# In an Atomic clock? How many Cs atoms are watched?

382 views

### mitchr...@gmail.com

Aug 26, 2021, 10:02:11 PMAug 26
to
and how could the changing atomic be counted?
by what macro machine?

Mitchell Raemsch

### Ed Lake

Aug 27, 2021, 10:01:19 AMAug 27
to
As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
new photon, the atomic clock collects that photon and sends another
photon to Cesium atom, which is again rejected.

The clock counts how many times PER SECOND the Cesium atom
rejects the photons sent to it. The answer is: 9,192,631,770.
A second is 1/86,400th of an Earth day, and a Cesium atomic clock
ticks 9,192,631,770 times during that period of time.

Ed

### Odd Bodkin

Aug 27, 2021, 10:20:50 AMAug 27
to
No, that’s completely wrong, Ed. It has nothing to do with how often
photons interact with cesium atoms. It has to do with the light emitted in
a SINGLE de-excitation of a cesium atom. The light has a certain very
precise frequency, and the second is based on the period between
oscillations at that frequency: 9,192,631,770 periods of that oscillation
of light emitted from a single cesium atom de-excitation.

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

### Maciej Wozniak

Aug 27, 2021, 10:23:17 AMAug 27
to
On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 16:01:19 UTC+2, det...@newsguy.com wrote:

> A second is 1/86,400th of an Earth day, and a Cesium atomic clock
> ticks 9,192,631,770 times during that period of time.

No, Cs frequency is varying.

### Ed Lake

Aug 27, 2021, 11:00:58 AMAug 27
to
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 9:20:50 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
"Cesium atomic clocks

"This atomic mechanism is based on the idea that atoms have electrons in particular energy states. When an atom absorbs energy, electrons leap to higher energy states and become unstable. They then give out the same energy as photons of light (or some other kind of electromagnetic radiation such as X rays or radio waves), returning to their original or ground state. The cesium atoms used in many atomic clocks have 55 electrons arranged in orbitals. The very outermost electron can oscillate between two different energy states by spinning in two slightly different ways. When it shifts from the higher to the lower of these states, it gives out a photon that corresponds to microwaves with a frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hz (roughly 9.2 billion hertz or 9.2 gigahertz). That means it can be stimulated from its lower to its higher state by exactly the same microwaves."

"The second is defined as being equal to the time duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed ground-state of the caesium-133 atom."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

### Paparios

Aug 27, 2021, 11:58:51 AMAug 27
to

https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html

"It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.

Inside a cesium atomic clock, cesium atoms are funneled down a tube where they pass through radio waves . If this frequency is just right 9,192,631,770 cycles per second then the cesium atoms "resonate" and change their energy state.

A detector at the end of the tube keeps track of the number of cesium atoms reaching it that have changed their energy states. The more finely tuned the radio wave frequency is to 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, the more cesium atoms reach the detector.

The detector feeds information back into the radio wave generator. It synchronizes the frequency of the radio waves with the peak number of cesium atoms striking it. Other electronics in the atomic clock count this frequency. As with a single swing of the pendulum, a second is ticked off when the frequency count is met".

In other words, the Cs atomic clock is a feedback control system. The oscillator frequency is feedbakc controlled by the amount of Cs atoms that change their energy states.

### Paparios

Aug 27, 2021, 12:26:12 PMAug 27
to
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/how-do-atomic-clocks-work.html

"First, the atoms are heated in an oven and bundled into a beam. Each atom has one of two possible energy states. They are referred to as hyperfine levels, but let's call them state A and state B.
A magnetic field then removes all atoms in state B from the beam, so only atoms in state A remain.
The state-A atoms are sent through a resonator where they are subjected to microwave radiation, which triggers some of the atoms to change to state B. Behind the resonator, atoms that are still in state A are removed by a second magnetic field. A detector then counts all atoms that have changed to state B.
The percentage of atoms that change their state while passing through the resonator depends on the frequency of the microwave radiation. The more it is in sync with the inherent oscillation frequency of the atoms, the more atoms change their state.
The goal is to perfectly tune the microwave frequency to the oscillation of the atoms, and then measure it. After exactly 9,192,631,770 oscillations, a second has passed.

### Odd Bodkin

Aug 27, 2021, 12:39:40 PMAug 27
to
Yes, that’s in line what I just explained. When a single cesium atom
de-excites, its outermost electron shifts from the higher to the lower of
two states. When it does that, it emits a photon. That photon has a
frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz, which means the number of periods of that
light is 9,192,631,770 periods per second. Do you see now how the
explanation above says that?

There is NOTHING in the explanation you just quoted about the number of
times a cesium atom rejects a photon sent to it. It’s like you read it, and
then spewed out something completely different than what was said. The
explanation given in the quote above was very clear, and it’s obvious you
had trouble following what it said. Why is that?

>
>
> "The second is defined as being equal to the time duration of
> 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition
> between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed
> ground-state of the caesium-133 atom."

Yes, that’s completely consistent with what I said, and also consistent
with the explanation for laypeople from www.explainthatstuff.com.

>
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

### Ed Lake

Aug 27, 2021, 12:47:58 PMAug 27
to
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:26:12 AM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
Okay, so they shoot microwaves (a.k.a. "photons") at cesium atoms.
The microwaves oscillate AROUND 9,192,631,770 times per second.
The cesium atoms will change their energy state IF they are hit by
microwaves that oscillate EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second.
The clock then fine-tunes the oscillation rate of the microwaves it
emits until it gets the highest percentage of atoms to change their energy
states. When that happens, the clock KNOWS it is emitting photons
that oscillate 9,192,631,770 times per second. And as long as it
continues do that, it can COUNT 9,192,631,770 TICKS per second.

Thanks.

Ed

### mitchr...@gmail.com

Aug 27, 2021, 12:58:38 PMAug 27
to
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 7:01:19 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > and how could the changing atomic be counted?
> > by what macro machine?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
> the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a

How do they see that Cs atom?

Mitchell Raemsch

### Ed Lake

Aug 27, 2021, 1:07:47 PMAug 27
to
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 7:01:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > and how could the changing atomic be counted?
> > > by what macro machine?
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
> > the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
> How do they see that Cs atom?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

They do not need to see or target a specific atom. They shoot microwave
photons at a STREAM of cesium atoms. They then measure the percentage
of atoms in that stream that changed their energy states because they were
hit by the microwave photons. The greater the percentage that changed their
energy states, the more certain the clock is that it is emitting photons that
oscillate 9,192,631,770 times per second. Cesium atoms won't change
their energy state UNLESS they are hit by photons that oscillate
9,192,631,770 times per second.

Ed

### mitchr...@gmail.com

Aug 27, 2021, 1:09:01 PMAug 27
to
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 10:07:47 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 11:58:38 AM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 7:01:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 9:02:11 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > and how could the changing atomic be counted?
> > > > by what macro machine?
> > > >
> > > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
> > > the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
> > How do they see that Cs atom?
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> They do not need to see or target a specific atom.

Then why would they need to be used you moron?

>
> Ed

### Ed Lake

Aug 27, 2021, 1:16:12 PMAug 27
to
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:09:01 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
They don't target a specific atom, they target a specific TYPE of atom.
They target a TYPE of atom that ONLY changes its energy state IF
it is hit by a photon that oscillates 9,192,631,770 times per second.
That is what the cesium atom does.

When you shoot a stream of photons at a cloud of atoms, you are
bound to hit some of the atoms. You just need to build a device that
enables you to hit as many atoms as possible.

Ed

Ed

### rotchm

Aug 27, 2021, 1:33:23 PMAug 27
to
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 1:16:12 PM UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:09:01 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Then why would they need to be used you moron?
> They don't target a specific atom, they target a specific TYPE of atom.

ed, why do you keep responding to the troll?
You know it's just making fun of you, it's just seeking attention. And you keep falling for it or since you are desperate for attention you decide to stroke it... Seriously, instead of responding to that troll, just report it, reporte it as spam, since it is not discussing physics at all it is just putting a few common words to lure you people in. And the idiots get lured in.

### Ed Lake

Aug 27, 2021, 3:31:45 PMAug 27
to
On Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:33:23 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
He asked legitimate questions. Plus, it was a subject I wasn't
sure about myself. So, I explained things "as I understand them,"
and that understanding turned out to be mostly wrong.

During the subsequent discussion I learned the KEY to clearing
up my misunderstandings.

The fact that he called me a "moron" doesn't bother me. I expect
name calling from nearly EVERYONE on this forum.

I think this was the most productive discussion I've ever had on this forum.

Ed

### Odd Bodkin

Aug 27, 2021, 3:54:18 PMAug 27
to
If I might offer one general comment, Ed: I’ve noticed that you are trying
to understand topics that are beyond the elementary physics level, like
time dilation, how atomic clocks work, and the like. You do some web
research to try to find resources you understand, and though they try to
explain things in accessible language, it’s fairly common that you still
find them impenetrable. Like Einstein’s book for laypeople, in which he
still expects the reader to do some algebra.

