What "Gravity" Really Is

3 views
Skip to first unread message

yes...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99
to
What is Gravity?
8/27/99
By Joshua Gulick

Perhaps it would be a good time to explain my view of gravitational
attraction and repulsion.

If you have read my latest additions to my site, you will know that I
believe that e-m radiation cannot actually intersect with other e-m
radiation. Instead, it goes around other e-m waves by the expansion of
the intersection points into 4 dimensional space. In effect, as e-m
radiation "intersects" 3D space is stretched into the fourth dimension
for the moment of intersection and then it retracts back into the
normal 3D space.

I believe that it is this pressure on 4th dimensional space and the
tendency of objects in our 4 dimensional space to move to alleviate
that pressure that is called "gravity".

This of course assumes that particles are constantly emitting e-m
radiation of wavelegths shorter than we can detect. Personally, I think
that this is highly probably because matter is likely composed of
particles smaller than we can detect, too.

It must be assumed that this consistant e-m radiation of matter is
naturally broadcast in harmony or in unison with the e-m radiation of
other matter. In this case, the interference patterns are the e-m
radiation intersection patterns from separate matter, which indicate
the 4D pressure points, (or as Einstein misinterpreted as 'the
curvature of space').

The point of gravity is to reduce the 4th dimensional pressure by
movement of the e-m sources to reduce or eliminate the interference
(intersection) patterns.

The interesting thing is that when the e-m radiations are emitted in
harmony or unison, the interference patterns and 4D pressure may be
reduced by moving the e-m sources (matter) closer together. The
eliminating effect of such movement overbalances the increase in
intersection amplitude seen as the e-m sources move together.

When the e-m sources are not emitting in unison or harmony, the
intersection amplitude (4d expansion amplitude) overbalances the
decrease in intersection of the e-m waves. In this case, the only
method of decresing 4D pressure is for nature to push the matter apart
and rely on the decrease in amplitude to overbalance the increase in
intersections.

Remember that e-m radiation is a vibration of 3D space with all
amplitudes extending into 4D space. This 4D amplitude of e-m does not
create the gravitational pressure. It is just a vibration "through" 4D
space. When e-m 'intersects', additional 4D space is actually created
for a moment -- this causes pressure.

Hope this is understandable. :)

More wild and crazy ideas are on my website at
http://www.stormloader.com/joshua

Peace,

Joshua


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

cahrens

unread,
Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99
to
Hello all,

You (Joshua) have a wonderful imagination. At times, I really do wish I
could view things so radically.

Anyway, I have a quick question concerning the following passage your wrote
bellow:

>This of course assumes that particles are constantly emitting e-m

>radiation of wavelengths shorter than we can detect. Personally, I think


>that this is highly probably because matter is likely composed of
>particles smaller than we can detect, too.

If you are assuming particles are constantly emitting photons(e&m radiation)
at wavelength which we can't detect (damn high energy photons), how and
where do these particles get the energy to do this?? If there continuously
emitting gammas they must be continually excited and thus must be
continually exposed to an "energy source." Do you see any problems with were
this is going?

Cory

cahrens

unread,
Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99
to

Hi,

I have a quick question for Joshua. You clam, on your web page, to be very
good in mathematics and analytical reasoning. So, have you derived any
equations or somehow modified Maxwell's and Einstein's equations to
accommodate your theory?

and...@ibm.net

unread,
Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99
to
yes...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> What is Gravity?
> 8/27/99
> By Joshua Gulick
>
> Perhaps it would be a good time to explain my view of gravitational
> attraction and repulsion.
>

Not in my case. I don't propose to read it.

John Anderson

Tom Davidson

unread,
Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99
to

yes...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7qf06j$ecd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...

>What is Gravity?
>8/27/99
>By Joshua Gulick
>
>Perhaps it would be a good time to explain my view of gravitational
>attraction and repulsion.
>
>If you have read my latest additions to my site, you will know that I
>believe that e-m radiation cannot actually intersect with other e-m
>radiation.

<snip>

My apologies Yeshua, but it is getting late and I don't have the time to
visit your web site and examine in detail (and critique) your ideas. One
thing stands out to me, however.

It appears your premise (above) is not compatible with the well-established
phenomena of optical interference (which dates back to Isaac Newton). If
e-m radiation cannot actually intersect with other e-m radiation, how are
interference patterns formed?


Tom Davidson
Aurora, CO

orian

unread,
Aug 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/30/99
to
He must have been assuming the other end of the spectrum or very low
frequency photos are being ammited.

Chuck Stewart

unread,
Aug 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/31/99
to
Tom Davidson wrote:

<snip sensible stuff>

> ...how are interference patterns formed?

When fringe groups meddle according to a plan.


> Tom Davidson
> Aurora, CO

--
Chuck Stewart

"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

yes...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/31/99
to
Tom,

I believe you may have misunderstood. I believe that e-m radiation
appears to intersect in three-dimensional space, but is really passing
without intersecting in the fourth dimension.

Peace,

Joshua


> My apologies Yeshua, but it is getting late and I don't have the time
to
> visit your web site and examine in detail (and critique) your ideas.
One
> thing stands out to me, however.
>
> It appears your premise (above) is not compatible with the well-
established
> phenomena of optical interference (which dates back to Isaac
Newton). If
> e-m radiation cannot actually intersect with other e-m radiation,
how are
> interference patterns formed?
>
> Tom Davidson
> Aurora, CO
>
>

Louis Savain

unread,
Aug 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/31/99
to
In article <7qhb6i$527$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

yes...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I believe you may have misunderstood. I believe that e-m radiation
> appears to intersect in three-dimensional space, but is really passing
> without intersecting in the fourth dimension.

For two photons to interact, they must have the same
coordinates, meaning that they must be at the same location.
If they are at the same location, all four coordinates must
be equal. If their fourth coordinate are not equal to that
of other particles, then they are irrelevant to us since
they would never interact with anything else.

IMO, most photons do not interact because they don't have
the same *energy* level. However, there are times when they
do interact, otherwise mirrors and lenses would not work.
I say this because the "empty space" between atoms is immense
compared to the atoms themselves. Most photons in a beam of
light directed at a mirror would go right through without
interacting. Therefore photons directed at a mirror must be
interacting with the photons bouncing between the atoms and
electrons that comprise the mirror. These interactions cause
the incoming photons to be deflected. Just one man's opinion.

Louis Savain

Charles Francis

unread,
Sep 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/1/99
to
Photons do not interact with each other, they can only be emitted and
absorbed by charged particles. The workings of mirrors and lenses is
complex. A photon is absorbed by an electron in the mirror or the lens.
That creates an imbalance in conservation of energy which must be
restored. Because there are already photons maintaining the internal
structure of the mirror or lens, (comprising the e.m. force) restoration
of the balance of conservation of energy is a matter for the whole lens
or mirror, not simply the electron that absorbed the original photon.
Ultimately conservation of energy dictates the manner in which a photon
is re-emitted from the structure, and explains reflection and
refraction.

