evidences to show
> that a wave only model cannot be consistent with observation.
> As all religious fanatics do. So I ask again..
> Where is your experimental proof to back up the assumption that light cannot
> be consistent with a wave only classical model?
>
Well, religious fanatics refute to become familiar
> Poutnik Fornntp
> Dne 31/10/2016 v 18:35 jay moseley napsal
>
>>> As usual you have no proof of this. What experiment
>>> proves this imaginary assumption of yours?
>
>> 1905 - Einstein - photoelectricity effect and many later experiments
>> of quantum physic and chemistry. Wave only classical light theory
>> is dead for very long time.
> This is an erroneous assumption with no supporting evidence.
>
> I've already asked you and you avoid answering. You argue for
> a photon model but offer no explanation or evidences to show
> that a wave only model cannot be consistent with observation.
> As all religious fanatics do. So I ask again..
> Where is your experimental proof to back up the assumption that light cannot
> be consistent with a wave only classical model?
>
with advances of physics since late 19th century.
Poutnik
Nov 1, 2016, 5:41:05 AM11/1/16
to
substituting attacking of arguments
by attacking the people and tweaking the nicks.
Light can carry energy only in E = h.f energy quanta,
with this energy package carrying linear momentum p = E/c
and angular momentum h
( Unless the energy propagation direction is twisted.
Energy propagation direction of circularly polarized light
is not twisted. ).
This is not addressable by continuous classical wave theory.
jay moseley
Nov 1, 2016, 7:41:35 AM11/1/16
to
Poutnik...
But I can guess.
But if you want to people to treat you with respect.
Treat *them* with respect.
>Light can carry energy only in E = h.f energy quanta,
Incorrect assumption. In fact this quantisation of light
is only observed at detectors. And it is not known experimentally
or observationally if this quantisation is due to a photon incident
upon an atom. Or,..continuous wave energy being quantised
into discreet amounts and released to the circuit.
>with this energy package carrying linear momentum p = E/c
>and angular momentum h
You have no proof that angular momentum cannot be due
to polarisation of waves only...
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
>( Unless the energy propagation direction is twisted.
>Energy propagation direction of circularly polarized light
>is not twisted. ).
Orbital angular momentum in light is due only to the
changing polarisation over time at any point in the light
beam. And this changing polarisation over time is what
also defines circular polarised light. As my link explains.
Both OAM and SAM are due solely to changing angle
of polarisation in the beam. The only difference is the
distribution across the beam.
So imagine a line of ten propellors. In SAM these propellors
all rotate at the same angle. In OAM these propellors all have
different angles at any one point but all still rotate at the same
speed as SAM. Same amount of energy in each beam . The beam
does not gain energy when it goes through the spiral wave
plate.
>This is not addressable by continuous classical wave theory.
You repeatedly make this erroneous claim and continuously
invoke E= hf as proof of this. How is it that this formula
cannot model quantities of continuous wave energy being
quantised at the atom?
>Well, I have problem with people
>substituting attacking of arguments
>by attacking the people and tweaking the nicks.
? Tweaking the nicks is a term I'm not familiar with.
>substituting attacking of arguments
>by attacking the people and tweaking the nicks.
But I can guess.
But if you want to people to treat you with respect.
Treat *them* with respect.
>Light can carry energy only in E = h.f energy quanta,
is only observed at detectors. And it is not known experimentally
or observationally if this quantisation is due to a photon incident
upon an atom. Or,..continuous wave energy being quantised
into discreet amounts and released to the circuit.
>with this energy package carrying linear momentum p = E/c
>and angular momentum h
to polarisation of waves only...
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
>( Unless the energy propagation direction is twisted.
>Energy propagation direction of circularly polarized light
>is not twisted. ).
changing polarisation over time at any point in the light
beam. And this changing polarisation over time is what
also defines circular polarised light. As my link explains.
Both OAM and SAM are due solely to changing angle
of polarisation in the beam. The only difference is the
distribution across the beam.
So imagine a line of ten propellors. In SAM these propellors
all rotate at the same angle. In OAM these propellors all have
different angles at any one point but all still rotate at the same
speed as SAM. Same amount of energy in each beam . The beam
does not gain energy when it goes through the spiral wave
plate.
