| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"H. E. Retic" |
| Date: |
29 Sep 2003 09:19:57 AM |
| Object: |
A Snapshot of a Photon |
A Snapshot of a Photon
The photon has been viewed as a somewhat mysterious entity which sometimes
has the properties of a particle and sometimes has the properties oaf a wave.
It would seem interesting to see, therefore, whether we can determine what a
photon would look like if we had a "godlike" ability to "see" it without the
restrictions imposed by our limits of observation.
Since the photon is electromagnetic in nature, perhaps the best place to
start is by examining the nature of an electromagnetic wave emitted by a
dipole, such as the antenna of a radio transmitter. There is no question that
this radiation consists of crossed electric and magnetic fields having a 90
degree phase relationship to each other. These fields are readily observed and
allow us to use them for communication over distance. (See
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf131.gif ). We also know by
observation that this wave is actually composed of discrete "lumps" of energy
called photons because it is noisy. The noise energy of the wave varies in
proportion to the square root of its total energy. As a result, the signal
(energy in the wave) to noise (energy in the wave components) ratio of the wave
itself varies inversely with the square root of the waves strength. The effect
is well described in handbooks on electromagnetic communication and seems
beyond challenge.
If we attenuate the wave sufficiently, it becomes a parade of the
individual particles (photons) appearing as separate entities which may be
detected separately.
The question to be answered is what the nature of these particles must be so
that in the aggregate they can form a smooth continuous wave. To meet this
requirement, the photons in the wave must be coherent. This means that they
must have the same polarization and be appropriately phased so that they can
add properly. (In lasers this coherency is defined as the distance of millions
of cycles over which the phase and polarization match is maintained.)
The question to be answered is what form does the photon have to be in
order to be capable of combining with other wavelets to form the coherent wave.
The answer is probably provided by the "Impulse Function", 1/(e*x^2).
Multiplying the continuous wave by this function provides, for the photons
which compose the wave. a shape shown by
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf133.gif. One only need to imagine the
electric and magnetic components of this construction propagating along its
axis at the velocity of light to envision what a photon "looks like".
When one combines this shape with the quantum coupling between photons
which has been demonstrated by the work of Quantum Physicists, one finds that
he describes the kind of entity that has the dual wave an particle properties
we associate with a photon. The only question left is why the nature of the
photon is considered to be mysterious.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
For a response send E-Mail to
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
..
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Hunter" |
|
| Title: Re: A Snapshot of a Photon |
29 Sep 2003 10:00:42 AM |
|
|
"H. E. Retic" <ewittke1121@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030929101957.15488.00000017@mb-m28.aol.com...
A Snapshot of a Photon
The photon has been viewed as a somewhat mysterious entity which
sometimes
has the properties of a particle and sometimes has the properties oaf a
wave.
It would seem interesting to see, therefore, whether we can determine what
a
photon would look like if we had a "godlike" ability to "see" it without
the
restrictions imposed by our limits of observation.
The only people who have ever viewed photons as mysterious are particle
physicists.
Since their minds are limited to Ancient Chinese verse as far physical
theories are concerned.
So photons are really nothing more than: The Buddha meets Vishnu sung
with
Greek Pentameter accompaniment, by Born-Again Jesus Freaks, more
in need a shave and underarm deodorant, than they are of observations.
The photon has no godlike properties, since it's properties are completely
determined
by fact that it's behavior is completely determined by the limits of
observation.
Since the photon is electromagnetic in nature, perhaps the best place
to
start is by examining the nature of an electromagnetic wave emitted by a
dipole, such as the antenna of a radio transmitter.
The photon is not electromagnetic. Photons have momentum,
E-M waves don't. They have exactly zero momentum.
Not positive, not negative, but exactly zero.
There is no question that
this radiation consists of crossed electric and magnetic fields having a
90
degree phase relationship to each other. These fields are readily observed
and
allow us to use them for communication over distance. (See
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/cf131.gif ). We also know by
observation that this wave is actually composed of discrete "lumps" of
energy
called photons because it is noisy. The noise energy of the wave varies in
proportion to the square root of its total energy. As a result, the signal
(energy in the wave) to noise (energy in the wave components) ratio of the
wave
itself varies inversely with the square root of the waves strength. The
effect
is well described in handbooks on electromagnetic communication and seems
beyond challenge.
But that wave is not really a wave. It's the Quantum Pilot wave.
It comes from nowhere, it goes to nowhere, and it's 100% philosophy,
rather than an energy transport wave. It's the backwash of
a Feynmann meme rather than noise energy. Since it's the simply the
square root of another photon packet, rather than the square root of
something that actually exists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A Snapshot of a Photon |
29 Sep 2003 12:12:17 PM |
|
|
"H. E. Retic" wrote:
A Snapshot of a Photon
[snip]
Psychotic ineducable boring retic (Ernest Wittke),
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of the 24
GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or three
rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic corrections
being applied.
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Paper6.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LPHrel.html
Longitudinal and transverse mass
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