Part of this is that the shortness of the resources you read requires them
to take some shortcuts and use words that you don’t really understand,
because you’ve not had the prior basic materials. No one who has not
studied first year physics or chemistry will not know what an “electron
orbital transmission” means. No one who has not studied first year physics
or chemistry will understand what the frequency or wavelength of light
actually means.

What I’m trying to convey is that in order to understand even these web
pages written for the populace (like Wikipedia and other resources) to help
explain these topics you find fun, you’ll probably need to start with
that are likely less interesting to you. But what that WILL do for you is
to prep you for what the words mean in the topics you find more
interesting.

There really aren’t any shortcuts. Lead guitarists have to practice scales
first. Architects have to learn perspective drawing skills first.
Electrical engineers have to learn how to solve differential equations
first.

### Tom Roberts

Aug 27, 2021, 5:11:29 PMAug 27
to
On 8/26/21 9:02 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

information, and much more reliable information, than you can get around
here. Especially from people who know nothing about atomic clocks or
physics, like Ed Lake.

Try searching "how an atomic clock works" at nist.gov -- they build and
operate atomic clocks, and describe how they work very clearly.

Tom Roberts

### Maciej Wozniak

Aug 27, 2021, 5:14:22 PMAug 27
to
On Friday, 27 August 2021 at 17:58:51 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:

> "It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate between two energy states.

In the dreams of some brainwashed morons; not in the
real measurement devices like GPS.

### Ed Lake

Aug 28, 2021, 11:45:40 AMAug 28
to
I have a book titled "Splitting the Second: The Story of Atomic Time" by
Tony Jones. Here are a couple quotes from pages 40 & 41:

"All naturally occurring caesium atoms are identical."

"Every naturally occurring caesium atom has 55 protons and 78 neutrons,
giving it an atomic mass of 133. This means that every caesium atom
will emit or absorb spin–flip photons at precisely the same frequency.
Caesium has still more advantages. Its low melting point means it
is easy to form a vapour of caesium atoms."

"And apart from its bigger brother francium—which is so unstable that its
atoms decay in less than half an hour—caesium is the biggest of all the atoms.
As a more or less direct consequence of this, its outer solo electron is only
loosely attached. It is easier to knock an electron off a caesium atom than any
other atom, and this makes it easy to detect."

And here's a key quote from page 48:

"Caesium atoms are like very precisely tuned radio receivers. They will ignore
passing waves of the wrong frequency but respond strongly to waves of the
right frequency, namely 9193 megahertz. An atom in the lower state hit by a
photon will absorb it and flip to the upper state. An atom in the upper state hit
by a photon will release an identical photon and flip to the lower state."

That's the principle behind atomic clocks. If you can create photons that
oscillate at EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second (9,192,631,770 Hertz),
you can use the oscillations of those photons to measure time very precisely.
Each oscillation is like one tick of a clock.

Being hit by a photon that oscillates 9,192,631,770 times per second will
cause a caesium atom to change energy states, but it isn't the changing
of energy states that is counted as a "tick" of an atomic clock, a "tick" of
an atomic clock is one oscillation of the photon that hit the atom.

Ed

### Townes Olson

Aug 28, 2021, 12:41:48 PMAug 28
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 8:45:40 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> And here's a key quote from page 48:
> "Caesium atoms are like very precisely tuned radio receivers. They will ignore
> passing waves of the wrong frequency but respond strongly to waves of the
> right frequency, namely 9193 megahertz. An atom in the lower state hit by a
> photon will absorb it and flip to the upper state. An atom in the upper state hit
> by a photon will release an identical photon and flip to the lower state."
>
> That's the principle behind atomic clocks. If you can create photons that
> oscillate at EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second...

The referenced quote is correct, but your paraphrase is wrong. The quote discusses _waves_ of the right frequency, and then mentions photons hitting an atom, tacitly referring to photons with the energy corresponding to the right wave frequency. You read this as claiming that photons oscillate, but photons do not oscillate, and the quote does not say that they do. To understand photons, I suggest consulting an actual text book on quantum electrodynamics.

### Ed Lake

Aug 28, 2021, 1:02:30 PMAug 28
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 11:41:48 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
Quantum electrodynamics is THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.

A photon that is used in a caesium atomic clock has a FREQUENCY
of 9,192,631,770 Hertz. If the photon does not oscillate at that
FREQUENCY, what does the FREQUENCY represent?

If you believe it represents the number of stationary waves that will
hit an object in one second, then how long would that make the photon?

"As per Einstein’s light quantum theory, photons have energy equal to their
oscillation frequency times Planck’s constant. Einstein proved that light is
a flow of photons, the energy of these photons is the height of their oscillation
frequency, and the intensity of the light corresponds to the number of photons."

Source: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/

Ed

### Townes Olson

Aug 28, 2021, 1:37:33 PMAug 28
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> If the photon does not oscillate at that FREQUENCY, what does the FREQUENCY represent?

It represents the frequency of the source... and hence the proportionality between the path length and the phase of the amplitude for any specific available path. The phase of a source of electromagnetic radiation advances with a certain frequency, and each photon has a particular phase (that does not advance in transit) and an amount of energy proportional to the frequency of the source. Bear in mind that although a photon may be regarded as a "particle", it is definitely not a classical particle, and likewise electromagnetic radiation is not a classical wave, but there are wavelike and particle-like attributes. The probability of the discrete energy of a photon being received from a given source at a certain time and place is the norm of the sum of amplitudes for the available paths (this is Feynman's "sum over paths" approach). If the paths have different lengths, the amplitudes have different phases (corresponding to different phases of the source), and the proportionality between path length and phase is the frequency of the source, proportional to the energy of each photon. So, in this sense, a photon is associated with a frequency, but a photon does not oscillate. The phase along a given light-like path does not advance.

> Source: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/
> " ...photons have energy equal to their oscillation frequency times Planck’s constant."

To be accurate, that quote should be "photons have energy equal to the oscillation frequency of the source times Planck’s constant." This is why I suggested you consult a text book on quantum electrodynamics, not a web page. Web articles are not intended to be substitutes for texts, for those who want in-depth understanding of a subject.

### Odd Bodkin

Aug 28, 2021, 3:14:25 PMAug 28
to
Closer but not quite. Photons do not oscillate.

But really the trick here is not creating JUST light at this frequency,
because the cesium atoms will be very selective in what they absorb. This
is analogous to the absorption lines in the continuous spectrum of the sun.
There is light of all kinds of frequencies bouncing around in the sun, and
the solar atmosphere absorbs just some of them, which is seen as dark lines
in that continuous spectrum.

This is another example of something from first year physics or chemistry
to understand FIRST before trying to understand cesium clocks.

>
> Being hit by a photon that oscillates 9,192,631,770 times per second will
> cause a caesium atom to change energy states, but it isn't the changing
> of energy states that is counted as a "tick" of an atomic clock, a "tick" of
> an atomic clock is one oscillation of the photon that hit the atom.
>
> Ed
>

### Odd Bodkin

Aug 28, 2021, 3:17:36 PMAug 28
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 11:41:48 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 8:45:40 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> And here's a key quote from page 48:
>>> "Caesium atoms are like very precisely tuned radio receivers. They will ignore
>>> passing waves of the wrong frequency but respond strongly to waves of the
>>> right frequency, namely 9193 megahertz. An atom in the lower state hit by a
>>> photon will absorb it and flip to the upper state. An atom in the upper state hit
>>> by a photon will release an identical photon and flip to the lower state."
>>>
>>> That's the principle behind atomic clocks. If you can create photons that
>>> oscillate at EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second...
>>
>> The referenced quote is correct, but your paraphrase is wrong. The quote
>> discusses _waves_ of the right frequency, and then mentions photons
>> hitting an atom, tacitly referring to photons with the energy
>> corresponding to the right wave frequency. You read this as claiming
>> that photons oscillate, but photons do not oscillate, and the quote does
>> not say that they do. To understand photons, I suggest consulting an
>> actual text book on quantum electrodynamics.
>
> Quantum electrodynamics is THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.

Problem for whom? Problem for you, because you don’t find it
understandable?

>
> A photon that is used in a caesium atomic clock has a FREQUENCY
> of 9,192,631,770 Hertz. If the photon does not oscillate at that
> FREQUENCY, what does the FREQUENCY represent?

Light waves composed of a lot of these photons will have that frequency.
But the photons themselves don’t oscillate. The frequency for a single
photon represents the energy carried by that photon divided by a universal
constant (see Planck).

>
> If you believe it represents the number of stationary waves that will
> hit an object in one second, then how long would that make the photon?

You can’t think of it that way. Photons don’t have a length.

>
> "As per Einstein’s light quantum theory, photons have energy equal to their
> oscillation frequency times Planck’s constant. Einstein proved that light is
> a flow of photons, the energy of these photons is the height of their oscillation
> frequency, and the intensity of the light corresponds to the number of photons."
>
> Source: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/

That’s a really awful reference.

### Ed Lake

Aug 28, 2021, 3:25:14 PMAug 28
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:37:33 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
Like I wrote before, Quantum electrodynamics is the PROBLEM, not a solution.
That is clearly why you cannot answer the question. How can a photon
represent the frequency of the source if the photon does not oscillate?