>This is not addressable by continuous classical wave theory.
invoke E= hf as proof of this. How is it that this formula
cannot model quantities of continuous wave energy being
quantised at the atom?
jay moseley
Nov 1, 2016, 7:55:45 AM11/1/16
to
Poutnik
The UV catastrophe argument is a joke. It assumes that a
classical model has to incorporate photons and then,
to make sure it fails it assumes an infinite amount of energy
is emitted when as we all know this is untrue.
And e=hf also models how light can be quantised at an
atom. It is not ignorance and prejudice only that says that
plancks calculations cannot be applied to a model that
has quantisation of continuous wave energy at the detector
>But he was not yet aware
>of the discrete nature of the EM radiation.
There never has been any evidence to show the discreet
nature of emr. Which is why even after repeated requests,
you have failed to supply a single example of experimental
observation that backs up this erroneous claim.
>In fact, it was already Planck in 1900 who gave a strong hint,
>solving the "UV catastrophe" failure of classical theories
>for the black body radiation.
Planck failed to understand the vacuous nature of the UV argument.
>solving the "UV catastrophe" failure of classical theories
>for the black body radiation.
The UV catastrophe argument is a joke. It assumes that a
classical model has to incorporate photons and then,
to make sure it fails it assumes an infinite amount of energy
is emitted when as we all know this is untrue.
And e=hf also models how light can be quantised at an
atom. It is not ignorance and prejudice only that says that
plancks calculations cannot be applied to a model that
has quantisation of continuous wave energy at the detector
>But he was not yet aware
>of the discrete nature of the EM radiation.
nature of emr. Which is why even after repeated requests,
you have failed to supply a single example of experimental
observation that backs up this erroneous claim.
Poutnik
Nov 1, 2016, 3:21:23 PM11/1/16
to
Dne 01/11/2016 v 12:41 jay moseley napsal(a):
> Poutnik...
> ? Tweaking the nicks is a term I'm not familiar with.
> But I can guess.
> But if you want to people to treat you with respect.
> Treat *them* with respect.
Rather reversed.
You started using terms like fanatic and Pout,
with being well aware from the signature
that English term -pout-
has nothing to do with ancient Slavic root -put- ?
>> Light can carry energy only in E = h.f energy quanta,
>
> Incorrect assumption. In fact this quantisation of light
> is only observed at detectors. And it is not known experimentally
> or observationally if this quantisation is due to a photon incident
> upon an atom. Or,..continuous wave energy being quantised
> into discreet amounts and released to the circuit.
Incorrect assumption.
1/ Experimental data agree wit above
and no data are available for the opposite
2/ it is not limited to atoms.
>
>> with this energy package carrying linear momentum p = E/c
>> and angular momentum h
>
> You have no proof that angular momentum cannot be due
> to polarisation of waves only...
> https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
Planar wavefront polarized waves propagates at c.
Twisted wavefront waves do not.
>> This is not addressable by continuous classical wave theory.
>
> You repeatedly make this erroneous claim and continuously
> invoke E= hf as proof of this. How is it that this formula
> cannot model quantities of continuous wave energy being
> quantised at the atom?
How is the wave theory cannot model
emission / absorption of EM energy by free particles ?
> Poutnik...
> ? Tweaking the nicks is a term I'm not familiar with.
> But I can guess.
> But if you want to people to treat you with respect.
> Treat *them* with respect.
You started using terms like fanatic and Pout,
with being well aware from the signature
that English term -pout-
has nothing to do with ancient Slavic root -put- ?
>> Light can carry energy only in E = h.f energy quanta,
>
> Incorrect assumption. In fact this quantisation of light
> is only observed at detectors. And it is not known experimentally
> or observationally if this quantisation is due to a photon incident
> upon an atom. Or,..continuous wave energy being quantised
> into discreet amounts and released to the circuit.
1/ Experimental data agree wit above
and no data are available for the opposite
2/ it is not limited to atoms.
>
>> with this energy package carrying linear momentum p = E/c
>> and angular momentum h
>
> You have no proof that angular momentum cannot be due
> to polarisation of waves only...
> https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
Twisted wavefront waves do not.
>> This is not addressable by continuous classical wave theory.
>
> You repeatedly make this erroneous claim and continuously
> invoke E= hf as proof of this. How is it that this formula
> cannot model quantities of continuous wave energy being
> quantised at the atom?
emission / absorption of EM energy by free particles ?
