| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"John Sefton" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2005 10:00:23 AM |
| Object: |
light and neutrinos |
re charge-pair theory, hypothesis, wet dream, whatever
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
What I envision at the moment is the positive charge following a
straight line
while the negative charge rotates around it.
If the positive is travelling down the z axis:
1. a photon can be rotating in the xz plane (horizontal), yz plane (vertical
or anywhere in between. It can be rotating either way in each of
these cases, so although a single wave is curtate-cycloid in form,
the sum of those rotating one way and those rotating the other
will be a sine wave.
2. They say now that all photons are circularly-polarized. Originally the
information I had on circularly-polarized light was that it twisted once
*every* wavelength. This would mean one rotation, say starting in the
zy plane while at the same time doing one rotation in the xy plane.
These would be locked in a 1:1 rotation/precession ratio. But
perhaps plane-polarized light not locked in this ratio is precessing
more slowly, also perhaps depending on its frequency locked
into a much lower ratio, which would
make it also circularly-polarized.
3. Neutrinos would represent rotation in the xy plane (as the
positive travels down the z axis). Now if this precession we
see in photons can be extended to neutrinos, it would mean
that they *periodically* swing into the z plane and are briefly
photon-like (i.e. can be absorbed)!
Therefore, neutrinos would be absorbed maximally at certain
distances from their emission, depending on their source,
and minimally at others, and would *appear* to change
their energy depending on their angle when absorbed.
What do you think?
John
.
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
18 Mar 2005 04:30:46 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
re charge-pair theory, hypothesis, wet dream, whatever
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
What I envision at the moment is the positive charge following a
straight line
while the negative charge rotates around it.
You probably mean "revolve".
And I see that you simply don't care for Maxwell's equations.
[snip a lot of nonsensical unsupported assertions]
What do you think?
Well, what do you think?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
18 Mar 2005 09:47:30 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
re charge-pair theory, hypothesis, wet dream, whatever
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
What I envision at the moment is the positive charge following a
straight line
while the negative charge rotates around it.
You probably mean "revolve".
And I see that you simply don't care for Maxwell's equations.
[snip a lot of nonsensical unsupported assertions]
What do you think?
Well, what do you think?
I think you cannot tell me
how a photon is structured.
If you can, let's hear it.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
21 Mar 2005 05:06:41 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
re charge-pair theory, hypothesis, wet dream, whatever
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
What I envision at the moment is the positive charge following a
straight line
while the negative charge rotates around it.
You probably mean "revolve".
And I see that you simply don't care for Maxwell's equations.
[snip a lot of nonsensical unsupported assertions]
What do you think?
Well, what do you think?
I think you cannot tell me
how a photon is structured.
If you can, let's hear it.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
21 Mar 2005 11:37:25 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
re charge-pair theory, hypothesis, wet dream, whatever
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
What I envision at the moment is the positive charge following a
straight line
while the negative charge rotates around it.
You probably mean "revolve".
And I see that you simply don't care for Maxwell's equations.
[snip a lot of nonsensical unsupported assertions]
What do you think?
Well, what do you think?
I think you cannot tell me
how a photon is structured.
If you can, let's hear it.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
No, from you.
In a reasonable paragraph, present a
visual image of a photon as a real quantity.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
22 Mar 2005 04:17:23 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
re charge-pair theory, hypothesis, wet dream, whatever
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
What I envision at the moment is the positive charge following a
straight line
while the negative charge rotates around it.
You probably mean "revolve".
And I see that you simply don't care for Maxwell's equations.
[snip a lot of nonsensical unsupported assertions]
What do you think?
Well, what do you think?
I think you cannot tell me
how a photon is structured.
If you can, let's hear it.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
No, from you.
Why? You know, there is a *reason* why FAQ pages exist.
In a reasonable paragraph, present a
visual image of a photon as a real quantity.
How could one present a "visual image" in written text?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
22 Mar 2005 08:53:18 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
re charge-pair theory, hypothesis, wet dream, whatever
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
What I envision at the moment is the positive charge following a
straight line
while the negative charge rotates around it.
You probably mean "revolve".
And I see that you simply don't care for Maxwell's equations.
[snip a lot of nonsensical unsupported assertions]
What do you think?
Well, what do you think?
I think you cannot tell me
how a photon is structured.
If you can, let's hear it.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
No, from you.
Why? You know, there is a *reason* why FAQ pages exist.
Oh, oh. Now you got me worried, Bjoern.