If any one is interested in how the world really works I can recommend
"QED" by Richard Feynman. This is the man's own account of the theory in
which he won his Nobel prize, and it is in many ways the best of his
popular books, because it is the one in which he really is expert, not
just the opinion of a great physicist.


In article <7qhov3$fd4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-
deja.com> writes

--
Charles Francis
cha...@clef.demon.co.uk

Speak to each in accordance with his understanding

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/1/99
to
In article <z+qP8aAM...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:

> Photons do not interact with each other, they can only be emitted and
> absorbed by charged particles. The workings of mirrors and lenses is
> complex. A photon is absorbed by an electron in the mirror or the
> lens. That creates an imbalance in conservation of energy which must
> be restored. Because there are already photons maintaining the
> internal structure of the mirror or lens, (comprising the e.m. force)
> restoration of the balance of conservation of energy is a matter for
> the whole lens or mirror, not simply the electron that absorbed the
> original photon.

Well you may claim that photons do not interact with each other but
simple logic says otherwise. As I explained in my post, if photons
only interacted with the charged particles of a mirror (or any other
object for that matter) then matter would be transparent. Why? Because
the likelihood of photons hitting electrons or any of the other
particles comprising an object is extremely small. Most photons would
just pass right through. Therefore incoming photons must be
interacting with the EM fields that exist between particles. And we
all know that EM fields are composed of radiating "virtual" photons.

> Ultimately conservation of energy dictates the manner in which a
> photon is re-emitted from the structure, and explains reflection and
> refraction.

I agree although I suspect that the interactions involve multiple
intrinsic properties that combine to cause the photons to be absorbed
and re-emitted at specific angles.

> If any one is interested in how the world really works I can
> recommend "QED" by Richard Feynman. This is the man's own account
> of the theory in which he won his Nobel prize, and it is in many
> ways the best of his popular books, because it is the one in which
> he really is expert, not just the opinion of a great physicist.

I'm sure Feynman is an expert at his own theories but I would not
care if a thousand Feynmans claimed that photons cannot interact with
other photons.

Charles Francis

unread,
Sep 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/1/99
to
In article <7qjmcv$rjn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-
deja.com> writes

>In article <z+qP8aAM...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
> Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>
>> Photons do not interact with each other, they can only be emitted and
>> absorbed by charged particles. The workings of mirrors and lenses is
>> complex. A photon is absorbed by an electron in the mirror or the
>> lens. That creates an imbalance in conservation of energy which must
>> be restored. Because there are already photons maintaining the
>> internal structure of the mirror or lens, (comprising the e.m. force)
>> restoration of the balance of conservation of energy is a matter for
>> the whole lens or mirror, not simply the electron that absorbed the
>> original photon.
>
> Well you may claim that photons do not interact with each other but
>simple logic says otherwise. As I explained in my post, if photons
>only interacted with the charged particles of a mirror (or any other
>object for that matter) then matter would be transparent. Why? Because
>the likelihood of photons hitting electrons or any of the other
>particles comprising an object is extremely small. Most photons would
>just pass right through. Therefore incoming photons must be
>interacting with the EM fields that exist between particles. And we
>all know that EM fields are composed of radiating "virtual" photons.

Odd that you accept one part of qed, but not another. I assure you qed
has been properly investigated, and its predictions match the behaviour
of light.


>
>> Ultimately conservation of energy dictates the manner in which a
>> photon is re-emitted from the structure, and explains reflection and
>> refraction.
>
> I agree although I suspect that the interactions involve multiple
>intrinsic properties that combine to cause the photons to be absorbed
>and re-emitted at specific angles.
>
>> If any one is interested in how the world really works I can
>> recommend "QED" by Richard Feynman. This is the man's own account
>> of the theory in which he won his Nobel prize, and it is in many
>> ways the best of his popular books, because it is the one in which
>> he really is expert, not just the opinion of a great physicist.
>
> I'm sure Feynman is an expert at his own theories but I would not
>care if a thousand Feynmans claimed that photons cannot interact with
>other photons.
>

If you study quantum electrodynamics, the theory in which EM fields are
composed of "virtual" photons, you will see that the properties of
light, such as reflection and refraction are described properly if
photons only interact with charged particles. Feynman explains the
theory quite well on a popular level.

>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

--

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/1/99
to
In article <i38beHAV...@clef.demon.co.uk>,

Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7qjmcv$rjn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_savain@my-
> deja.com> writes
> >In article <z+qP8aAM...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
> > Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:

>[snip]


> Odd that you accept one part of qed, but not another.

I'm sure any theory has at least one grain of truth in it.

> I assure
> you qed has been properly investigated, and its predictions
> match the behaviour
> of light.

Predictions are not necessarily indicators of correct
interpretations, only of correct math.

>[snip]


> > I'm sure Feynman is an expert at his own theories but I would not
> >care if a thousand Feynmans claimed that photons cannot interact with
> >other photons.
> >
> If you study quantum electrodynamics, the theory in which EM
> fields are composed of "virtual" photons, you will see that the
> properties of light, such as reflection and refraction are
> described properly if photons only interact with charged
> particles. Feynman explains the theory quite well on a popular
> level.

I'm sure they are described. But "described properly" is far from the
truth IMO. No one should be so willing to accept a theory (regardless
of the fame of its proponents) as gospel but only as a platform for
further understanding. As I said, electrons are essentially "point"
particles and the likelihood of electrons in a mirror *directly*
interacting with most incoming photons is extremely small. The area
surrounding charged particles is filled with so-called "virtual"
photons and, IMO, these are the particles mostly responsible for the
electro-chemical and optical behavior of matter including reflection
and refraction.

Louis Savain

Charles Francis

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <7qk26f$53j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-

Sorry, but this is not true, has no correspondence with the maths, and
would not lead to correct predictions. Feynman's fame comes from his
understanding of the theory, not the other way round. I recommend him
because he explains it well, not because he is famous. Since the only
thing you wish to do is call all scientists jerks, while spouting forth
crap, I do not know why you are on this site at all. Goodbye.

Richard Herring

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <7qjmcv$rjn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain (louis_...@my-deja.com) wrote:

> Well you may claim that photons do not interact with each other but
> simple logic says otherwise.

"Simple logic" says many things that aren't so, unless you feed it
with axioms based on observation.

> As I explained in my post, if photons
> only interacted with the charged particles of a mirror (or any other
> object for that matter) then matter would be transparent. Why? Because
> the likelihood of photons hitting electrons or any of the other
> particles comprising an object is extremely small.

Why? Are you assuming that photons are point particles?

> Most photons would
> just pass right through. Therefore incoming photons must be
> interacting with the EM fields that exist between particles.

Why? EM fields, by definition, act on charges. Photons are neutral.

> And we
> all know that EM fields are composed of radiating "virtual" photons.

Static electric or magnetic fields are composed of virtual photons.
Radiating electromagnetic (EM) fields are composed of *real* photons.

Why would it be easier for photons to interact with other photons
than with electrons?

> I'm sure Feynman is an expert at his own theories but I would not
> care if a thousand Feynmans claimed that photons cannot interact with
> other photons.