Poutnik
Nov 1, 2016, 3:31:23 PM11/1/16
to
Dne 01/11/2016 v 12:55 jay moseley napsal(a):
Planck did not work with the concept of photons
and quantized light at all.
UV catastrophe is applying pure classical wave theory.
This unsolved problem came before Planck started his analysis.
> And e=hf also models how light can be quantised at an
> atom. It is not ignorance and prejudice only that says that
> plancks calculations cannot be applied to a model that
> has quantisation of continuous wave energy at the detector
Wrong assumption, as not limited to atoms,
and as Planck did not consider quantized nature of light.
If I am not an author or developer and theory
nor I am experimentator providing evidences
and
if I do not provide evidence for theory predictions
it DOES NOT mean the theory is wrong.
It rather means you wish it were wrong.
> Poutnik
>> In fact, it was already Planck in 1900 who gave a strong hint,
>> solving the "UV catastrophe" failure of classical theories
>> for the black body radiation.
>
> Planck failed to understand the vacuous nature of the UV argument.
> The UV catastrophe argument is a joke. It assumes that a
> classical model has to incorporate photons and then,
> to make sure it fails it assumes an infinite amount of energy
> is emitted when as we all know this is untrue.
Wrong assumption.
>> In fact, it was already Planck in 1900 who gave a strong hint,
>> solving the "UV catastrophe" failure of classical theories
>> for the black body radiation.
>
> Planck failed to understand the vacuous nature of the UV argument.
> The UV catastrophe argument is a joke. It assumes that a
> classical model has to incorporate photons and then,
> to make sure it fails it assumes an infinite amount of energy
> is emitted when as we all know this is untrue.
Planck did not work with the concept of photons
and quantized light at all.
UV catastrophe is applying pure classical wave theory.
This unsolved problem came before Planck started his analysis.
> And e=hf also models how light can be quantised at an
> atom. It is not ignorance and prejudice only that says that
> plancks calculations cannot be applied to a model that
> has quantisation of continuous wave energy at the detector
and as Planck did not consider quantized nature of light.
>
>> But he was not yet aware
>> of the discrete nature of the EM radiation.
>
> There never has been any evidence to show the discreet
> nature of emr. Which is why even after repeated requests,
> you have failed to supply a single example of experimental
> observation that backs up this erroneous claim.
Incorrect assumption and flawed logic.
>> But he was not yet aware
>> of the discrete nature of the EM radiation.
>
> There never has been any evidence to show the discreet
> nature of emr. Which is why even after repeated requests,
> you have failed to supply a single example of experimental
> observation that backs up this erroneous claim.
If I am not an author or developer and theory
nor I am experimentator providing evidences
and
if I do not provide evidence for theory predictions
it DOES NOT mean the theory is wrong.
It rather means you wish it were wrong.
Poutnik
Nov 1, 2016, 3:58:11 PM11/1/16
to
Dne 01/11/2016 v 12:41 jay moseley napsal(a):
> Poutnik...
>
> Poutnik...
>
>> with this energy package carrying linear momentum p = E/c
>> and angular momentum h
>
> You have no proof that angular momentum cannot be due
> to polarisation of waves only...
Science does not know proofs
>> and angular momentum h
>
> You have no proof that angular momentum cannot be due
> to polarisation of waves only...
but for the consistence of its mathematical models.
But math does know proofs and it is enough
to have the mathematical proof that
the vector product of 2 nonzero noncolinear vectors
is nonzero vector, proportional to OAM.
As local linear momentum vectors of the light
are not in direction of OAM beam propagation,
in contrary to circularly polarized light
but twisted along the propagation axis.
And this is independent and additive to the polarization.
jay moseley
Nov 2, 2016, 6:57:23 AM11/2/16
to
Poutnik...
>> ? Tweaking the nicks is a term I'm not familiar with.
>> But I can guess.
>> But if you want to people to treat you with respect.
>> Treat *them* with respect.
>Rather reversed.
>You started using terms like fanatic and Pout,
>with being well aware from the signature
>that English term -pout-
>has nothing to do with ancient Slavic root -put- ?
Typical arrogance. It's Ok for you to insult but not so
>> ? Tweaking the nicks is a term I'm not familiar with.
>> But I can guess.
>> But if you want to people to treat you with respect.
>> Treat *them* with respect.
>Rather reversed.
