| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Wodniwer" |
| Date: |
04 Feb 2004 08:52:23 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.
E-mail:-
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: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: A Snapshot of a Photon |
04 Feb 2004 12:53:49 PM |
|
|
"Wodniwer" <wodniwer@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040204095223.28324.00001352@mb-m15.aol.com...
Bugger off, Retiche.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Snapshot of a Photon |
04 Feb 2004 04:29:08 PM |
|
|
Wodniwer wrote:
A Snapshot of a Photon
Did you ever wonder "What the heck is a photon, anyway?"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
General Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GeneralRelativity.html
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A Snapshot of a Photon |
04 Feb 2004 10:46:51 AM |
|
|
Wodniwer wrote:
A Snapshot of a Photon
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
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.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete0.jpg
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete1.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete2.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete4.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete5.jpg
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 spammer 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://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
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
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
falling light
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
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 |
|
|
