| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Daol" |
| Date: |
20 Apr 2005 08:56:30 AM |
| Object: |
A Snapshot of a Photon |
A Snapshot of a Photon
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein
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://members.isp.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://members.isp.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 of Gravitational Energy
When one applies the correct relativistic transformations to the
gravitational field, the source of gravitational energy becomes apparent.
Unfortunately, due to a sophomoric error in the derivation of General
Relativity, it has become accepted that the relativistic transformations for
gravity are:
Force = 1
Length = 1
Time = 1/(1+$)
Where "1/(1+$)" is the time transformation as provided by General Relativity
(GTR).
Unfortunately, the error in its generation made the mathematics
impossible of solution within the constraints of three dimensional Euclidian
Geometry and it took 18 months for a solution to be obtained. (The 18 months
were not used up in solving the matrix equation, as current writings would
have you believe, they represented the length of time it took for Dr.
Einstein to adapt the geometry of Riemann (which is based upon the faulty
description of a straight line implicit in all current geometries but which
does not effect Euclidean Geometry). In applying Riemannian Geometry , Dr.
Einstein added the fiction of curved space and added the spurious degree of
freedom needed to solve his equations. This approach was accepted by a
conference on the subject with the statement "why shouldn't we consider
space to be curved, no one can prove it isn't. (Actually the proof is quite
simple and is provided in
http:/members.isp.com//einsteinhoax/gravity.htm). The
acceptance of curved space required a term for the curvature as a function
of the gravitational field. Surprise surprise, that curvature term turned
out to be equal to the term for time.
When one applies the legitimate rules of measurement (as would be
required in any of the more mundane fields of Science) and accepted and
easily verified physical laws to the study of the gravitational field, one
finds it possible to rigorously devise a different set of gravitational
transformations which do not require space to be curved:
Force = 1
Length = 1/(1-$)
Time = (1-$)
(The term "$" is identical with the equivalent term in General
Relativity).Testing these transformations against observation reveals that
they yield the same conclusions within the Solar Field and in comparison
with observations of massive and/or dense stars as does GTR to an accuracy
well beyond experimental capabilities. There is one important difference,
however. They reveal that the end result of gravitational collapse is not a
singularity but is a stable object the size of its horizon radius. THEY ALSO
REVEAL THE SOURCE OF GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY.
In an F(orce)-L(ength)-T(ime) system of units, the dimensional content
of energy is F*L. Since the gravitational transformation for length is
unity, this means that the gravitational transformation for energy is equal
to the gravitational transformation for Length and is therefore equal to
1/(1-$). If we accept that the Principle of Relativity applies, the locally
measured mass equivalent energy of an object must remain unchanged as it
moves to a different elevation reference frame. In order to meet this
requirement, the move to a different elevation in the field the object must
gain or lose energy in terms of the units of measurement for energy existing
at its original location. To do this, a force must result as it moves. The
product of this force and the distance of fall is the energy of fall.
If we apply this process to an object falling from a quasi-infinite
distance to the event horizon, we find that, in terms of the units of
measurement existing at the quasi-infinite radius, the gravitational
transformation for energy requires shows that the object converts all of its
rest mass equivalent energy to kinetic energy. When it reaches the event
horizon and its velocity equals the velocity of light, the original rest
mass equivalent energy has become zero because it has been converted to
kinetic energy (all as measured with the units of measurement existing at
the quasi-infinite radius). In terms of the units of measurement existing at
the event horizon however, the rest mass equivalent energy of the object is
unchanged and the kinetic energy is infinite.
Since Relativity is all about observations made in systems where the
size of the units of measurement are affected by the elevation and/or
velocity, Dimensional Analysis is required to deal rationally with the
process. Despite this, I have received an E-mail from an individual who
strongly asserted that Dimensional Analysis is of no benefit in the study of
velocity and gravitational effect. The frightening thing in this E-mail is
that the sender is probably an academic busily damaging the minds of his
students.
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://members.isp.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.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://members.isp.com//einsteinhoax/postinglog.htm
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.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: A Snapshot of a Photon |
20 Apr 2005 11:57:49 AM |
|
|
Daol wrote:
A Snapshot of a Photon
[snip 160 lines of ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
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://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
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. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
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>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
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)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GR_GR" |
|
| Title: Re: A Snapshot of a Photon |
20 Apr 2005 08:57:38 AM |
|
|
Daol wrote:
A Snapshot of a Photon
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
minds." - A. Einstein
And you are a mediocre mind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A Snapshot of a Photon |
20 Apr 2005 09:14:20 AM |
|
|
Daol 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
Tuning Up Your Crank Filters
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Observational and Experimental Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
General Relativity Tutorial
John Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html
Relativity on the World Wide Web
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/relativity.html
General Relativity and Cosmology FAQs
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
Developments in General Relativity: Black Hole Singularity and Beyond
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304052
Improved Test of General Relativity with Radio Doppler Data from the Cassini Spacecraft
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AGRAVITYMECHANIC2
http://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+hoax+site%3Awww.crank.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretic
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Areticher1
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