>You started using terms like fanatic and Pout,
>with being well aware from the signature
>that English term -pout-
>has nothing to do with ancient Slavic root -put- ?
when it is thrown back in your face.
Here's the context starting with your quote...
(Poutnik)
>>> It is twisted direction of wavefront propagation that makes OAM,
>>> as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
>>> forming orbital angular momentum,
>>> that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
(Jay Moseley)
>>> as it is a linear momentum turning around the axis,
>>> forming orbital angular momentum,
>>> that can be several times bigger than spind angular momentum.
>> Interesting. You say the same intensity of light
>> beam will impart faster spin to a test particle if the
>> beam light has OAM.
(Poutnik)
>> beam will impart faster spin to a test particle if the
>> beam light has OAM.
>You confuse intrinsic photon angular momentum
>with angular momentum of collective photon propagation.
I didn't confuse anything. You said OAM beam imparted
>with angular momentum of collective photon propagation.
greater angular orbital momentum. And I responded by
saying "interesting". In your arrogance and confusion you decided
to pretend I was confused about some other imaginary problem
you concocted. Which I found insulting. So I replied with an insult back
So, if you don't want to be insulted, cut the effing insults.
And secondly .. I asked you many times for your experimental proof
that shows light cannot be wave only. Yet You repeatedly refuse
to supply evidence or explanation. All you say is the same
ad nauseum " Einsteins photoelectric etc etc.." As if this were
an answer to my question. Pretending that I'm stupid enough to
fall for such a pathetic trick
That isn't experimental proof. It's a paper written about an imaginary
particle that hasn't ever been observed.
jay moseley
Nov 2, 2016, 7:14:02 AM11/2/16
to
Poutnik
claims, so you insult me yet again by pretending that this evidence
exists. But hope I won't notice your inability to supply any documented
evidence that shows that experimental data does not agree with a
travels at c. Your twisted wavefronts are imaginary subsets
that have been concocted to try to explain why OAM
cannot be explained by a photon model. You cannot explain
how a polarised beam can impart OAM. So you pretend
that the changing polarisation within the cross section of the
beam that I described in my video is a twisted wavefront that
isn't travelling at c.
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
>>> This is not addressable by continuous classical wave theory.
>
>> You repeatedly make this erroneous claim and continuously
>> invoke E= hf as proof of this. How is it that this formula
>> cannot model quantities of continuous wave energy being
>> quantised at the atom?
>How is the wave theory cannot model
>emission / absorption of EM energy by free particles ?
You imagine this. Show me experimental evidence and analysis that
confirms that this feat cannot be consistent with a wave model
of light.
>
>>> Light can carry energy only in E = h.f energy quanta,
>
>> Incorrect assumption. In fact this quantisation of light
>> is only observed at detectors. And it is not known experimentally
>> or observationally if this quantisation is due to a photon incident
>> upon an atom. Or,..continuous wave energy being quantised
>> into discreet amounts and released to the circuit.
>Incorrect assumption.
>1/ Experimental data agree wit above
>and no data are available for the opposite
>2/ it is not limited to atoms.
As usual you are unable to supply evidence for your erroneous
>>> Light can carry energy only in E = h.f energy quanta,
>
>> Incorrect assumption. In fact this quantisation of light
>> is only observed at detectors. And it is not known experimentally
>> or observationally if this quantisation is due to a photon incident
>> upon an atom. Or,..continuous wave energy being quantised
>> into discreet amounts and released to the circuit.
>Incorrect assumption.
>1/ Experimental data agree wit above
>and no data are available for the opposite
>2/ it is not limited to atoms.
claims, so you insult me yet again by pretending that this evidence
exists. But hope I won't notice your inability to supply any documented
evidence that shows that experimental data does not agree with a
wave only model of light.
>
>
>>> with this energy package carrying linear momentum p = E/c
>>> and angular momentum h
>
>> You have no proof that angular momentum cannot be due
>> to polarisation of waves only...
>>> and angular momentum h
>
>> You have no proof that angular momentum cannot be due
>> to polarisation of waves only...
>Planar wavefront polarized waves propagates at c.
>Twisted wavefront waves do not.
Total nonsense as usual. The light beam itself always
>Twisted wavefront waves do not.
travels at c. Your twisted wavefronts are imaginary subsets
that have been concocted to try to explain why OAM
cannot be explained by a photon model. You cannot explain
how a polarised beam can impart OAM. So you pretend
that the changing polarisation within the cross section of the
beam that I described in my video is a twisted wavefront that
isn't travelling at c.