Like you say, a photon is not a classic particle, like a grain of sand, nor is it
a classical wave, like sound waves. You claim it does not oscillate, so how
can it have a FREQUENCY?

Ignoring sources which say the photons DO oscillate just indicates that you
have a closed mind to anything that is not Quantum electrodynamics.

"Photons are often described as energy packets. This is a very fitting analogy,
as a photon contains energy that cannot be divided. This energy is stored as
an oscillating electric field. These fields may oscillate at almost any frequency.

Source: https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_%28Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry%29/Quantum_Mechanics/02._Fundamental_Concepts_of_Quantum_Mechanics/Photons

"Photons have an energy E associated with their frequency f of oscillation"
Source: https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/p/Photon

Ed

### Townes Olson

Aug 28, 2021, 4:11:57 PMAug 28
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:25:14 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> How can a photon represent the frequency of the source if the photon does not oscillate?

I explained in the previous message how a photon is characterized by the frequency of the source. Again, each photon arriving at a particular reception event had a variety of possible classical paths by which it could have traveled from the source. For example, in a two-slit experiment the photon could have gone through the left slit or the right slit. For a typical reception event the paths to that event are of different lengths, and since the photon always propagates at c, the time required for the various paths is different, meaning they would have departed the source at different times, and hence the phase of the photon (which does not change along any path) would be different, depending on which path it followed.

The probability of a photon arriving at a given event is the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for the available paths. In effect, the possible paths interfere with each other, because the paths have different phases, like little arrows that may point in the same direction (constructive interference) or in opposite directions (destructive interference). The proportionality between path length and phase is the frequency of the source, so in this sense one can say each photon is characterized by that frequency, but it really exhibits an energy proportional to that frequency, and the phase effect only manifests itself by the interference. Again, the individual paths are light-like, with zero elapsed proper time, and no oscillations along those path, which is why it's incorrect to say that a photon oscillates.

> Like you say, a photon is not a classic particle, like a grain of sand, nor is it
> a classical wave, like sound waves. You claim it does not oscillate, so how
> can it have a FREQUENCY?

See above. A photon is associated with a frequency of the source, which manifests itself (with complex paths) by the interference patterns, but this arises from the different path lengths and hence phases of the available paths, not due to oscillation of a photon.

> Ignoring sources which say the photons DO oscillate just indicates that you
> have a closed mind to anything that is not Quantum electrodynamics.

Well, the sources you quote are all striving (with varying degrees of success) to describe photons in accord with quantum electrodynamics. They aren't making up their theories of the universe with entities that they are calling "photons". They are just trying to describe photons in quantum electrodynamics to you. (If you emailed the author of that article and asked him if he was trying to describe something contrary to quantum electrodynamics, I am quite confident he would say "of course not".)
So if you are rejecting quantum electrodynamics, you need to reject all those articles. But that wouldn't make much sense, because quantum electrodynamics is the most successful theory of fundamental physics ever conceived.

> "This energy is stored as an oscillating electric field."

Again, the quote you cited is correct, but it does not say that photons oscillate. In order to understand the quotes you are reading, you need to understand the relationship between photons and electromagnetic fields. They are not the same thing. The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, but to say that an electromagnetic field oscillates (which it does) is not the same as saying that a photon oscillates (which it doesn't).

> Like I wrote before, Quantum electrodynamics is the PROBLEM, not a solution.

I don't understand what you mean by that, so I don't know how to respond to it. Quantum electrodynamics is the most successful theory of fundamental physics that we have, so I don't know what you mean when you say it is "the problem". Do you mean you don't understand it? Or do you mean it is wrong? If the latter, in what way is it wrong?

### Ed Lake

Aug 28, 2021, 5:03:06 PMAug 28
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 3:11:57 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
Quantum electrodynamics is very good at analyzing the functions of
particles in the sub-atomic world. It is when it tries to FORCE the
universe and the world around us to fit into its equations that it turns
into PURE CRAP.

It is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate. It just cannot cope
with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle. It cannot cope with an
infinite universe, either. Or with the variable speed of light.

Photons oscillate. If Quantum electrodynamics says they don't, then
Quantum electrodynamics is ignoring FACTS because BELIEVERS in the
INFALLIBILITY of Quantum electrodynamics cannot develop a mathematical
model that incorporates those FACTS.

Ed
Message has been deleted

### mitchr...@gmail.com

Aug 28, 2021, 7:38:54 PMAug 28
to
How many Cs atoms are in a clock?
How do they watch one of them?
How could any machine count a nano difference?
How is the one Cs atom changing in size?

Mitchell Raemsch

### Richard Hertz

Aug 28, 2021, 8:41:48 PMAug 28
to
Enters the EE.

The one with the most appropriated answer was Paparios: (Negative) feedback controlled system.
And what does a NFCS minimize: Phase noise.

And what is phase noise?: perturbations over an exact frequency fo, measured as time-variant oscillations
which amplitudes decay with an almost gaussian law as their frequencies depart from fo.

And how phase noise is controlled?: By subtracting from a frequency down-scaled (pre-scaled) electrical signal V(t),
which is collected as the original output of any given oscillator, mixing it with a well-known stable frequency produced
by a controlled oscillator (typically a TCXO) in order to produce a baseband signal centered around f=0, and feeding
negatively such time-variant signal AFTER it passed through a lowpass filter, which slowdown the time-response of
the correcting signal and get rid of unwanted high frequency oscillations.

No photons involved here. Not at all. Only classic electromagnetic oscillations. In general, the expression of V(t) is:

V(t) = Vo.cos φ(t) = Vo.cos [ 2π.fo.t + Φ(t) ]

where fo is the target frequency of the oscillator (of any kind) and Φ(t) is the time-variant perturbation around fo, which
makes difficult or impossible to watch V(t) in an oscilloscope, because the time sweeping reference ramp (like in any CRT
TV set) can't present the same pic sweep after sweep. If Φ(t) = 0, you would see a perfect sinusoidal waveform, which has
not a single drift in time, so it would be stable as if it were a drawing on the screen.

The phase φ(t) = 2π.fo.t + Φ(t) changes with time as dφ(t)/dt = 2π.fo + dΦ(t)/dt, being the last term the phase noise.

That's what happens when second-level cessium or rubidium atomic clocks (of lower cost) are locked to GPS signals, by
using an interface. This allows that every single telephone exchange or master router be in synchronism all around the
planet, allowing digital communications to work flawlessly when they interchange bits at increasing speed since the '90s.

To understand and control phase noise, V(t) has to be analyzed in the frequency domain, with proper instruments.

The behavior of Φ(t) in frequency reveals a gaussian-like shape centered around fo. The bandwidth Δfo, after which the
perturbations are negligible is referred as Δfo = fo/Q, where the Q factor represents the quality of any given oscillator.

For a cessium clock, Q factor is 10^7 or better, so the significant perturbations are confined within 919 Hz or less.

Usually, phase noise is measured in units dBc/Hz, which represent the fall in the spectrum of the signal since fo, and is
considered to be good for an atomic clock if it is below 120 dBc/Hz after a Δfo separation (measured from fo).

Ideally, a bell-shaped curve would be expected at the spectrum analyzer, centered around fo. But, in real life, other
perturbations besides quantum fluctuations happens. Every component of the system introduce a portion of noise,
as well as external vibrations, magnetic fields, heat, etc. Due to this, the spectrum of phase noise is much more complex
than gaussian deviations for Q around 10^7.

The following sites can tell you about stability in time, phase noise and several other aspects of atomic clocks.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7464875

This one tells everything about oscillators of many types:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/calibrations/ie79-7.pdf

And finally, remember that cessium clock frequency is down-scaled to 10.26 Mhz, to be compared with state of the art
TCXO differences, which are pondered with a compensation network and then scaled up to 9,192,631,770 Hz using
frequency synthesizers, to excite cessium atoms.

No photons, just waves.

### Townes Olson

Aug 28, 2021, 11:52:01 PMAug 28
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Quantum electrodynamics ... is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate. It
> just cannot cope with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.

A photon is nothing at all like a "solid particle" in quantum electrodynamics, so your complaint is specious, based entirely on misinformation. Indeed, by insisting that "a photon oscillates", it is you who is exhibiting an inability to cope with a "particle" that is not a classical particle (nor a classical wave) at all.

> It cannot cope with an infinite universe, either.

Again, you are misinformed. Quantum electrodynamics is a local theory of the electromagnetic interaction, and it is perfectly compatible with an infinite universe.

> Or with the variable speed of light.

Your complaint is specious, because quantum electrodynamics is perfectly consistent with all the well-established facts of electromagnetic radiation, including the propagation speed, in all circumstances.

> Photons oscillate.

That doesn't make sense, because the word "photon" is defined as the quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field in quantum electrodynamics, and those very definitely do not oscillate. If you are using the word "photon" to refer to something else, something that you think oscillates, in a "theory" of your own making, then you're just confusing yourself by conflating it with what the rest of the world means by the word "photon".