I expect the feeling is mutual.
--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <kjdaLvAT...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:

>[snip]
> Goodbye.

See ya.

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <7qlcqe$gh2$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>,
richard...@gecm.com wrote:

>[snip]


> Why would it be easier for photons to interact with other photons
> than with electrons?

Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting anything.

Now I'm not saying that all photons interact. I'm saying that
depending on their polarity and their energy levels, some photons will
interact.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
Louis Savain wrote:
> As I said, electrons are essentially "point"
> particles and the likelihood of electrons in a mirror *directly*
> interacting with most incoming photons is extremely small.

You need to understand QED before making such remarks. Then you would
understand what the words you use actually mean, and why your
statements are false. Basically, anyone who uses the word "photon"
without understanding at least the basics of QED is almost certain to
be wrong.

For an elementary and entertaining introduction to the subject:

Feynman, _QED_.


A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed to
"find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike or
not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....

Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all. They
are squiggly lines in Feynman diagrams, and represent quantities
whose 4-momentum must be integrated over. In position space that
is equivalent to integrating over all possible positions for their
endpoints. Then there is the sum over diagrams and the overall
symmetrization over Bosons and antisymmetrization over Fermions....

By the way, it is this antisymmetrization which ensures that
a photon will "find" every charged particle in the universe.
In your case, every electron in the mirror....


> The area
> surrounding charged particles is filled with so-called "virtual"
> photons and, IMO, these are the particles mostly responsible for the
> electro-chemical and optical behavior of matter including reflection
> and refraction.

In QED that is blatantly wrong. And I know of no other theory which
really describes photons (well, electroweak theory, but QED is
essentially a subset of it).


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Richard Herring

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <7qm0pv$h92$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain (louis_...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> In article <7qlcqe$gh2$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>,
> richard...@gecm.com wrote:

> >[snip]
> > Why would it be easier for photons to interact with other photons
> > than with electrons?

> Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
> many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
> not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
> photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting anything.

Which doesn't answer my question, unfortunately.
*Why* would they go through without hitting anything? Are they too small?
How did you calculate that 99%? What figures did you assume, and why?

> Now I'm not saying that all photons interact. I'm saying that
> depending on their polarity and their energy levels, some photons will
> interact.

So can you provide the equivalent calculation for photon-photon
"interaction"?

--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <7qm3p6$l1i$2...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>,

richard...@gecm.com wrote:
> In article <7qm0pv$h92$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
(louis_...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> > In article <7qlcqe$gh2$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>,
> > richard...@gecm.com wrote:
>
> > >[snip]
> > > Why would it be easier for photons to interact with other photons
> > > than with electrons?
>
> > Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
> > many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
> > not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
> > photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting
> > anything.
>
> Which doesn't answer my question, unfortunately.

It seems obvious to me but it may be becasue I've been thinking about
it for a while.

> *Why* would they go through without hitting anything?
> Are they too small?

It is because ordinary matter is mostly empty space.

> How did you calculate that 99%? What figures did you assume, and why?

My understanding is that the electrons, neutrons and protons that
constitute a material object take up less than 1% of the volume of the
object. This varies depending on the mass density of the object.

> > Now I'm not saying that all photons interact. I'm saying that
> > depending on their polarity and their energy levels, some
> > photons will interact.
>
> So can you provide the equivalent calculation for photon-photon
> "interaction"?

IMO, the duration of a photon-photon interaction is Planck time, an
extremely small value. This accounts for both absorption and decay.
The direction of the motion of the decayed photons depend on their
original velocity and their polarity.

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <37CE8D68...@lucent.com>,
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

> Louis Savain wrote:
> > As I said, electrons are essentially "point"
> > particles and the likelihood of electrons in a mirror *directly*
> > interacting with most incoming photons is extremely small.
>

>[snip]


> A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed to
> "find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike or
> not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....

It's loose because it's crap. I'm sure QED physicists can come up
experimental proof for this voodoo nonsense. I won't hold my breath.

> Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all.

They are point-like to me. All particles are point-like to me. The
moment you give a particle extent you immediately fall into an infinite
regress dilemma. But I would not put it past modern physics. They
love infinite regress.

> They
> are squiggly lines in Feynman diagrams, and represent quantities
> whose 4-momentum must be integrated over.

Feynman must have had a direct link with God who must have
undoubtedly explained to him that photons have sizes that can be
represented by squiggly lines.

> In position space that
> is equivalent to integrating over all possible positions for their
> endpoints. Then there is the sum over diagrams and the overall
> symmetrization over Bosons and antisymmetrization over Fermions....

This sounds like you're reciting from a bible.

> By the way, it is this antisymmetrization which ensures that
> a photon will "find" every charged particle in the universe.
> In your case, every electron in the mirror....
>
> > The area
> > surrounding charged particles is filled with so-called "virtual"
> > photons and, IMO, these are the particles mostly responsible for the
> > electro-chemical and optical behavior of matter including reflection
> > and refraction.
>
> In QED that is blatantly wrong.

I really don't care.

> And I know of no other theory which
> really describes photons (well, electroweak theory, but QED is
> essentially a subset of it).

Well now you have my theory. And my theory does not postulate a
bunch of voodoo photons travelling every possible path as if by magic.
I boggles the mind that so-called intelligent people can believe in
such blatant crap.

Tom Roberts

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
Louis Savain wrote:
> Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
> many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
> not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
> photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting anything.

This is all just plain wrong in the only theory we have which describes
photons, QED. See my other recent post in this thread for more details.
You seem to be thinking of phostons as pointlike particles, and that
is just plain wrong; they are mathematical abstractions in a perturbative
approximation to QED.


Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

z@z

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
Hello Tom Roberts!


| A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed to
| "find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike or
| not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....

It seems to me that properties, similar to the ones attributed by
scientists and theologians of the past to God, angels and so on,
are now attributed by physicists to elementary particles.

| Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all. They

| are squiggly lines in Feynman diagrams, and represent quantities

| whose 4-momentum must be integrated over. In position space that


| is equivalent to integrating over all possible positions for their
| endpoints. Then there is the sum over diagrams and the overall
| symmetrization over Bosons and antisymmetrization over Fermions....
|

| By the way, it is this antisymmetrization which ensures that
| a photon will "find" every charged particle in the universe.
| In your case, every electron in the mirror....

For me it would be almost impossible to believe in such
strangenesses. Do you really believe in these explanations?
Do you think that they agree with Ockham's razor?

Maybe you could profit from studying my short text 'Spacial
extension of elementary particles':
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a07


Cheers
Wolfgang Gottfried G.


Spaceship paradox definitively refuting Special Relativity:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/paradox.html (very short)

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <37CEB564...@lucent.com>,

I really don't give a rat's behind what photons are in QED. The last
time I looked, mathematical abstractions do not cause people to see
images on their retinae. Photons are real particles. Anything else
has nothing to do with physics. QED's description of photons is a
bunch of chicken shit voodoo that has nothing to do with reality.