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
>>> This is not addressable by continuous classical wave theory.
>
>> You repeatedly make this erroneous claim and continuously
>> invoke E= hf as proof of this. How is it that this formula
>> cannot model quantities of continuous wave energy being
>> quantised at the atom?
>How is the wave theory cannot model
>emission / absorption of EM energy by free particles ?
confirms that this feat cannot be consistent with a wave model
of light.
Poutnik
Nov 2, 2016, 11:22:05 AM11/2/16
to
On 11/02/2016 11:57 AM, jay moseley wrote:
>
> I didn't confuse anything. You said OAM beam imparted
> greater angular orbital momentum. And I responded by
> saying "interesting". In your arrogance and confusion you decided
> to pretend I was confused about some other imaginary problem
> you concocted. Which I found insulting. So I replied with an insult back
> So, if you don't want to be insulted, cut the effing insults.
> And secondly .. I asked you many times for your experimental proof
> that shows light cannot be wave only. Yet You repeatedly refuse
> to supply evidence or explanation. All you say is the same
> ad nauseum " Einsteins photoelectric etc etc.." As if this were
> an answer to my question. Pretending that I'm stupid enough to
> fall for such a pathetic trick.
>
> I didn't confuse anything. You said OAM beam imparted
> greater angular orbital momentum. And I responded by
> saying "interesting". In your arrogance and confusion you decided
> to pretend I was confused about some other imaginary problem
> you concocted. Which I found insulting. So I replied with an insult back
> So, if you don't want to be insulted, cut the effing insults.
> And secondly .. I asked you many times for your experimental proof
> that shows light cannot be wave only. Yet You repeatedly refuse
> to supply evidence or explanation. All you say is the same
> ad nauseum " Einsteins photoelectric etc etc.." As if this were
> an answer to my question. Pretending that I'm stupid enough to
> That isn't experimental proof. It's a paper written about an imaginary
> particle that hasn't ever been observed.
If you ignore to learn basic advances of physics in last 130 years,
> particle that hasn't ever been observed.
it is your decision you have the right to do.
But if you suppose I am willing or able to substitute it
by several posts, then your thinking is not wise.
I do not suppose I will continue discussion in this thread....
---------------
OAM:
Existance of light OAM
has nothing to do ( but values ) with quantum theory.
Wave with twisted wavefront has local vectors of momentum
not aligned with the beam propagation vector.
This creates nonzero OAM purely due Newtonian physics,
what has nothing to do with polarization.
As polarization does not affect
orientation of momentum vector wrt beam propagation vector.
--------------
Back to quantum theory:
Yes, atom energy transitions are quantized.
But the point is, each energy transition dE ,
quantized like in atomes/molecules, or not quantized like for free
particles,
can produce only EM radiation of frequency E/h,
resp. wavelength of h.c/E.
Reversally, EM radiation of frequency E/h, or wavelength of h.c/E
can provide by energy E.
The problem with classical wave theory is that
1/ It has no use for planck constant h
2/ Classical wave of any frequency or wavelength
can provide any energy or by generated by any energy.
Poutnik
Nov 2, 2016, 11:26:53 AM11/2/16
to
On 11/02/2016 12:13 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Poutnik
>>
>>>> Light can carry energy only in E = h.f energy quanta,
>>
>>> Incorrect assumption. In fact this quantisation of light
>>> is only observed at detectors. And it is not known experimentally
>>> or observationally if this quantisation is due to a photon incident
>>> upon an atom. Or,..continuous wave energy being quantised
>>> into discreet amounts and released to the circuit.
>
>> Incorrect assumption.
>> 1/ Experimental data agree wit above
>> and no data are available for the opposite
>> 2/ it is not limited to atoms.
>
> As usual you are unable to supply evidence for your erroneous
> claims, so you insult me yet again by pretending that this evidence
> exists.
Do you consider this weird logic really serious ?
> Poutnik
>>
>>>> Light can carry energy only in E = h.f energy quanta,
>>
>>> Incorrect assumption. In fact this quantisation of light
>>> is only observed at detectors. And it is not known experimentally
>>> or observationally if this quantisation is due to a photon incident
>>> upon an atom. Or,..continuous wave energy being quantised
>>> into discreet amounts and released to the circuit.