You asked for an explanation of why photons don't oscillate, and I provided that -- twice. Both times you simply ignored it. You'll never understand if you keep ignoring the explanation.

### Richard Hertz

Aug 29, 2021, 1:33:34 AMAug 29
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 9:41:48 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

1) Cesium atomic clocks are more expensive that rubidium ones, and also has an stability about 300 times more than the
second one. Because of the cost, rubidium based AC are the most used at internet hubs where monster routers exist and ,
also, for master timing within telecom operators. Cesium AC are used in national gov. agencies to provide a reference
source for companies, and they are in the 2nd. tier of precision, related to the master site at France.

For more than 25 years, rubidium clocks use GPS based devices to adjust drifts from cesium or to resync guided by them,
in cases of network shutdowns. Every nation has a special network to distribute sync signals on its territory. These centers
interconnect between them, regionally, and with the master reference at France.

2) Without considering other factors but quantum ones, atomic clocks suffer from phase noise. it can be explained by telling
that emissions of radiation from cesium atoms due to the microwave exciting signal is NOT PERFECT, as physicists would
prefer, because cesium atoms at states A or B are not in a perfect energy state with EXACT differences Eo = h.fo, but are
distributed in a way that they verify gaussian-like differences in the amount of atoms around such exact difference.

So, as any oscillator, a factor Q (stability) is assigned to the amounts of atoms outside of their exact (predicted) differences,
as is related to the amount of atoms at which transitions are made at fo compared to those at nearby frequencies.

Then, a quantum Q factor is measured as a quotient between fo and the noise bandwidth Δfo. Averaging the energies hf' at
every slot of the spectrum shape, sideways fo, the number of atomic transitions at every narrow bandwidth can be calculated.

The quantum Q factor is further degraded by several other perturbations within or outside the atomic clock. The approximate
value of the quantum Q factor is calculated by subtracting the effect of other known degradations that exist and that are
explained here (NIST):

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/calibrations/ie79-7.pdf

3) In cesium clocks, at a chamber where atoms transitioned back from level F= 3 to level F=4 (A and B state) are guided, by a
a magnet, to a hot wire ionizer, where an electric current proportional to the number of atoms that were at F=4 is produced.

Since here, and applied to GPS atomic clocks (for instance), there are two versions:

3.1) The feedback is done entirely in the microwave region:

This current regulates a microwave oscillator, so it can excite atoms in a Ramsey cavity to maximize the output current
produced at 9,192,631,770 Hz (exact fo). And this signal (current) is amplified and scaled down to regulate an TCXO
oscillator at 10.230000 Mhz (exactly).

3.2) The feedback is done with a loop that involves a TCXO at 10.23 Mhz:

This current oscillates at 9,192,631,770 Hz, in the microwave region, and is amplified and scaled down and non-linearly
mixed with that of an TCXO (10.230000 Mhz exactly). The difference below 1000 Hz is low-pass filtered and
processed to obtain the lowest error signal possible, by fine-tuning the TCXO (using varicaps). The 10.23 Mhz output
is upscaled up to 9,192,631,770 Hz, containing by then the error compensation to maximize the current output.

At any case, the ratio between 9,192,631,770 Hz and 10.230000 Mhz is a number with many decimal places, around 898.

So, traditional digital frequency dividers or digital synthesizers can not be used, and special digital techniques are required.

According to NIST page, the noise bandwidth Δfo for commercial products is narrowed to the range of 600 to 1000 Hz. Probably,
more stable and costly cesium clocks are available for space and military applications.

In GPS systems, the reference OCXO oscillates at 10.230000 Mhz (exactly), which is multiplied by 154 to obtain the L1 band carrier
frequency of 1575.42 Mhz (exactly). But the ratio of cesium fo to OCXO 10.230000 Mhz makes the downscaling factor a non-integer
number which is, exactly, 898.595480938416 (exactly), so special frequency synthesizers are required.

Fractional-N systems have been used in commercial signal generators since 1989, with initial 0.1 Hz frequency resolution. Such
devices had to be evolved across several generations to offer much greater decimal resolution as a multiplier.

Between other advanced techniques, in DDS (Digital Direct Synthesis), chips with accumulative phase (digital counters with very
large modulus (64/128 bits counters) generate a continuous signal with slow phase increase, which output is transformed in an
analog signal, using DAC (Digital to Analog Converters) with accurate precision on its frequency.

### Odd Bodkin

Aug 29, 2021, 6:12:17 AMAug 29
to
The photon doesn’t oscillate. It carries a certain amount of energy. That
energy is a constant times the frequency of the source. The photon also has
a phase. A phase is a physics term you’ll have to learn. That phase goes
through 2pi at a rate equal to the frequency.

>
> Like you say, a photon is not a classic particle, like a grain of sand, nor is it
> a classical wave, like sound waves. You claim it does not oscillate, so how
> can it have a FREQUENCY?
>
> Ignoring sources which say the photons DO oscillate just indicates that you
> have a closed mind to anything that is not Quantum electrodynamics.

That depends on the quality of the source material, doesn’t it? Textbooks
don’t say the photons oscillate. There are lots of crappy web resources
that do say they oscillate, but they’re crappy web pages.

>
> "Photons are often described as energy packets. This is a very fitting analogy,
> as a photon contains energy that cannot be divided. This energy is stored as
> an oscillating electric field. These fields may oscillate at almost any frequency.

Yes, that’s an example of a VERY poor website.
There’s another.

### Odd Bodkin

Aug 29, 2021, 6:15:49 AMAug 29
to
Well, the only way you could show that they are pure crap is by showing
where they say something should happen that is not observed to happen, or
say something else should never happen that is observed to happen. Did you
have something in mind here? That’s how science works.

>
> It is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate.

And what makes you think they do? Why do you think that’s a FACT?

> It just cannot cope
> with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.

Why do you think that?

> It cannot cope with an
> infinite universe, either.

And why do you think that?

> Or with the variable speed of light.

And why do you think that?

>
> Photons oscillate. If Quantum electrodynamics says they don't, then
> Quantum electrodynamics is ignoring FACTS because BELIEVERS in the
> INFALLIBILITY of Quantum electrodynamics cannot develop a mathematical
> model that incorporates those FACTS.
>
> Ed
>

### Maciej Wozniak

Aug 29, 2021, 9:09:12 AMAug 29
to
On Sunday, 29 August 2021 at 12:15:49 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Well, the only way you could show that they are pure crap is by showing
> where they say something should happen that is not observed to happen, or
> say something else should never happen that is observed to happen. Did you
> have something in mind here? That’s how science works.

Or, at least, that's how poor idiot woodworker imagines it works;
thinkers more advanced (Poincare, Kuhn, Lakatos) knew better,
however.
Anyway, in the real world the real clocks of real GPS keep indicating
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.

### Ed Lake

Aug 29, 2021, 10:34:46 AMAug 29
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 6:38:54 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> How many Cs atoms are in a clock?

Probably millions.

> How do they watch one of them?

They don't. They watch all of them.

> How could any machine count a nano difference?

They don't count or measure size. They measure its energy.

> How is the one Cs atom changing in size?

Its size isn't measured. It loses an electron, which causes it to
lose energy. They can separate low energy photons from high
energy photons, and they can measure what percentage of the
total photons are low energy. When most of the photons have
been changed to low energy, then they know they are using
photons that oscillate 9,192,631,770 times per second to cause
the changes. And they can use that to set the clock so that it
"ticks" 9,192,631,770 times per second.

Ed

### Ed Lake

Aug 29, 2021, 10:51:31 AMAug 29
to
On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:52:01 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Quantum electrodynamics ... is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate. It
> > just cannot cope with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.
> A photon is nothing at all like a "solid particle" in quantum electrodynamics, so your complaint is specious, based entirely on misinformation. Indeed, by insisting that "a photon oscillates", it is you who is exhibiting an inability to cope with a "particle" that is not a classical particle (nor a classical wave) at all.

I'm doing just the opposite. An oscillating photon is not like
a classical particle nor like a classical wave. It is YOU who
cannot cope with such a thing as an oscillating photon.

> > It cannot cope with an infinite universe, either.
> Again, you are misinformed. Quantum electrodynamics is a local theory of the electromagnetic interaction, and it is perfectly compatible with an infinite universe.

Nonsense. Quantum electrodynamics proposes a universe that
is like an expanding balloon, with nothing outside of the balloon.
Space is ONLY the space between objects INSIDE the balloon.

> > Or with the variable speed of light.
> Your complaint is specious, because quantum electrodynamics is perfectly consistent with all the well-established facts of electromagnetic radiation, including the propagation speed, in all circumstances.

QM is incompatible with NONRECIPROCAL time dilation. And
NONRECIPROCAL time dilation means seconds can have different
lengths. And that means that 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND
depends upon the length of a second at the point where a photon
is emitted.