In a reasonable paragraph, present a
visual image of a photon as a real quantity.
How could one present a "visual image" in written text?
Well, you know, you describe its shape (a visual concept
unless you have big hands- stereognosis is a word),
you tell which parts are moving which way wrt Time,
you explain what it is made of......that sort of thing.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
22 Mar 2005 10:16:05 AM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
I think you cannot tell me
how a photon is structured.
If you can, let's hear it.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
No, from you.
Why? You know, there is a *reason* why FAQ pages exist.
Oh, oh. Now you got me worried, Bjoern.
Inability to address the argument noted.
In a reasonable paragraph, present a
visual image of a photon as a real quantity.
How could one present a "visual image" in written text?
Well, you know, you describe its shape (a visual concept
unless you have big hands- stereognosis is a word),
What makes you think a photon *has* a shape?
you tell which parts are moving which way
What makes you think a photon consists of parts? Don't
you notice that it is called an *elementary* particle,
or don't you know what that means?
wrt Time,
What does "move wrt time" mean?
you explain what it is made of......that sort of thing.
Explaining "what it is made of" has little to do with
a "visual image".
A photon is an excitation of the electromagnetic field. It has
zero invariant mass, spin 1, and can be in one of two possible
spin states. It interacts with charged particles, as described
by QED.
There you have it. If you whine now that this not a "visual image",
that's your problem. (hint: consider than in order to see something,
i.e. to have a "visual image" of something, one already needs
photons...)
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PDraper" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
22 Mar 2005 11:12:58 AM |
|
|
On 3/22/05 9:53 AM, in article 424030af$1@news.accesscomm.ca, "John Sefton"
<vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
re charge-pair theory, hypothesis, wet dream, whatever
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
What I envision at the moment is the positive charge following a
straight line
while the negative charge rotates around it.
You probably mean "revolve".
And I see that you simply don't care for Maxwell's equations.
[snip a lot of nonsensical unsupported assertions]
What do you think?
Well, what do you think?
I think you cannot tell me
how a photon is structured.
If you can, let's hear it.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm
No, from you.
Why? You know, there is a *reason* why FAQ pages exist.
Oh, oh. Now you got me worried, Bjoern.
In a reasonable paragraph, present a
visual image of a photon as a real quantity.
How could one present a "visual image" in written text?
Well, you know, you describe its shape (a visual concept
unless you have big hands- stereognosis is a word),
you tell which parts are moving which way wrt Time,
you explain what it is made of......that sort of thing.
John
You are laboring under the prejudice that edges, boundaries, shape, color,
surface texture, etc, are properties that apply to objects of any scale.
This is not necessarily so, and forcing such properties on things that may
not have them is the path to misdirection and confusion.
A similar confusion is often made about pain, where we inherently believe
that pain is something that all living things must feel, because we do, and
it seems to us to be such a primal response to the environment. And yet most
biologists firmly believe that the neural structures of many animals simply
do not support pain.
You should recognize that your attribution of properties of edges,
boundaries, shapes, surface textures, etc., is comprised of a combination of
human senses and common features of *macroscopic* objects. They are not
necessarily inherent properties of all things.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
24 Mar 2005 10:46:06 AM |
|
|
PDraper wrote:
You are laboring under the prejudice that edges, boundaries, shape,
color,
surface texture, etc, are properties that apply to objects of any
scale.
This is not necessarily so, and forcing such properties on things
that may
not have them is the path to misdirection and confusion.
A similar confusion is often made about pain, where we inherently
believe
that pain is something that all living things must feel, because we
do, and
it seems to us to be such a primal response to the environment. And
yet most
biologists firmly believe that the neural structures of many animals
simply
do not support pain.
You should recognize that your attribution of properties of edges,
boundaries, shapes, surface textures, etc., is comprised of a
combination of
human senses and common features of *macroscopic* objects. They are
not
necessarily inherent properties of all things.
The gist of your post is generally agreeable, that we suffer from
prjection. But I have to ask you to claify when you say "And yet most
biologists firmly believe that the neural structures of many animals
simply do not support pain."