Mecha Sonic

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <7qmdq8$fnn$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> writes

>Hello Tom Roberts!
>
>
>| A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed to
>| "find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike or
>| not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....
>
>It seems to me that properties, similar to the ones attributed by
>scientists and theologians of the past to God, angels and so on,
>are now attributed by physicists to elementary particles.
>
>| Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all. They
>| are squiggly lines in Feynman diagrams, and represent quantities
>| whose 4-momentum must be integrated over. In position space that
>| is equivalent to integrating over all possible positions for their
>| endpoints. Then there is the sum over diagrams and the overall
>| symmetrization over Bosons and antisymmetrization over Fermions....
>|
>| By the way, it is this antisymmetrization which ensures that
>| a photon will "find" every charged particle in the universe.
>| In your case, every electron in the mirror....
>
>For me it would be almost impossible to believe in such
>strangenesses. Do you really believe in these explanations?
>Do you think that they agree with Ockham's razor?
>
These are fairly good explanations of how the theory actually works.
This theory predicts all the phenomena of nature except gravity and
subnuclear. (I can show that it predicts gravity too, but that is a
paper not yet reviewed). It has never made an inaccurate prediction, and
its predictions have an accuracy up to about 14 places.


>Maybe you could profit from studying my short text 'Spacial
>extension of elementary particles':
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a07
>

If you do not grasp it you could not possibly advance anything more
sensible, since your theory would have to be identical in its
predictions to this one. It would have to use the same mathematics, but
say something different as to how that mathematics is to be interpreted.
For example instead of saying that the photon travels over all possible
paths, that it has a potential to travel over all possible paths, and
that the probability of its travelling over a particular one is given by
a formula whose origin you would have to explain.

Mecha Sonic

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <37CEB564...@lucent.com>, Tom Roberts
<tjro...@lucent.com> writes

>Louis Savain wrote:
>> Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
>> many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
>> not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
>> photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting anything.
>
>This is all just plain wrong in the only theory we have which describes
>photons, QED. See my other recent post in this thread for more details.
>You seem to be thinking of phostons as pointlike particles, and that
>is just plain wrong; they are mathematical abstractions in a perturbative
>approximation to QED.
>

QED can be interpreted as the statistical behaviour of point-like
particles in a structure in which time and space are simply numbers
resulting from measurement, not part of a pre-existent manifold. You may
understand what I am getting at if you conceive of a topological
structure built out of Feynman-like diagrams, in which only the topology
of the structure matters, and in which electrons have a property of
time. From particular configurations in the diagrams (photon exchange
and return) metric relations can be built. The process is essentially
the same as radar, so Minkowsky space-time becomes a statistical
property of the structure. It turns out that quantum logic is the
correct statistical analysis for a structure of this type.

The details are in

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
A Theory of Quantum Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906030
An Interpretation of Quantum Logic
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906042
The Fabric of Space-time
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906060
The Fabric of Space-time II: Gravity by Photon Exchange

StanAZ

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
Richard Herring: "Why would it be easier for photons to interact with other
photons than with electrons?"

Louis Savain: "Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons,


by many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were not
filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming photons (over 99%
IMO) would go right through without hitting anything."

What you're getting, Louis, is the usual bobbing, weaving, and frustration of
Gurus in current theory, who can't answer objections to the prevalent models.
It's not their fault, because the models themselves are muddled. (Feynman never
pretended to understand QED.)

But your model is just as wrong. Light doesn't consist of countless numbers
of classical "photons", as though they were little fuzzballs, raining along.
Neither does matter consist of the classical particles called "electrons". In
both cases, propagation of the fields is by wave motion. Particle aspects show
up only at the point of interaction. This is obvious, if you consider that
*point* particles can't have any such property as "wavelength". What QED
describes as "photons" or "electrons" means only that the energy and momentum
have to be quantized (and conserved), to match experiment. QED does this ad
hoc.

Thus, a UV light beam from the Sun is described entirely by Maxwell's
equations, as a plane wave - until it hits your arm. At which point the
complete wave system disappears, and is replaced by an energy quantum absorbed
by a speck of your melanin. The same thing applies to electrons. They behave as
a wave system in a two slit experiment, or in an atom, which interferes like
any propagating wave. This is the case even if only a "single electron" was
emitted from a cathode. The particle aspect shows up when the wave hits a
screen, or when the electron is emitted from an excited atom. At which point
the wave function "collapses," and a scintillation or track excitation appears.

The only thing that complicates this, is that the vacuum is dense - with
whatever the waves, themselves, consist of. However, it is also able to create
particles, on occasion, and these can intervene in the muddle. The result is
that a light wave can sometimes do its thing with an electron from the
background, and then regenerate itself as a wave. So a pair of light waves
*can* interact - as you propose, Louis - by using vacuum particles as
intermediaries. -Stan

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <19990902145111...@ng-fs1.aol.com>,
sta...@aol.com (StanAZ) wrote:

>[snip]


> In both cases, propagation of the fields is by wave motion.
> Particle aspects show up only at the point of interaction.

I reject continous structures, i.e., infinitely smooth constructs
like waves, as being 100% illogical for many reasons, one of which
being that they require infinity for their every existence. That alone
kills continuity dead in my mind.

> This is obvious, if you consider that *point* particles can't
> have any such property as "wavelength".

True, point particles do not have wavelength but a huge number of
them may indeed behave like waves as has being amply demonstrated by
computer experiments in cellular automata. Although I am an inveterate
aetherist, I completely reject the notion that light is a wave in a
mdedium. Ligth definitely consists of particles of various energy
levels from Planck energy to extremely high levels. I realize that my
arguments here will not sway a wave/continuity enthusiast but so be it.

Louis Savain

-It's all about particles, their intrinsic properties and their
interactions.

Scott Lanning

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
Tom Roberts (tjro...@lucent.com) wrote:
> A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed
> to "find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike
> or not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....

Hmm, okay I've not studied QED (though I've read that book by Feynman),
but I've seen path integral derivations in quantum class. First of all,
I *do* find the path integral formulation very elegant. However,
problem with saying the photon actually samples every possible path
is like....okay, in E&M, you have retarded and advanced potentials.
Do people actually think the advanced potentials are physically
meaningful? (I dunno, maybe they do..)

--
Scott Lanning: slan...@buphy.bu.edu, http://physics.bu.edu/~slanning
"I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I
find it delightful." --Richard Feynman

JeffMo

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>In article <37CE8D68...@lucent.com>,
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:

>> Louis Savain wrote:
>> > As I said, electrons are essentially "point"
>> > particles and the likelihood of electrons in a mirror *directly*
>> > interacting with most incoming photons is extremely small.
>>
>>[snip]

>> A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed to
>> "find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike or
>> not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....

> It's loose because it's crap. I'm sure QED physicists can come up


>experimental proof for this voodoo nonsense. I won't hold my breath.

Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time do a fair
job of illustrating this.

>> Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all.

> They are point-like to me. All particles are point-like to me. The


>moment you give a particle extent you immediately fall into an infinite
>regress dilemma. But I would not put it past modern physics. They
>love infinite regress.