>
> > Photons oscillate.
>
> That doesn't make sense, because the word "photon" is defined as the quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field in quantum electrodynamics, and those very definitely do not oscillate. If you are using the word "photon" to refer to something else, something that you think oscillates, in a "theory" of your own making, then you're just confusing yourself by conflating it with what the rest of the world means by the word "photon".
>
> You asked for an explanation of why photons don't oscillate, and I provided that -- twice. Both times you simply ignored it. You'll never understand if you keep ignoring the explanation.

The explanation is not an explanation, it's just a repeat of your
BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.

The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE. The
frequency of the oscillations is the frequency of the photon.
A photon cannot have a frequency UNLESS its electric and
magnetic fields oscillate.

Ed

### Ed Lake

Aug 29, 2021, 10:56:21 AMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 5:12:17 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
OR the textbooks are crap and the web pages are correct.

Ed

### Ed Lake

Aug 29, 2021, 11:18:00 AMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 5:15:49 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 3:11:57 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:25:14 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Quantum electrodynamics is very good at analyzing the functions of
> > particles in the sub-atomic world. It is when it tries to FORCE the
> > universe and the world around us to fit into its equations that it turns
> > into PURE CRAP.
> Well, the only way you could show that they are pure crap is by showing
> where they say something should happen that is not observed to happen, or
> say something else should never happen that is observed to happen. Did you
> have something in mind here? That’s how science works.

Time dilation is NONreciprocal. Experiments show that. There was
nothing reciprocal in the time dilation measured by the Hafele-Keating
experiment --- or by any other time dilation experiment.

> >
> > It is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate.
> And what makes you think they do? Why do you think that’s a FACT?

Because radar guns measure the oscillation rates of photons when
they measure the speed of targets. They compare the oscillation
rate of the photons the gun emits to the oscillation rates of the
photons that return from the target.

> > It just cannot cope
> > with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.
> Why do you think that?

Because a photon is a particle that oscillates, and QM cannot
cope with that.

> > It cannot cope with an
> > infinite universe, either.
> And why do you think that?

Because QM uses a universe that is like a balloon. It's size
is its diameter, and space is only the space between objects
in or on the balloon. When asked "What is outside of the balloon?",
QM believers say that is not a valid question, because there is
NOTHING outside of the balloon. They cannot cope with a
balloon that is expanding into infinite space.

> > Or with the variable speed of light.
> And why do you think that?

Because they cannot cope with NONreciprocal time dilation, and
NONreciprocal time dilation results in the speed of light being
different whenever the length of a second is different for the emitter.

Ed

### Townes Olson

Aug 29, 2021, 11:45:28 AMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 7:51:31 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > A photon is nothing at all like a "solid particle" in quantum electrodynamics, so your complaint is specious, based entirely on misinformation. Indeed, by insisting that "a photon oscillates", it is you who is exhibiting an inability to cope with a "particle" that is not a classical particle (nor a classical wave) at all.
>
> I'm doing just the opposite. An oscillating photon is not like
> a classical particle nor like a classical wave.

That's not true. The concept of an "oscillating particle" moving along a definite trajectory is entirely classical, and is completely different from the actual photon, which is a probabilistic interaction consisting of a non-classical superposition of the available classical interactions, represented by Feynman's "sum over paths". Your conception of a "photon" is completely incapable of accounting for any of the characteristic interference phenomena of light, such as Young's two-slit experiment (first performed over 200 years ago). It was this kind of experiment that convinced physicists for centuries that light must be a wave in a medium, rather than particles, because no classical particles could produce interference effects. It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that quantum theory showed how a particle theory could be reconciled with interference, but only by realizing that the "particles" were nothing like what you (Ed) have in mind.

> It is YOU who cannot cope with such a thing as an oscillating photon.

Again, an "oscillating photon" of the kind you have in mind is a classical model that is completely incompatible with the observed facts of interference (among other things). The problem isn't that scientists "can't cope with" your beliefs; the problem is that scientists understand that your beliefs are wrong.

> Quantum electrodynamics proposes a universe that
> is like an expanding balloon, with nothing outside of the balloon.

Excuse me, but that's completely untrue. You are confusing quantum electrodynamics, which is a local theory of the electromagnetic interaction, with a cosmological model based on general relativity, and in fact you are referring to a model that has actually been ruled out. One possible solution of the Einstein field equations of general relativity is a closed universe (analogous to the surface of a sphere or balloon), but current astronomical observations have fairly conclusively ruled that out, since they indicate the universe is actually open and infinite... which is also compatible with general relativity. So you are wrong in two ways: (1) your statement about cosmology has nothing to do with quantum electrodynamics, which works the same regardless of the cosmological model, and (2) the cosmology you are describing has long since been ruled out observationally, so it wouldn't even be relevant to a discussion of cosmology in general relativity, let alone quantum electrodynamics. I say again, your complaint is based on nothing but misinformation and misunderstanding.

> QM is incompatible with NONRECIPROCAL time dilation.

Again, your statement is utterly false, and even senseless. Quantum electrodynamics (and, more generally, quantum field theory), is perfectly compatible with local Lorentz invariance, which has been more conclusively established than any other physical fact, and yes, given any two relatively moving objects, the proper time of each object runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other object is at rest. (In other words, the relationship between local inertial coordinate systems is reciprocal.) Again, this is firmly established by experimental results for over a century.

> The explanation is not an explanation, it's just a repeat of your
> BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.

Excuse me, but that is flatly false. I gave you a careful and detailed explanation. It is you who simply repeats your senseless mantra that "photons oscillate", whereas I have written detailed explanations of actual photons. It is simply dishonest for you to claim that I have not provided you with the explanation. True, you have repeatedly ignored the explanation, but that doesn't mean I haven't provided it to you.

As explained in the previous message, a photon is characterized by the frequency of the source. Each photon arriving at a particular reception event had a variety of possible classical paths by which it could have traveled from the source. For example, in a two-slit experiment the photon could have gone through the left slit or the right slit. For a typical reception event the paths to that event are of different lengths, and since the photon always propagates at c, the time required for the various paths is different, meaning they would have departed the source at different times, and hence the phase of the photon (which does not change along any path) would be different, depending on which path it followed.

The probability of a photon arriving at a given event is the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for the available paths. In effect, the possible paths interfere with each other, because the paths have different phases, like little arrows that may point in the same direction (constructive interference) or in opposite directions (destructive interference). The proportionality between path length and phase is the frequency of the source, so, in this sense, one can say each photon is characterized by that frequency, but it really exhibits an energy proportional to that frequency, and the phase effect only manifests itself by the interference. Again, the individual paths are light-like, with zero elapsed proper time, and no oscillations along those path, which is why it's incorrect to say that a photon oscillates.

> The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE.

That's senseless, because the electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so you can't say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields! Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.

### Ed Lake

Aug 29, 2021, 12:32:22 PMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 10:45:28 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 7:51:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
(snip repetitive crap)
> > QM is incompatible with NONRECIPROCAL time dilation.
> Again, your statement is utterly false, and even senseless. Quantum electrodynamics (and, more generally, quantum field theory), is perfectly compatible with local Lorentz invariance, which has been more conclusively established than any other physical fact, and yes, given any two relatively moving objects, the proper time of each object runs slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other object is at rest. (In other words, the relationship between local inertial coordinate systems is reciprocal.) Again, this is firmly established by experimental results for over a century.

You argue that time dilation IS reciprocal. You CLAIM there are
experiments which show that. But the experiments you name
(Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann) do NOT show that, and you
IGNORE all the experiments which show that time dilation is
NOT reciprocal. Examples:

1. Hafele-Keating
2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
4. Muon experiments
5. University of Maryland
6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
7. Briatore and Leschiutta
8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
9. Van Baak - 2005
10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
11. Van Baak - 2016
12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020

> > The explanation is not an explanation, it's just a repeat of your
> > BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.
> Excuse me, but that is flatly false. I gave you a careful and detailed explanation. It is you who simply repeats your senseless mantra that "photons oscillate", whereas I have written detailed explanations of actual photons. It is simply dishonest for you to claim that I have not provided you with the explanation. True, you have repeatedly ignored the explanation, but that doesn't mean I haven't provided it to you.

Again, your explanation is NOT an explanation. It is just a repeat
of your BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.

> As explained in the previous message, a photon is characterized by the frequency of the source.

That is just memorized words with no meaning.

> Each photon arriving at a particular reception event had a variety of possible classical paths by which it could have traveled from the source. For example, in a two-slit experiment the photon could have gone through the left slit or the right slit. For a typical reception event the paths to that event are of different lengths, and since the photon always propagates at c, the time required for the various paths is different, meaning they would have departed the source at different times, and hence the phase of the photon (which does not change along any path) would be different, depending on which path it followed.

Experiments show that if you fire one photon at a time through the double-slit
experiment, you eventually get the same pattern on the wall. That indicates
that the oscillations of the photon determine what path it will take through the slits.

>
> The probability of a photon arriving at a given event is the magnitude of the sum of the amplitudes for the available paths. In effect, the possible paths interfere with each other, because the paths have different phases, like little arrows that may point in the same direction (constructive interference) or in opposite directions (destructive interference). The proportionality between path length and phase is the frequency of the source, so, in this sense, one can say each photon is characterized by that frequency, but it really exhibits an energy proportional to that frequency, and the phase effect only manifests itself by the interference. Again, the individual paths are light-like, with zero elapsed proper time, and no oscillations along those path, which is why it's incorrect to say that a photon oscillates.