>
>> Incorrect assumption.
>> 1/ Experimental data agree wit above
>> and no data are available for the opposite
>> 2/ it is not limited to atoms.
>
> As usual you are unable to supply evidence for your erroneous
> claims, so you insult me yet again by pretending that this evidence
> exists.
Now I will insult you intentionally for the first time:
[insult]
Take your lazy ass and finally learn basics of theoretical and
experimental advances of physics since 19th century,
instead of pretending nothing like that exists.
[/insult]
There is no reason to continue this not even funny discussion.
noTthaTguY
Nov 2, 2016, 8:48:11 PM11/2/16
to
very nice hypothesis, although
hte formulation due to Liebniz is not really
in the most parsimonious format,
which is a very small matter, of course
hte formulation due to Liebniz is not really
in the most parsimonious format,
which is a very small matter, of course
jay moseley
Nov 3, 2016, 4:47:18 AM11/3/16
to
Poutnik
It is an erroneous assumption that the change in direction of
the polarisation of the beam is the same as a change in direction of the
beam or the wavefront. Your apparent angular momentum
is in fact due to a rotating polarised angle which induces a
sympathetic rotation in the test particle. When the beam is travelling
in a straight line at c. You have no evidence to show that the light
beam is twisting or travelling in any different direction than the
original beam direction.
The beam isn't twisting. The polarised angle at any point
in the beam cross section is rotating only. Independent of any
other part of the beam.
>> You have no proof that angular momentum cannot be due
>> to polarisation of waves only...
>Science does not know proofs
but for the consistence of its mathematical models.
>But math does know proofs and it is enough
to have the mathematical proof that
the vector product of 2 nonzero noncolinear vectors
is nonzero vector, proportional to OAM.
>As local linear momentum vectors of the light
are not in direction of OAM beam propagation,
in contrary to circularly polarized light
but twisted along the propagation axis.
>And this is independent and additive to the polarisation.
>> to polarisation of waves only...
>Science does not know proofs
but for the consistence of its mathematical models.
>But math does know proofs and it is enough
to have the mathematical proof that
the vector product of 2 nonzero noncolinear vectors
is nonzero vector, proportional to OAM.
>As local linear momentum vectors of the light
are not in direction of OAM beam propagation,
in contrary to circularly polarized light
but twisted along the propagation axis.
It is an erroneous assumption that the change in direction of
the polarisation of the beam is the same as a change in direction of the
beam or the wavefront. Your apparent angular momentum
is in fact due to a rotating polarised angle which induces a
sympathetic rotation in the test particle. When the beam is travelling
in a straight line at c. You have no evidence to show that the light
beam is twisting or travelling in any different direction than the
original beam direction.
The beam isn't twisting. The polarised angle at any point
in the beam cross section is rotating only. Independent of any
other part of the beam.
jay moseley
Nov 3, 2016, 5:04:11 AM11/3/16
to
Poutnik
>>> In fact, it was already Planck in 1900 who gave a strong hint,
>>> solving the "UV catastrophe" failure of classical theories
>>> for the black body radiation.
>
>> Planck failed to understand the vacuous nature of the UV argument.
>> The UV catastrophe argument is a joke. It assumes that a
>> classical model has to incorporate photons and then,
>> to make sure it fails it assumes an infinite amount of energy
>> is emitted when as we all know this is untrue.
>Wrong assumption.
>Planck did not work with the concept of photons
>and quantized light at all.
True, but nonetheless the UV catastrophe argument was
>>> In fact, it was already Planck in 1900 who gave a strong hint,
>>> solving the "UV catastrophe" failure of classical theories
>>> for the black body radiation.
>
>> Planck failed to understand the vacuous nature of the UV argument.
>> The UV catastrophe argument is a joke. It assumes that a
>> classical model has to incorporate photons and then,
>> to make sure it fails it assumes an infinite amount of energy
>> is emitted when as we all know this is untrue.
>Wrong assumption.
>Planck did not work with the concept of photons
>and quantized light at all.
flawed. It assumes , incorrectly that infinite amounts
of energy are released. This is impossible and not
observed. This wasn't a failure of classical physics. But
a failure of people like Rayleigh Jeans. Bad maths.
All Planck did was add a mathematical constant to accurately
reflect what was observed.