If two particles are "point-like" then they can approach each other to
any specified distance greater than zero, correct? How do you avoid
the infinite regress in force calculations then? For example, as the
separation between two oppositely-charged particles' centers goes to
zero, the electrostatic force between them goes to infinity...

Just curious,
JeffMo

"[...] any effort at safe sex is totally, utterly immoral from top to bottom."
-- Rev. James Reuter, Office of Mass Media, Catholic Church of the Philippines


Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>,

jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <37CE8D68...@lucent.com>,
> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> >> Louis Savain wrote:
> >> > As I said, electrons are essentially "point"
> >> > particles and the likelihood of electrons in a mirror *directly*
> >> > interacting with most incoming photons is extremely small.
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >> A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is
> >> guaranteed to "find" each and every charged particle in the
> >> universe, pointlike or not. But this phrasing is extremely
> >> loose....
>
> > It's loose because it's crap. I'm sure QED physicists can come up
> >experimental proof for this voodoo nonsense. I won't hold my breath.
>
> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time do a fair
> job of illustrating this.

No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.

> >> Note that in QED photons are not pointlike particles at all.
>
> > They are point-like to me. All particles are point-like to me.
> > The moment you give a particle extent you immediately fall into
> > an infinite regress dilemma. But I would not put it past modern
> > physics. They love infinite regress.
>
> If two particles are "point-like" then they can approach each other to
> any specified distance greater than zero, correct?

Well, no. You are assuming that distance is infinitely divisible. I
assume a discrete universe with discrete positions for particles. The
Planck length is the most likely candidate for the smallest possible
distance.

> How do you avoid
> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For example, as the
> separation between two oppositely-charged particles' centers goes to
> zero, the electrostatic force between them goes to infinity...

The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete positions.

> Just curious,

Very insightful questions.

Louis Savain

D.A.Kopf

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
Tom Roberts wrote:

>
> Louis Savain wrote:
> > Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
> > many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
> > not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
> > photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting anything.
>
> This is all just plain wrong in the only theory we have which describes
> photons, QED. See my other recent post in this thread for more details.
> You seem to be thinking of phostons as pointlike particles, and that
> is just plain wrong; they are mathematical abstractions in a perturbative
> approximation to QED.

Hehe...perturbative approximation...I like that. Before we start bombarding
each other with photon torpedos (or perturbative approximations to same, as
the case may be) I'd like to know how the photon proponents imagine them to
have an independent existence. To my mind this inescapably requires some sort
of ether, which would violate special relativity unless some sort of ether
drag was hypothesized.

Jan Bielawski

unread,
Sep 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/2/99
to
In article <7qmo3s$444$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> writes:
> In article <37CEB564...@lucent.com>,
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > Louis Savain wrote:
> > > Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
> > > many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
> > > not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
> > > photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting
> > > anything.
> >
> > This is all just plain wrong in the only theory we have which
> > describes photons, QED. See my other recent post in this thread
> > for more details. You seem to be thinking of phostons as pointlike
> > particles, and that is just plain wrong; they are mathematical
> > abstractions in a perturbative approximation to QED.
>
> I really don't give a rat's behind what photons are in QED.

That means all you do is talk then. Anybody can say what you say.

> The last
> time I looked, mathematical abstractions do not cause people to see
> images on their retinae. Photons are real particles.

1. Says who?
2. What does "real particles" mean exactly?

> Anything else
> has nothing to do with physics.

An opinion.

> QED's description of photons is a
> bunch of chicken shit voodoo that has nothing to do with reality.

An opinion.
--
Jan Bielawski )\._.,--....,'``.
Molecular Simulations Inc. /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
San Diego, CA fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
j...@msi.com http://www.msi.com

-disclaimer-
unless stated otherwise, everything in the above message is personal opinion
and nothing in it is an official statement of molecular simulations inc.

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <FHGEq...@msi.com>,
j...@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote:

>[snip]
> An opinion.

You know something Bielawski, when you're angry your IQ suddenly
lowers down to room temperature. Like your buddy Tom Roberts, the
defender of establishment crackpottery, you're wasting my time with
your dim witted comments. Ciao!

Jim Carr

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to

... note appropriate followups to s.p.particle ...


Tom Roberts wrote:
}
} Louis Savain wrote:
} > Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
} > many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
} > not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
} > photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting anything.
}
} This is all just plain wrong in the only theory we have which describes
} photons, QED. See my other recent post in this thread for more details.

Presumably a post that notices that electrons are in QED as well and
applies the next sentence to them as well as to photons.

} You seem to be thinking of phostons as pointlike particles, and that
} is just plain wrong; they are mathematical abstractions in a perturbative
} approximation to QED.

In article <37CEF949...@dakx.com>

d...@dakx.com writes:
>
>Hehe...perturbative approximation...I like that. Before we start bombarding
>each other with photon torpedos (or perturbative approximations to same, as
>the case may be) I'd like to know how the photon proponents imagine them to
>have an independent existence. To my mind this inescapably requires some sort
>of ether, which would violate special relativity unless some sort of ether
>drag was hypothesized.

Is an ether required to have an electron? Why or why not?

Is it required for a massive vector boson like the Z0?

If an ether is not required for one particle, why should it be required
for another?

--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.

Mecha Sonic

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>, JeffMo
<jef...@dipstick.cfw.com> writes

>
>If two particles are "point-like" then they can approach each other to
>any specified distance greater than zero, correct? How do you avoid

>the infinite regress in force calculations then? For example, as the
>separation between two oppositely-charged particles' centers goes to
>zero, the electrostatic force between them goes to infinity...
>
>Just curious,
>JeffMo
>
>
Hi, JeffMo,

Long time, no see.

Mdern physics shows that we cannot describe point-like particles in a
space-time continuum. Most of the attempts to understand this say that
particles cannot be point-like, but I think it is far more accurate to
say that the space-time continuum cannot exist. It is possible
mathematically to define points in a discrete topological structure, and
to show that the metric relations of space-time approximate properties
of the structure.

Mecha Sonic

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <7qn1ca$asj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-
deja.com> writes

>> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time do a fair
>> job of illustrating this.
>
> No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
>possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
>superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
>exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
>plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
>particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.

The trouble is that that can be calculated and disproved.