The FACT that a photon oscillates is what CAUSES it to take
different paths though the 2 slits, all depending upon what is
happening with the photon when it hits the experiment.

> > The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE.
> That's senseless, because the electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so you can't say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields! Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.

OR your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.

You write BELIEFS. "The electromagnetic field is mediated
by photons." WHAT electromagnetic field? The only electric
and magnetic fields a photon has as it moves through space
are the oscillating fields it CONSISTS of. Without those
oscillating fields, THERE IS NO PHOTON.

Ed

### Tom Roberts

Aug 29, 2021, 12:39:15 PMAug 29
to
On 8/29/21 10:45 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> [...]

You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.

You are also learning that Ed Lake is completely unable to read what you
write, primarily because he simply does not know what the words you use
actually mean -- he makes up his own meanings and ascribes them to your
words. His own opinions sound too loudly in his ear that he cannot hear
what you actually say. Hopeless.

It is futile to try to teach a pig to sing....

Tom Roberts

### Ed Lake

Aug 29, 2021, 1:11:24 PMAug 29
to
"A photon is a tiny particle that comprises waves of electromagnetic radiation.
As shown by Maxwell, photons are just electric fields traveling through space.
Photons have no charge, no resting mass, and travel at the speed of light."

"The definition of a photon is a particle that has energy and movement; but,
it does not have mass or electrical charge."

"The photon is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the
electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light and
radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons
are massless, so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum,
299792458 m/s (or about 186,282 mi/s)."

I think the problem we're having is that I VISUALIZE photons while others
here just recite what what they read somewhere. I VISUALIZE how a
photon gets through or is blocked by a polarized lens. I VISUALIZE how
a photon gets through the double slit experiment. I VISUALIZE what
a photon looks like as it moves through space. I VISUALIZE how a photon
interacts with an atom.

Unfortunately, this forum doesn't have any means of showing illustrations.
Here's an illustration of what I VISUALIZE a photon as looking like as it
comes straight toward me: https://i.imgur.com/Wdo94jS.gif
Here's a side angle I saw on the internet: https://i.imgur.com/rBI12lC.jpg
Here's another way to visualize a photon: https://i.imgur.com/ohQtS4N.jpg

Ed

### Townes Olson

Aug 29, 2021, 1:41:45 PMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 9:32:22 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> (snip repetitive crap)

That's disgraceful. I carefully correct your misconceptions and provide you with the scientifically accurate explanations of the things you are struggling (unsuccessfully) to understand, and you callously snip and ignore the explanations. What is wrong with you?

> You argue that time dilation IS reciprocal. You CLAIM there are
> experiments which show that. But the experiments you name
> (Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann) do NOT show that...

Yes they do. Your problem is that you don't know what reciprocal time dilation is, so you have no way of knowing whether some experiment demonstrates it or not. Look, consider two identically constructed clocks (A and B) moving uniformly in opposite directions far from any gravitational field variations, and when they pass each other we set them both to read 0. Thereafter we want to compare their rates of elapsed times, but how do we do this?

We obviously need to compare their readings "at the same time", but we can't just use the clocks themselves to define "at the same time", because then we would be comparing clock A's reading when it reads 10 seconds with clock B's reading when it reads 10 seconds, and hence never any time dilation. Obviously this isn't what we mean by "at the same time". But what, then, do we mean?

If we say the event at which A reads 10 seconds is "at the same time" as the event at which B reads 9 seconds, then we would say B is running slow... but conversely if we say the event at which B reads 10 seconds is "at the same time" as the event at which A reads 9 seconds, then we would say A is running slow. Which (if either) of these definitions of "at the same time" is correct? This question is essentially asking how we define our coordinate time, as distinct from the proper time showing on the clocks. Clearly these are different concepts, because we have unequal proper times at equal coordinate times (e.g., we say the proper time of 10 sec on clock A is "at the same time" as the proper time of 9 on clock B).

Now, we can define coordinates in any way we like, but there is a distinguished class of coordinate systems, call inertia-based coordinates, that are special because the descriptions of physical laws take their simplest homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of these coordinates. The relationship between these coordinates, and the meaning of "at the same time", depends on the outcome of the Kaufmann type experiments, which show the inertia of energy. Since these experiments show that the inertia of a particle depends on its kinetic energy, the inertia-based coordinates have mutually skewed time coordinates. This signifies that, in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which A is at rest, the events A=10 and B=9 occur "at the same time", whereas in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which B is at rest, the events A=9 and B=10 occur "at the same time". That's why those experiments substantiate the correctness of reciprocal time dilation.

> you IGNORE all the experiments which show that time dilation is NOT reciprocal.

Once again, none of the experiments you cite are valid counter-examples to reciprocal time dilation between uniformly moving clocks in the absence of significant differences in gravitational potential. All the experiments you cite either involve differences in gravitational potential, or non-inertial motions, or else they do indeed involve reciprocal time dilation.

Remember, you tried to describe a thought experiment (involving pulsars) that you believed would disprove reciprocal time dilation, but you learned that in fact it was perfectly consistent with reciprocal time dilation. You have no excuse for continuing to post claims that you now know are false.

> Experiments show that if you fire one photon at a time through the double-slit
> experiment, you eventually get the same pattern on the wall. That indicates
> that the oscillations of the photon determine what path it will take through the slits.

No, an oscillating particle would go through one slit or the other, and the point of reception after going through one slit would be the same, regardless of whether the other slit was open or not. You can't get interference effects from a single particle, whether it is oscillating or not. I gave you the actual explanation, and you ignored it.

> The FACT that a photon oscillates is what CAUSES it to take
> different paths though the 2 slits, all depending upon what is
> happening with the photon when it hits the experiment.

Are you claiming that your oscillating particle passes through both slits? How does it do that? Are you saying the interaction is a superposition of the particle following two different paths? If so, then you are describing quantum electrodynamics, and your "oscillation" is superfluous.

> > > The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE.
> >
> > That's senseless, because the electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so you can't say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields! Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.
>
> OR your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.

No, quantum theory is perfectly rational and logical. Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical (and your behavior is shameful).

> You write BELIEFS.

Well, anything that is in the mind of anyone is a belief, but there are rational and logical beliefs (such as in modern scientific theories), and then there are irrational and illogical beliefs, such as yours. What's bad about irrational beliefs is not that they are beliefs, but that they are irrational.

> "The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons." WHAT electromagnetic field?

The electromagnetic field of charged particles (electrons, protons, etc). Photons are massless and chargeless bosons that mediate the electromagnetic forces between charged particles.

> The only electric and magnetic fields a photon has as it moves through space
> are the oscillating fields it CONSISTS of. Without those oscillating fields, THERE IS NO PHOTON.

No, your fantasies have no relation to the facts of electrodynamics. A photon doesn't "have" electromagnetic fields, a photon mediates the electromagnetic force between charged particles, so in essense the electromagnetic fields are the result of the actions of photons.

> I think the problem we're having is that I VISUALIZE photons...

Your attempts to visualize things are all failures. For example, you completely failed to account for simple interference, e.g., are you claiming your particle goes through both slits in a two-slit experiment? Which one does it go through first? Or does it split in half and then re-combine? You see, your beliefs are completely incapable of accounting for even the most elementary phenomena of light.

### mitchr...@gmail.com

Aug 29, 2021, 1:55:33 PMAug 29
to
If time dilation is reciprocal then would not clocks be the same instead?

Mitchell Raemsch

### Odd Bodkin

Aug 29, 2021, 2:35:25 PMAug 29
to
Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 6:38:54 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> How many Cs atoms are in a clock?
>
> Probably millions.
>
>> How do they watch one of them?
>
> They don't. They watch all of them.
>
>> How could any machine count a nano difference?
>
> They don't count or measure size. They measure its energy.
>
>> How is the one Cs atom changing in size?
>
> Its size isn't measured. It loses an electron, which causes it to
> lose energy.

Mangled. Try again.

> They can separate low energy photons from high
> energy photons, and they can measure what percentage of the
> total photons are low energy.

Mangled. Try again.

> When most of the photons have
> been changed to low energy,

Mangled. Try again.

> then they know they are using
> photons that oscillate 9,192,631,770 times per second to cause
> the changes.

Mangled. Try again.