>UV catastrophe is applying pure classical wave theory.
>This unsolved problem came before Planck started his analysis.
with any classical model.
>> And e=hf also models how light can be quantised at an
>> atom. It is not ignorance and prejudice only that says that
>> plancks calculations cannot be applied to a model that
>> has quantisation of continuous wave energy at the detector
>Wrong assumption, as not limited to atoms,
>and as Planck did not consider quantized nature of light.
was up to idiots like Albert. But nothing in e=hf says that
it cannot apply to a quantisation of wave only light at the atom.
And so far despite repeated requests, the only evidence you can
supply to support your claim is ..zero evidence.
jay moseley
Nov 3, 2016, 5:23:57 AM11/3/16
to
Poutnik
Relativity for starters. I'll stick to observation only and let
you fantasise about imaginary unobserved assumptions.
>But if you suppose I am willing or able to substitute it
by several posts, then your thinking is not wise.
>I do not suppose I will continue discussion in this thread....
---------------
>OAM:
Existance of light OAM
has nothing to do ( but values ) with quantum theory.
>Wave with twisted wavefront has local vectors of momentum
>not aligned with the beam propagation vector.
The wave front isn't twisted. There is no evidence for this fantasy.
What is actually happening is the beam is travelling
in a straight line and the polarisation angle at any point
in a cross section of the beam is rotating.
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
>This creates nonzero OAM purely due Newtonian physics,
>what has nothing to do with polarization.
If you think polarisation has no connection with OAM you are
seriously flawed as a physicist. Take away the rotating polarisation
of the beam and you change or remove the apparent angular momentum.
>As polarization does not affect
>orientation of momentum vector wrt beam propagation vector.
Total nonsense with no evidence to support your ridiculous claim.
I can show that SAM and OAM are intimately linked with the
changing angle of polarisation. Change linear polarisation
into circular and you get spin. Change circular polarisation with
a spiral wave plate and you get orbital.
--------------
>Back to quantum theory:
>Yes, atom energy transitions are quantized.
>But the point is, each energy transition dE ,
quantized like in atomes/molecules, or not quantized like for free
particles,
can produce only EM radiation of frequency E/h,
>reap. wavelength of h.c/E.
You will have to clarify these garbled sentences. I still see no reference
to any experiment that shows that light cannot be quantised as a wave
by a detector atom. Nor any to show that light is emitted as a quanta
only.
>Reversally, EM radiation of frequency E/h, or wavelength of h.c/E
>can provide by energy E.
>The problem with classical wave theory is that
>1/ It has no use for planck constant h
Wrong. Planck intended it for a classical model. And
in the formula there is no prerequisite for light to be
a particle. It can easily be applied to the detector atom.
(It is a constant only.)
You have yet to supply any evidence to counter this
argument.
>2/ Classical wave of any frequency or wavelength
> can provide any energy or by generated by any energy.
You'll have to restate this garbled sentence.
>> That isn't experimental proof. It's a paper written about an imaginary
>> particle that hasn't ever been observed.
>If you ignore to learn basic advances of physics in last 130 years,
>it is your decision you have the right to do.
I ignore any retrograde assumptions by religious fanatics only. Like
>> particle that hasn't ever been observed.
>If you ignore to learn basic advances of physics in last 130 years,
>it is your decision you have the right to do.
Relativity for starters. I'll stick to observation only and let
you fantasise about imaginary unobserved assumptions.
>But if you suppose I am willing or able to substitute it
by several posts, then your thinking is not wise.
>I do not suppose I will continue discussion in this thread....
---------------
>OAM:
Existance of light OAM
has nothing to do ( but values ) with quantum theory.
>Wave with twisted wavefront has local vectors of momentum
>not aligned with the beam propagation vector.
What is actually happening is the beam is travelling
in a straight line and the polarisation angle at any point
in a cross section of the beam is rotating.
https://youtu.be/xbuwv-zzIaY
>This creates nonzero OAM purely due Newtonian physics,
>what has nothing to do with polarization.
seriously flawed as a physicist. Take away the rotating polarisation
of the beam and you change or remove the apparent angular momentum.
>As polarization does not affect
>orientation of momentum vector wrt beam propagation vector.
I can show that SAM and OAM are intimately linked with the
changing angle of polarisation. Change linear polarisation
into circular and you get spin. Change circular polarisation with
a spiral wave plate and you get orbital.