Mecha Sonic

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <7qmjhc$873$2...@news1.bu.edu>, Scott Lanning
<slan...@buphy.bu.edu> writes

>Tom Roberts (tjro...@lucent.com) wrote:
>> A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it is guaranteed
>> to "find" each and every charged particle in the universe, pointlike
>> or not. But this phrasing is extremely loose....
>
>Hmm, okay I've not studied QED (though I've read that book by Feynman),
>but I've seen path integral derivations in quantum class. First of all,
>I *do* find the path integral formulation very elegant. However,
>problem with saying the photon actually samples every possible path
>is like....okay, in E&M, you have retarded and advanced potentials.
>Do people actually think the advanced potentials are physically
>meaningful? (I dunno, maybe they do..)
>
In the orthodox interpretation the "paths" of the particle are not
regarded as physically meaningful, except as a potential for which a
probability is calculated, by means of rules which are unexplained.
>--

Mecha Sonic

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <7qmo3s$444$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-
deja.com> writes
>In article <37CEB564...@lucent.com>,

> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>> Louis Savain wrote:
>> > Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
>> > many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
>> > not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
>> > photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting
>> > anything.
>>
>> This is all just plain wrong in the only theory we have which
>> describes photons, QED. See my other recent post in this thread
>> for more details. You seem to be thinking of phostons as pointlike

>> particles, and that is just plain wrong; they are mathematical
>> abstractions in a perturbative approximation to QED.
>
> I really don't give a rat's behind what photons are in QED. The last

>time I looked, mathematical abstractions do not cause people to see
>images on their retinae. Photons are real particles. Anything else
>has nothing to do with physics. QED's description of photons is a

>bunch of chicken shit voodoo that has nothing to do with reality.
>
Feynman certainly seems to regard the photons of QED as real particles
and so do I. They have been called "virtual" by some physicists for
philosophical reasons which, in my opinion, do not stand up.

Richard Herring

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <7qmbfl$q5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain (louis_...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> In article <7qm3p6$l1i$2...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>,
> richard...@gecm.com wrote:
> > In article <7qm0pv$h92$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
> (louis_...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> > > In article <7qlcqe$gh2$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>,
> > > richard...@gecm.com wrote:
> >
> > > >[snip]
> > > > Why would it be easier for photons to interact with other photons
> > > > than with electrons?
> >
> > > Because there are a lot more photons than there are electrons, by
> > > many, many orders of magnitude. If the space between electrons were
> > > not filled with a huge number of radiating photons, most incoming
> > > photons (over 99% IMO) would go right through without hitting
> > > anything.
> >
> > Which doesn't answer my question, unfortunately.

> It seems obvious to me but it may be becasue I've been thinking about
> it for a while.

> > *Why* would they go through without hitting anything?
> > Are they too small?

> It is because ordinary matter is mostly empty space.

> > How did you calculate that 99%? What figures did you assume, and why?

> My understanding is that the electrons, neutrons and protons that
> constitute a material object take up less than 1% of the volume of the
> object. This varies depending on the mass density of the object.

What unstated assumption are you making here about the size of the
photons relative to the other particles?

> > > Now I'm not saying that all photons interact. I'm saying that
> > > depending on their polarity and their energy levels, some
> > > photons will interact.
> >
> > So can you provide the equivalent calculation for photon-photon
> > "interaction"?

> IMO, the duration of a photon-photon interaction is Planck time, an
> extremely small value.

That's a time, not a probability or a cross-section.
How does your theory calculate the probability of photon-photon interaction?

--
Richard Herring | <richard...@gecm.com>

JeffMo

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>,
> jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:

>> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time do a fair
>> job of illustrating this.

> No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
>possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
>superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
>exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
>plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
>particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.

How does the cascade know not to begin when a detector is placed near
one of the slits? What are the properties of this "particulate
aether?" Does it lead to the same results as the standard model?

In other words, are you objecting only to "patent absurd[ity]" in your
personal opinion, or does this model lead to predictions at odds with
those made by the standard model?

>> How do you avoid
>> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For example, as the
>> separation between two oppositely-charged particles' centers goes to
>> zero, the electrostatic force between them goes to infinity...

> The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete positions.

Of course it would. Does it also put an upper-bound on maximum
density, say in a neutron star or black hole? Why or why not?

JeffMo

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>In article <FHGEq...@msi.com>,
> j...@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote:

>>[snip]
>> An opinion.

> You know something Bielawski, when you're angry your IQ suddenly
>lowers down to room temperature. Like your buddy Tom Roberts, the
>defender of establishment crackpottery, you're wasting my time with
>your dim witted comments. Ciao!

Did you read him as angry?

JeffMo

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
Mecha Sonic <cha...@clef.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>, JeffMo
><jef...@dipstick.cfw.com> writes
>>
>>If two particles are "point-like" then they can approach each other to

>>any specified distance greater than zero, correct? How do you avoid


>>the infinite regress in force calculations then? For example, as the
>>separation between two oppositely-charged particles' centers goes to
>>zero, the electrostatic force between them goes to infinity...

>Hi, JeffMo,

>Long time, no see.

>Mdern physics shows that we cannot describe point-like particles in a
>space-time continuum. Most of the attempts to understand this say that
>particles cannot be point-like,

Louis has already denied this possibility. I was just asking what
seemed to me to be the "next" questions...

>but I think it is far more accurate to
>say that the space-time continuum cannot exist. It is possible
>mathematically to define points in a discrete topological structure, and
>to show that the metric relations of space-time approximate properties
>of the structure.

It is certainly possible to do so. Lately, I've been trying to think
of experiments which do a better job of determining directly whether
space-time is continuous or discrete. Can anybody point to any
research which addresses this, or is it one of these situations where
there are simply two different interpretations that can not be
empirically distinguished at present?

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <R3AXeUAn...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
> In article <7qn1ca$asj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
<louis_savain@my-
> deja.com> writes

> >> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time do a
fair
> >> job of illustrating this.
> >
> > No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
> >possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
> >superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
> >exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
> >plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
> >particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.
>
> The trouble is that that can be calculated and disproved.

The real trouble is that you are lying since I made it up.

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <8YQz3.3229$Fc.3...@news21b.ispnews.com>,
jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:

> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>,
> > jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>
> >> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time
> >> do a fair job of illustrating this.
>
> > No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
> >possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
> >superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
> >exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
> >plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
> >particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.
>
> How does the cascade know not to begin when a detector is placed near
> one of the slits? What are the properties of this "particulate
> aether?" Does it lead to the same results as the standard model?

My particulate aether consists of photons of which there are four
types.

> In other words, are you objecting only to "patent absurd[ity]" in your
> personal opinion,

Not just my personal opinion. It should be absurd to anyone with a
grain of common sense. The idea that a particle can be everywhere at
the same time is ludicrous. Children can do better than that. The
reason that supposedly intelligent people are coming up with such
nonsense is that they are playing politics. Any other interpretation
would come dangerously close to some sort of aether. And that is
anathema to the hypocritical priesthood in power. This sort of physics
is what I've been calling "chicken shit physics." It does not belong
in science.

> or does this model lead to predictions at odds with
> those made by the standard model?

The standard model does not make predictions in this context. It is
just interpreting (wrongly) experimental results *after* the fact. The
standard model did not predict the results of the two slit experiment.

> >> How do you avoid
> >> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For
> >> example, as the separation between two oppositely-charged
> >> particles' centers goes to zero, the electrostatic force
> >> between them goes to infinity...
>

> > The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete positions.
>
> Of course it would. Does it also put an upper-bound on maximum
> density, say in a neutron star or black hole? Why or why not?