> And they can use that to set the clock so that it
> "ticks" 9,192,631,770 times per second.
>
> Ed
>

### Ed Lake

Aug 29, 2021, 2:45:49 PMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:41:45 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 9:32:22 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > (snip repetitive crap)
>
> That's disgraceful. I carefully correct your misconceptions and provide you with the scientifically accurate explanations of the things you are struggling (unsuccessfully) to understand, and you callously snip and ignore the explanations. What is wrong with you?
> > You argue that time dilation IS reciprocal. You CLAIM there are
> > experiments which show that. But the experiments you name
> > (Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann) do NOT show that...
>
> Yes they do. Your problem is that you don't know what reciprocal time dilation is, so you have no way of knowing whether some experiment demonstrates it or not. Look, consider two identically constructed clocks (A and B) moving uniformly in opposite directions far from any gravitational field variations, and when they pass each other we set them both to read 0. Thereafter we want to compare their rates of elapsed times, but how do we do this?
>
> We obviously need to compare their readings "at the same time", but we can't just use the clocks themselves to define "at the same time", because then we would be comparing clock A's reading when it reads 10 seconds with clock B's reading when it reads 10 seconds, and hence never any time dilation. Obviously this isn't what we mean by "at the same time". But what, then, do we mean?

You do NOT need to compare readings "at the same time."
You CANNOT compare readings at the same time unless both
clocks are in the same location. CLOCKS MEASURE TIME, so
they also measure DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF TIME when one
clock is moving faster than the other.

You are creating a FICTITIOUS situation in order to validate your
screwball mathematics.

(snip more repetitious crap)

> > Experiments show that if you fire one photon at a time through the double-slit
> > experiment, you eventually get the same pattern on the wall. That indicates
> > that the oscillations of the photon determine what path it will take through the slits.
> No, an oscillating particle would go through one slit or the other, and the point of reception after going through one slit would be the same, regardless of whether the other slit was open or not. You can't get interference effects from a single particle, whether it is oscillating or not. I gave you the actual explanation, and you ignored it.

No, an oscillating particle will be affected by the slits in MANY
DIFFERENT ways. How can you possibly believe that every photon
is going to go through a slit without any problem? Why don't some
photons hit the bar between the slits? Why don't some hit the area
outside of the slits? Why don't some graze the slits as they pass
through?

> > The FACT that a photon oscillates is what CAUSES it to take
> > different paths though the 2 slits, all depending upon what is
> > happening with the photon when it hits the experiment.
> Are you claiming that your oscillating particle passes through both slits? How does it do that? Are you saying the interaction is a superposition of the particle following two different paths? If so, then you are describing quantum electrodynamics, and your "oscillation" is superfluous.

NO! I am NOT saying that a single photon passes through both
slits. I'm saying that MOST photons don't even go through either
slit on the first try. They hit some part of the device, get absorbed
and then re-emitted. That might happen a hundred times before
the photon finally gets through ONE of the slits.

> > > > The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE.
> > >
> > > That's senseless, because the electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so you can't say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields! Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.
> >
> > OR your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.
> No, quantum theory is perfectly rational and logical. Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical (and your behavior is shameful).
>
> > You write BELIEFS.
>
> Well, anything that is in the mind of anyone is a belief, but there are rational and logical beliefs (such as in modern scientific theories), and then there are irrational and illogical beliefs, such as yours. What's bad about irrational beliefs is not that they are beliefs, but that they are irrational.
> > "The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons." WHAT electromagnetic field?
> The electromagnetic field of charged particles (electrons, protons, etc). Photons are massless and chargeless bosons that mediate the electromagnetic forces between charged particles.

But those "charged particles" could be a trillion miles away from each other.
And there is no "mediation." There is just absorption and re-emission or
absorption without re-emission, depending upon the type of atom it hits.

(snip more repetitious crap)

> > I think the problem we're having is that I VISUALIZE photons...
>
> Your attempts to visualize things are all failures. For example, you completely failed to account for simple interference, e.g., are you claiming your particle goes through both slits in a two-slit experiment? Which one does it go through first? Or does it split in half and then re-combine? You see, your beliefs are completely incapable of accounting for even the most elementary phenomena of light.

My understanding FULLY accounts for all actions by photons. It
just doesn't agree with your BELIEFS. How can you possibly believe
that every photon will get through one of the two slits on the first try?

Ed

### mitchr...@gmail.com

Aug 29, 2021, 2:58:52 PMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 6:38:54 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> How many Cs atoms are in a clock?
> >
> > Probably millions.
> >
> >> How do they watch one of them?
> >
> > They don't. They watch all of them.
> >
> >> How could any machine count a nano difference?
> >
> > They don't count or measure size. They measure its energy.
> >
> >> How is the one Cs atom changing in size?
> >
> > Its size isn't measured. It loses an electron, which causes it to
> > lose energy.

Where does the electron go to?
where do we measure that order
of the separate electron?

Mitchell Raemsch

### Odd Bodkin

Aug 29, 2021, 3:13:58 PMAug 29
to
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8/29/21 10:45 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
>> [...]
>
> You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.
>
> You are also learning

Well, given that Townes is just a recent re-nym and this fella’s been
interacting with Ed a long time, there’s nothing for him to learn about Ed.
That’s ok though because Townes is clearly not trying to explain anything
to Ed with any language or presentation that would help Ed to understand
anything. Then one might reasonably ask Townes, for whose benefit does he
to offer, though he might scrounge around for a deflection or two.

Ed’s motivations for posting here are straightforward. Townes Olson has
trouble being straightforward with his.

> that Ed Lake is completely unable to read what you
> write, primarily because he simply does not know what the words you use
> actually mean -- he makes up his own meanings and ascribes them to your
> words. His own opinions sound too loudly in his ear that he cannot hear
> what you actually say. Hopeless.
>
> It is futile to try to teach a pig to sing....
>
> Tom Roberts
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

### Ed Lake

Aug 29, 2021, 3:17:19 PMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 1:58:52 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 6:38:54 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> How many Cs atoms are in a clock?
> > >
> > > Probably millions.
> > >
> > >> How do they watch one of them?
> > >
> > > They don't. They watch all of them.
> > >
> > >> How could any machine count a nano difference?
> > >
> > > They don't count or measure size. They measure its energy.
> > >
> > >> How is the one Cs atom changing in size?
> > >
> > > Its size isn't measured. It loses an electron, which causes it to
> > > lose energy.
> Where does the electron go to?
> where do we measure that order
> of the separate electron?

Okay. My mistake. The electron isn't "lost." It just changes its
orbit around the nucleus of the atom. It moves into an unstable
orbit. The clock has the ability to detect which atoms are "stable"
and which are NOT "stable." It separates them, and if all or nearly
all of the atoms are UNstable, then the clock is emitting photons
with the correct frequency and is operating correctly.

Cesium is almost a liquid. Inside the clock the cesium atoms are
heated in an "oven" to turn them into a gas. The gas is piped
into an area where the atoms can get hit by billions of photons.
If most or all of the atoms become unstable because they were
hit, then the clock is perfectly tuned. If most of the atoms do
NOT become unstable, then the clock has to adjust itself to the
right frequency.

Ed

### Townes Olson

Aug 29, 2021, 3:30:50 PMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:45:49 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> You do NOT need to compare readings "at the same time."

If you want to understand what "reciprocal time dilation" means, you need to compare readings on separate clocks "at the same time", because that's what "reciprocal time dilation" refers to.

> You CANNOT compare readings at the same time unless both
> clocks are in the same location.

We can't directly compare them with each other, but we can compare them both with the time of a physically meaningful system of coordinates that covers the entire region. This is precisely what we do when we say, for example, that in terms of the ECI coordinates a clock runs slow when moving at high speed or when at lower elevation. These comparisons apply to spatially separate clocks, by comparing both with the ECI coordinates. Likewise we can make comparisons of the rates of separate clocks in terms of any specified system of inertia-based coordinates. This leads to the result that each clock (in flat spacetime) runs slow in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other is at rest, as explained in detail in the previous post (that you snipped and ignored, as usual).

> You are creating a FICTITIOUS situation in order to validate your
> screwball mathematics.

No, the situations are not fictitious at all, and the predictions match exactly all experimental results.

> How can you possibly believe that every photon is going to go through
> a slit without any problem? Why don't some photons hit the bar between
> the slits?

When I say that your oscillating particle must have gone through one slit or the other, I mean that if it reaches the screen, it must have gone through one or the other, not both. But if each particles (that reaches the screen) goes through just one of the slits, there is no interference. Do you understand this?

> NO! I am NOT saying that a single photon passes through both slits.

Then there is no interference pattern on the screen when both slits are open. So your beliefs are false. Understand?

> > The electromagnetic field of charged particles (electrons, protons, etc). Photons are massless and chargeless bosons that mediate the electromagnetic forces between charged particles.
>
> But those "charged particles" could be a trillion miles away from each other.

Relevance?

> And there is no "mediation." There is just absorption and re-emission or
> absorption without re-emission, depending upon the type of atom it hits.

You contradict yourself. The emissions and absorptions of photons are how they mediate the electromagnetic force.

> > Your attempts to visualize things are all failures. For example, you completely failed to account for simple interference, e.g., are you claiming your particle goes through both slits in a two-slit experiment? Which one does it go through first? Or does it split in half and then re-combine? You see, your beliefs are completely incapable of accounting for even the most elementary phenomena of light.
>
> My understanding FULLY accounts for all actions by photons.