--------------
>Back to quantum theory:
>Yes, atom energy transitions are quantized.
>But the point is, each energy transition dE ,
quantized like in atomes/molecules, or not quantized like for free
particles,
can produce only EM radiation of frequency E/h,
You will have to clarify these garbled sentences. I still see no reference
to any experiment that shows that light cannot be quantised as a wave
by a detector atom. Nor any to show that light is emitted as a quanta
only.
>Reversally, EM radiation of frequency E/h, or wavelength of h.c/E
>can provide by energy E.
>The problem with classical wave theory is that
>1/ It has no use for planck constant h
in the formula there is no prerequisite for light to be
a particle. It can easily be applied to the detector atom.
(It is a constant only.)
You have yet to supply any evidence to counter this
argument.
>2/ Classical wave of any frequency or wavelength
> can provide any energy or by generated by any energy.
jay moseley
Nov 3, 2016, 5:30:15 AM11/3/16
to
Poutnik
weird?
>>Now I will insult you intentionally for the first time:
The first time? You've been rude and uncivil most
of this thread!
>[insult]
>Take your lazy ass and finally learn basics of theoretical and
>experimental advances of physics since 19th century,
>instead of pretending nothing like that exists.
>[/insult]
In other words... you haven't been able to supply a shred
of experiment evidence and/or observation to back up your ridiculous
claims.
>>On 11/02/2016 12:13 PM, jay moseley wrote
>> As usual you are unable to supply evidence for your erroneous
>> claims, so you insult me yet again by pretending that this evidence
>> exists.
>Do you consider this weird logic really serious ?
You think asking for observed experimental evidence is
>> claims, so you insult me yet again by pretending that this evidence
>> exists.
>Do you consider this weird logic really serious ?
weird?
>>Now I will insult you intentionally for the first time:
of this thread!
>[insult]
>Take your lazy ass and finally learn basics of theoretical and
>experimental advances of physics since 19th century,
>instead of pretending nothing like that exists.
>[/insult]
of experiment evidence and/or observation to back up your ridiculous
claims.
noTthaTguY
Nov 3, 2016, 4:57:20 PM11/3/16
to
polarization is fully spatial,
not just planar\circular/elliptical/verticalORhorizontal;
saw this in a little paragraph in Science newS,
over a decade ago.
\it was being deployed for cellphony
not just planar\circular/elliptical/verticalORhorizontal;
saw this in a little paragraph in Science newS,
over a decade ago.
\it was being deployed for cellphony
jay moseley
Nov 4, 2016, 3:49:54 PM11/4/16
to
notThatGuy
Plane vertically polarised light when viewed coming straight towards you,
must actually be an oscillating magnetic field that has its plane
of rotation pointing towards you. Like looking at a rotating bicycle wheel
end on rolling towards you. Which means yes,a plane polarised wave
must be spatial. It's a magnetic field that rotates away and towards you
repeatedly. Plus when two plane polarised filters are rotated the light beam
fades in and out. Which must mean the plane polarisation isn't purely
unidirectional. Although its strongest in one angle. Spatial.
But what I would like to know is what is the magnetic field made of that
oscillates to create polarisation?
>polarization is fully spatial,
not just planar\circular/elliptical/verticalORhorizontal;
saw this in a little paragraph in Science newS,
>over a decade ago.
Makes sense.
not just planar\circular/elliptical/verticalORhorizontal;
saw this in a little paragraph in Science newS,
>over a decade ago.
Plane vertically polarised light when viewed coming straight towards you,
must actually be an oscillating magnetic field that has its plane
of rotation pointing towards you. Like looking at a rotating bicycle wheel
end on rolling towards you. Which means yes,a plane polarised wave
must be spatial. It's a magnetic field that rotates away and towards you
repeatedly. Plus when two plane polarised filters are rotated the light beam
fades in and out. Which must mean the plane polarisation isn't purely
unidirectional. Although its strongest in one angle. Spatial.
But what I would like to know is what is the magnetic field made of that
oscillates to create polarisation?
noTthaTguY
Nov 6, 2016, 2:46:00 PM11/6/16
to
it is the orbitals of the electrons per se, or
mainly of the valent ones, I suppose; and,
what do the rptomns & neutorns do?
mainly of the valent ones, I suppose; and,
what do the rptomns & neutorns do?
0 new messages