It does put a maximum limit on "spatial" density. What I mean is
that, at that limit, particles are separated only by the Planck
length. Indeed I am convinced that the aether is a "lattice" composed
of particles at maximum "spatial" density. It does not put a limit on
mass/energy density because there is no upper limit to the mass/energy
of a particle at any position in the lattice. BTW, the whole black
hole business is another example of imagination run wild, not unlike
the single photon going through a quintillion paths at the same time.

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <7qo8uq$d1o$6...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>,

richard...@gecm.com wrote:
> In article <7qmbfl$q5f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
(louis_...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> > In article <7qm3p6$l1i$2...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>,
> > richard...@gecm.com wrote:
> > > In article <7qm0pv$h92$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
> > (louis_...@my-deja.com) wrote:
> > > > In article <7qlcqe$gh2$1...@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>,
> > > > richard...@gecm.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > >[snip]
>[snip]

> > > How did you calculate that 99%? What figures did you assume,
> > >and why?
>
> > My understanding is that the electrons, neutrons and protons
> > that constitute a material object take up less than 1% of the
> > volume of the object. This varies depending on the mass
> > density of the object.
>
> What unstated assumption are you making here about the size of
> the photons relative to the other particles?

I make no assumption about the size of particles since size, IMO, is
a macroscopic phenomenon, having to do with with a collection of
particles. I reject the notion that particles have sizes since that
would introduce a nasty infinite regress problem. You know, the one
that goes "if particle x is made of particle y, what is y made of?
etc..." I absolutely abhor turtle theories.

> > > > Now I'm not saying that all photons interact. I'm saying that
> > > > depending on their polarity and their energy levels, some
> > > > photons will interact.
> > >
> > > So can you provide the equivalent calculation for photon-photon
> > > "interaction"?
>
> > IMO, the duration of a photon-photon interaction is Planck time,
> > an extremely small value.
>
> That's a time, not a probability or a cross-section.
> How does your theory calculate the probability of photon-photon
> interaction?

Well since I don't believe that particles have sizes, all that cross-
section stuff is irrelevant to me. Two photons (or any two particles)
have 100% chance of interacting if their positions are equal.
Otherwise the probability is 0.

Charles Francis

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <V_Qz3.3230$Fc.3...@news21b.ispnews.com>, JeffMo
<jef...@dipstick.cfw.com> writes

>
>>but I think it is far more accurate to
>>say that the space-time continuum cannot exist. It is possible
>>mathematically to define points in a discrete topological structure, and
>>to show that the metric relations of space-time approximate properties
>>of the structure.
>
>It is certainly possible to do so. Lately, I've been trying to think
>of experiments which do a better job of determining directly whether
>space-time is continuous or discrete. Can anybody point to any
>research which addresses this, or is it one of these situations where
>there are simply two different interpretations that can not be
>empirically distinguished at present?
>

Actually I think almost all the research in quantum physics does this,
as well as much theorising even as long ago as in Greek times. It is
largely a question of how to interpret the evidence, and also
understanding what are we really doing when we take a measurement.

The classical idea of measurement is that a quantity exists, and then we
come along and try to measure it. A more modern idea is that the
quantity actually is the result of the measurement. The orthodox
interpretation of quantum mechanics, for example, does not permit the
concept of the position of a particle except in measurement.

As the result of measurement is always a whole number in units of the
resolution of the apparatus, we find that all empirical quantities are
discrete. The presumption that there is, in addition, a space-time
continuum, leads to the paradoxes of quantum mechanics and in my view
refutes the notion of an ontological continuum.


http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906030
completes the idea expressed here

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9906042
describes how a particle structure can display the properties of
Minkowsky space-time

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9905058
essentially qed in a discrete structure in which particles are point-
like, but there is no continuum.

Aaron Bergman

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <XXiW2cAt...@clef.demon.co.uk>, Mecha Sonic wrote:
>Feynman certainly seems to regard the photons of QED as real particles
>and so do I. They have been called "virtual" by some physicists for
>philosophical reasons which, in my opinion, do not stand up.

"Virtual particles" are something a bit different. They're
basically a name for the internal lines of a Feynman diagram.
What degree of reality one ascribes to them is left to the
reader.

Aaron
--
Aaron Bergman
<http://www.princeton.edu/~abergman/>

Charles Francis

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <7qos2r$k54$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-

deja.com> writes
>In article <R3AXeUAn...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
> Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:
>> In article <7qn1ca$asj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain
><louis_savain@my-
>> deja.com> writes
>> >> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time do a
>fair
>> >> job of illustrating this.
>> >
>> > No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
>> >possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
>> >superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
>> >exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
>> >plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
>> >particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.
>>
>> The trouble is that that can be calculated and disproved.
>
> The real trouble is that you are lying since I made it up.

Do not think that it is so original idea. Before you make suggestions
you should recognise that scientific theory has been worked out by
people who are good at having these ideas, and working out what follows,
and that they have done it as a full time job. The principle is even
used in the theory of gluons. And calculations are done on it. In this
case you put forward a theory which could be made rigorous and
calculated in principal, even though you yourself could not calculate
it. No theoretical physicist would actually bother to carry out such a
calculation, since we have a theory which works perfectly, and it is
obvious that yours will not give the same results, and fairly well known
to physicists that it has technical difficulties too subtle to explain
which mean that it can be written off.

Charles Francis

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <7qottp$lij$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Louis Savain <louis_savain@my-
deja.com> writes

>> In other words, are you objecting only to "patent absurd[ity]" in your
>> personal opinion,
>
> Not just my personal opinion. It should be absurd to anyone with a
>grain of common sense. The idea that a particle can be everywhere at
>the same time is ludicrous. Children can do better than that.

Actually the theory does not say that a particle can be everywhere at
the same time. It says it has a possibility that it may go anywhere, and
provides rules for calculating the probability that it does. The rules
involve summing over all space. But no physicist of any merit interprets
the rules as meaning that the particle is really everywhere at once.

> The
>reason that supposedly intelligent people are coming up with such
>nonsense is that they are playing politics.

No, it is because they understand the problem, and because you do not
understand what they try to tell you.

>Any other interpretation
>would come dangerously close to some sort of aether.

No, it is because other theories give wrong results.

>And that is
>anathema to the hypocritical priesthood in power.

There are plenty of physicists who find the ideas of quantum mechanics
unsatisfactory.

>This sort of physics
>is what I've been calling "chicken shit physics." It does not belong
>in science.

Come up with a proper theory then. First you must understand the
problems. It takes most physicists several years to do that. At the
moment you are like someone who has never played an instrument trying to
give a public concert. Quite frankly you are embarrassing. What you are
doing now is chicken shit physics. And there are plenty more like you
scattered across the net. Mostly it is idiots like you that obscure the
way for genuine advances in mathematics and science, as when Gauss threw
Abel's work in the bin, thinking it was from another crank, and when
Cauchy lost Galois' work.

Scott Lanning

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to

For me that is easier to accept because potentials are usually
things which can't be physically observed. That's kinda how I
think of the quantum wavefunction too; the "particle" isn't
necessarily smeared all over the place but has a probability of
being observed in many different places. Nonetheless I wouldn't
deny the computational utility of, say, thinking of the photon
travelling over all possible paths.