No, as explained above, it does not. If your "photon" reaching the screen has gone through just one of the slits, then why is that "photon" affected by the presence of the other slit? If you just focus on the distribution of receptions for the photons that pass through Slit#1, would that distribution depend on whether Slit#2 was open or closed?

### Ed Lake

Aug 29, 2021, 3:33:15 PMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 2:13:58 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 8/29/21 10:45 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.
> >
> > You are also learning
> Well, given that Townes is just a recent re-nym and this fella’s been
> interacting with Ed a long time, there’s nothing for him to learn about Ed.
> That’s ok though because Townes is clearly not trying to explain anything
> to Ed with any language or presentation that would help Ed to understand
> anything. Then one might reasonably ask Townes, for whose benefit does he
> to offer, though he might scrounge around for a deflection or two.
>
> Ed’s motivations for posting here are straightforward. Townes Olson has
> trouble being straightforward with his.

Yes. The trick seems to be to VISUALIZE what is happening. I'm an analyst.
I study a situation and try to VISUALIZE what happened. It's like watching
a marble go into the top of a box, and then drops of hot liquid come out of the
bottom of the box. You have to visualize what is going on inside the box.

It seems most people here do NOT visualize what is happening. They only
memorize what they were taught, and they recite that.

If something is taking place where you cannot actually see it happening,
I think you need to visualize what is happening before you can truly understand
the difference between what went into the box and what came out.

What goes into a double slit experiment is PHOTONS. What comes out
is a pattern of dark and light stripes on a wall. You know what the inside
of the box looks like, and you know what goes into the box. You just
need to visualize what happens to the photons inside the box in order
to get what comes out.

Ed

### Ed Lake

Aug 29, 2021, 3:58:37 PMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 2:30:50 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:45:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > You do NOT need to compare readings "at the same time."
> If you want to understand what "reciprocal time dilation" means, you need to compare readings on separate clocks "at the same time", because that's what "reciprocal time dilation" refers to.

Which means "reciprocal time dilation" is JUST NONSENSE, because
you CANNOT compare readings on separate clocks at the same time.

> > You CANNOT compare readings at the same time unless both
> > clocks are in the same location.
> We can't directly compare them with each other, but we can compare them both with the time of a physically meaningful system of coordinates that covers the entire region.

In other words, you do it mathematically and BELIEVE the results of
your math as if it was the word of God.

(snip repetitious crap)

> > How can you possibly believe that every photon is going to go through
> > a slit without any problem? Why don't some photons hit the bar between
> > the slits?
> When I say that your oscillating particle must have gone through one slit or the other, I mean that if it reaches the screen, it must have gone through one or the other, not both. But if each particles (that reaches the screen) goes through just one of the slits, there is no interference. Do you understand this?

I understand that there is usually no interference between photons.

> > NO! I am NOT saying that a single photon passes through both slits.
> Then there is no interference pattern on the screen when both slits are open. So your beliefs are false. Understand?

I understand that YOUR beliefs are false. If you send one photon at a
time through the slits, you will still eventually get the striped pattern.

> > > The electromagnetic field of charged particles (electrons, protons, etc). Photons are massless and chargeless bosons that mediate the electromagnetic forces between charged particles.
> >
> > But those "charged particles" could be a trillion miles away from each other.
> Relevance?

It means "mediation" cannot happen for a long long time. PLUS
"mediation" implies back and forth dialog, which does NOT HAPPEN.

> > And there is no "mediation." There is just absorption and re-emission or
> > absorption without re-emission, depending upon the type of atom it hits.
> You contradict yourself. The emissions and absorptions of photons are how they mediate the electromagnetic force.

You obviously have some different definition of the word "mediate."
Can you describe what you are saying without using "mediate"?

> > > Your attempts to visualize things are all failures. For example, you completely failed to account for simple interference, e.g., are you claiming your particle goes through both slits in a two-slit experiment? Which one does it go through first? Or does it split in half and then re-combine? You see, your beliefs are completely incapable of accounting for even the most elementary phenomena of light.
> >
> > My understanding FULLY accounts for all actions by photons.
> No, as explained above, it does not. If your "photon" reaching the screen has gone through just one of the slits, then why is that "photon" affected by the presence of the other slit? If you just focus on the distribution of receptions for the photons that pass through Slit#1, would that distribution depend on whether Slit#2 was open or closed?

The photon is NOT affected by the presence of the other slit.
You get a different pattern when you have two slits versus one
slit, because IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION. There are
TWO ways for a photon to hit the wall when it can go through either
one of TWO slits, but there is only ONE way for a photon to hit the
wall if there is only a single slit.

Ed

### Townes Olson

Aug 29, 2021, 4:06:20 PMAug 29
to
On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:13:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.
>
> Then one might reasonably ask Townes, for whose benefit does he
> think his post serves?

You can see that Tom concurs with my explanation, but when did he learn this? Here's a relevant post from earlier this year:

On Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 9:45:21 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> The phase of a photon doesn't change as it propagates on the null
>>>> interval between the emission event and the absorption event.
>>>
>>> This is wrong... Feynman describes using "arrows" to determine the
>>> probability of something happening... On p27 he says "As long as
>>> the photon moves, the [arrow rotates] (about 36,000 times per inch
>>> for red light) ..."
>>
>> You completely misunderstand. The "arrow" he's referring to on page
>> 27 is the hand of a stopwatch measuring the different optical path
>> lengths (including paths that pass through some layers of glass) in
>> terms of coordinate time, it isn't any evolution of the state of a
>> photon propagating in vacuum along a null interval.
>
>You are right, and I was wrong. Thanks. As you say, Feynman's "arrow" is really
>tracing back to the phase at the instant of emission, not an evolution along the path.
>
>[It took me a while to sort this out....]
>
>I realize how I had this incorrect mental image --
>
>Again, thanks for teaching me something. That's rare enough around here.
>
>Tom Roberts

### Python

Aug 29, 2021, 4:11:37 PMAug 29
to
Crank Ed Lake wrote:
...
> Yes. The trick seems to be to VISUALIZE what is happening. I'm an analyst.

"I know nothing. I am from Barcelona."

LOL.

### Richard Hertz

Aug 29, 2021, 4:12:20 PMAug 29
to

Hundred of years wasted in such sterile discussion, until Maxwell (waves, 1864) and Planck
(packetized waves or photons, 1900), mathematically substantiated the basis for both theories.

Then came Dirac (creation and absorption in EM fields composed by "bubbles", 1928-1930, QFT)
whose mathematics increased the complexity of "photons and particles" appearing and disapearing
on his seas or "fields".

The absolute true is that NATURE refuses to give its secrets to the pathetic humans trying to explain
them by LAME mathematical basis, which are completely unsatisfactory and create paradoxes like:
"It's a wave or it's a particle without mass", accordingly to the branch of science, the actors involved
and the outcome of experimental values.

Try to engage in a discussion a RF scientist (there are a lot, involved in hi-tech developments) and
QM/QFT/QED scientist (the same thing apply), about wave or particle nature of light. Probably,
the discussion will end with both involved in an exchange of insults, claiming that the other is a retarded.

Put a RF scientist to explain light emission phenomena and will finish with "gaussian wave packets".

Put a QM/QFT/QED scientist to explain waveguide or fiber optics behavior of photons, and will end
with photons behaving as having wavelength and frequency, obeying 200 years classic physics.

The problem is: there is NOT a satisfactory mathematical model that can explain the dual behavior.

As with Superman motto: "It's a bird. No, it's a plane. No, it's Superman!".

A "Superman" theory is what is missing. And, ironically, it's above any men out there. Not possible for humans
to find a satisfactory explanation. So, each one choose the theory that fits their DATA (not BELIEFS).

Message has been deleted

### Odd Bodkin

Aug 29, 2021, 5:09:38 PMAug 29
to
Townes Olson <townes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:13:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.
>>
>> Then one might reasonably ask Townes, for whose benefit does he
>> think his post serves?
>
> You can see that Tom concurs with my explanation, but when did he learn
> this? Here's a relevant post from earlier this year:

And so let’s see. You view yourself, and find it important to show
yourself, as the most knowledgeable person here? Is that the motivation?

>
> On Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 9:45:21 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>> The phase of a photon doesn't change as it propagates on the null
>>>>> interval between the emission event and the absorption event.
>>>>
>>>> This is wrong... Feynman describes using "arrows" to determine the
>>>> probability of something happening... On p27 he says "As long as
>>>> the photon moves, the [arrow rotates] (about 36,000 times per inch
>>>> for red light) ..."
>>>
>>> You completely misunderstand. The "arrow" he's referring to on page
>>> 27 is the hand of a stopwatch measuring the different optical path
>>> lengths (including paths that pass through some layers of glass) in
>>> terms of coordinate time, it isn't any evolution of the state of a
>>> photon propagating in vacuum along a null interval.
>>
>> You are right, and I was wrong. Thanks. As you say, Feynman's "arrow" is really
>> tracing back to the phase at the instant of emission, not an evolution along the path.
>>
>> [It took me a while to sort this out....]
>>
>> I realize how I had this incorrect mental image --
>>
>> Again, thanks for teaching me something. That's rare enough around here.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
>