"I do believe God gave me a spark of genius, but he quenched it
in misery." --Edgar Allan Poe

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <nAoqT6Ab...@clef.demon.co.uk>,
Charles Francis <cha...@noj.unk> wrote:

>[butt kissing stuff deleted]

If there is something worse than an establishment crackpot, it is a
butt kisser. I was under the distinct impression that you had promised
not to respond to my posts. Or did you say goodbye to me out of spite?

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <wTQz3.3228$Fc.3...@news21b.ispnews.com>,

jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <FHGEq...@msi.com>,
> > j...@iris8.msi.com (Jan Bielawski) wrote:
>
> >>[snip]
> >> An opinion.
>
> > You know something Bielawski, when you're angry your IQ suddenly
> >lowers down to room temperature. Like your buddy Tom Roberts, the
> >defender of establishment crackpottery, you're wasting my time with
> >your dim witted comments. Ciao!
>
> Did you read him as angry?

Yes. Bielawski and I had our close encounters before. He's feeling
hurt lately for some reason.

Louis Savain

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
In article <8YQz3.3229$Fc.3...@news21b.ispnews.com>,

jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>,

> > jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>
> >> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time
> >> do a fair job of illustrating this.
>
> > No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
> >possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
> >superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
> >exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
> >plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
> >particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.
>
> How does the cascade know not to begin when a detector is placed near
> one of the slits?

I forgot to address this in my previous reply. There is always a
cascade of interactions whenever whenever something is moving in the
aether. In the case of charged particles, the efffect manifests itself
as EM radiation. In the case of a photon it manifests itself also as
EM radiation but with a different signature. This has to do with the
polarity (and other intrinsic properties) of the photon in question.
IMO, in the two-slit experiment, the interference is highly dependent
on the timing of the interactions. The timing varies with distance
from the slits.

JeffMo

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>,
>> > jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>>
>> >> Interference experiments carried out one particle at a time
>> >> do a fair job of illustrating this.
>>
>> > No experiment has ever shown that a single photon travels over all
>> >possible paths. That is patently absurd and reminiscent of medieval
>> >superstition. There are many ways one can interpret phenomena as
>> >exemplified in refraction and the two-slit experiment, the most
>> >plausible of which IMO, is that a moving photon reacts with a
>> >particulate aether setting off a cascading effect.
>>
>> How does the cascade know not to begin when a detector is placed near
>> one of the slits?

You missed this one.

>>What are the properties of this "particulate
>> aether?" Does it lead to the same results as the standard model?

> My particulate aether consists of photons of which there are four
>types.

You missed the last question, too.

>> In other words, are you objecting only to "patent absurd[ity]" in your
>> personal opinion,

> Not just my personal opinion. It should be absurd to anyone with a
>grain of common sense.

Opinion.

>The idea that a particle can be everywhere at
>the same time is ludicrous.

Opinion.

>Children can do better than that.

Opinion.

> The
>reason that supposedly intelligent people are coming up with such
>nonsense is that they are playing politics.

Opinion.

>Any other interpretation
>would come dangerously close to some sort of aether.

Patently false opinion.

>And that is
>anathema to the hypocritical priesthood in power.

Opinion.

>This sort of physics
>is what I've been calling "chicken shit physics."

Opinion.

>It does not belong
>in science.

Opinion.

I have labeled all your statements above, just to make sure. I can
assure you that I have no agenda w.r.t. "aether politics" or "anti-
aether politics," though you needn't believe that, but I just wanted
to illustrate that you gave NO reasoning to support your assertions
above. You simply repeated that same assertion in multiple forms,
coupled with strong emotional and/or pejorative appeals. This is
sometimes, but not always, an indication that very strong opinions are
held that have little substantiation in rational analysis or empirical
fact.

I welcome any expansion you can provide as to why you hold these
opinions so strongly. Or is it just a myopic view that what you find
"ludicrous" holds the status of universal, inevitable truth?

>> or does this model lead to predictions at odds with
>> those made by the standard model?

> The standard model does not make predictions in this context.

Perhaps I misunderstand the context, then. I thought that development
of the current model of the propagation of wavefunctions had been
influenced by many of these "slit" experiments.

>It is
>just interpreting (wrongly) experimental results *after* the fact. The
>standard model did not predict the results of the two slit experiment.

I identified a potential problem with *your* model's ex post facto
re-interpretations, as well, but if you fail to respond, you can
hardly call your model better.

>> >> How do you avoid
>> >> the infinite regress in force calculations then? For
>> >> example, as the separation between two oppositely-charged
>> >> particles' centers goes to zero, the electrostatic force
>> >> between them goes to infinity...
>>
>> > The infinite regress goes away once you assume discrete positions.
>>
>> Of course it would. Does it also put an upper-bound on maximum
>> density, say in a neutron star or black hole? Why or why not?

> It does put a maximum limit on "spatial" density. What I mean is
>that, at that limit, particles are separated only by the Planck
>length. Indeed I am convinced that the aether is a "lattice" composed
>of particles at maximum "spatial" density. It does not put a limit on
>mass/energy density because there is no upper limit to the mass/energy
>of a particle at any position in the lattice.

If I understand what you are saying, then we should be able to compute
a maximum rest-mass capacity for any given volume of space, and you
would theorize that singularities do not exist.

If the lattice is already full of particles, how do they move? And
how do we observe particles on top of what is already in the lattice?

> BTW, the whole black
>hole business is another example of imagination run wild, not unlike
>the single photon going through a quintillion paths at the same time.

I wouldn't say the *whole* black hole business is imagination run
wild, because the empirical evidence for black holes or something very
like them is getting stronger all the time.

In any case, how do you reconcile your claim that a given volume of
aether lattice can increase in energy without bound, with your implied
claim of impossibility for the task of packing a volume of space with
sufficient energy to keep light from escaping the neighborhood?

cahrens

unread,
Sep 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/3/99
to
Hi,

I have been quietly reading this thread and now have a quick question for
Mr. Savain. If you believe electrons are point particles, do you believe
neutrons and protons are also point particles? If, so, then how do you
explain phenomena such as neutron activation, which is a processes by which
a neutron interacts with a nucleus to excite it. Or take fission, for
example. If, as you I think you will say, neutrons and protons are "points"
then there can't be a non-zero probability of these reactions occurring.
But, I bet some of the electricity that your using to post messages was
generated using fission!

Cory

Louis Savain wrote in message <7qn1ca$asj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...


>In article <btAz3.2874$Fc.2...@news21b.ispnews.com>,
> jef...@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
>> Louis Savain <louis_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>

>> >In article <37CE8D68...@lucent.com>,


>> > Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Louis Savain wrote:

>> >> > As I said, electrons are essentially "point"
>> >> > particles and the likelihood of electrons in a mirror *directly*
>> >> > interacting with most incoming photons is extremely small.
>> >>
>> >>[snip]

>> >> A photon must "travel" over all posible paths, and it