What are "most animals" in this context? I suffer from projection
(*much as anyone else*), but on the other hand another name for
projection is "Turing Test". I identify the intelligence in a fellow
person by recognising it on an intuitive level. I've no better way to
know it than to say that it fits my projection of it. In the same way I
know when a human is feeling pain if they display symptoms I recognise
in myself. And so I'd very much hesitate to propose that, for instance,
my dog isn't wired to feel pain, because it quite obviously is. If on
the other hand, you were to dissect my dog and reveal a complete
absence of a neural net, I might consider it.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
24 Mar 2005 09:39:51 AM |
|
|
PDraper wrote:
[snip]
A similar confusion is often made about pain, where we inherently believe
that pain is something that all living things must feel, because we do, and
it seems to us to be such a primal response to the environment. And yet most
biologists firmly believe that the neural structures of many animals simply
do not support pain.
Very interesting! I never thought about that. It seemed quite clear to me
that plants don't have the physical equipment to feel pain, but
animals...?
Well, I suppose this depends on how distantly related the animals are
to us. E.g. I would assume that at least all mammals feel pain. Is
that right?
Where could I read up on this?
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
24 Mar 2005 10:07:37 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
PDraper wrote:
[snip]
A similar confusion is often made about pain, where we inherently
believe
that pain is something that all living things must feel, because we
do, and
it seems to us to be such a primal response to the environment. And
yet most
biologists firmly believe that the neural structures of many
animals simply
do not support pain.
Very interesting! I never thought about that. It seemed quite clear
to me
that plants don't have the physical equipment to feel pain, but
animals...?
Well, I suppose this depends on how distantly related the animals are
to us. E.g. I would assume that at least all mammals feel pain. Is
that right?
Where could I read up on this?
The canonical starting point for this controversy is lobsters.
Once you have a line of dubiousness, it's easy to go down the ladder
(clams, e.g.).
PD
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
24 Mar 2005 10:22:37 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
Where could I read up on this?
The canonical starting point for this controversy is lobsters.
Thanks. Googled a bit and found some interesting stuff.
Once you have a line of dubiousness, it's easy to go down the ladder
(clams, e.g.).
Well, if one knows that clams are "down the ladder" from lobsters...
My knowledge of biology is quite scant.
Not learnt so much in school, and even that is long ago.
My knowledge of evolution comes mainly from the talk.origins archive. ;-)
BTW, are you the Paul Draper cited on the homepage of www.infidels.org?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
24 Mar 2005 11:06:41 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
PD wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
Where could I read up on this?
The canonical starting point for this controversy is lobsters.
Thanks. Googled a bit and found some interesting stuff.
Once you have a line of dubiousness, it's easy to go down the
ladder
(clams, e.g.).
Well, if one knows that clams are "down the ladder" from lobsters...
My knowledge of biology is quite scant.
In neural sophistication, I believe the chain runs something like
humans > primates > omnivorous mammals > carnivorous mammals >
herbivorous mammals > birds > carnivorous reptiles > herbivorous
reptiles > George W. Bush > amphibians > fish > crustaceans > insects >
mollusks > worms > swamp moss.
I may have placed Bush too high in the ladder.
Not learnt so much in school, and even that is long ago.
My knowledge of evolution comes mainly from the talk.origins archive.
;-)
BTW, are you the Paul Draper cited on the homepage of
www.infidels.org?
Gee I hope not. I'd much rather be this Paul Draper:
http://splendidtable.publicradio.org/souptonuts/wine_ridge_vineyards.shtml
or this one:
http://mansun.net/history/profiles/paul.html
or even this one:
http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=20090
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
26 Mar 2005 04:30:29 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
PD wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
[snip]
Where could I read up on this?
The canonical starting point for this controversy is lobsters.
Thanks. Googled a bit and found some interesting stuff.
Once you have a line of dubiousness, it's easy to go down the
ladder (clams, e.g.).
Well, if one knows that clams are "down the ladder" from lobsters...
My knowledge of biology is quite scant.
In neural sophistication, I believe the chain runs something like
humans > primates > omnivorous mammals > carnivorous mammals >
herbivorous mammals > birds > carnivorous reptiles > herbivorous
reptiles > George W. Bush > amphibians > fish > crustaceans > insects >
mollusks > worms > swamp moss.
Thanks.
I may have placed Bush too high in the ladder.
Well, I certainly agree with that! ;-)
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
18 Mar 2005 12:03:09 PM |
|
|
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
re charge-pair theory, hypothesis, wet dream, whatever
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
What I envision at the moment is the positive charge following a
straight line
while the negative charge rotates around it.
You probably mean "revolve".
And I see that you simply don't care for Maxwell's equations.
[snip a lot of nonsensical unsupported assertions]
What do you think?
Well, what do you think?
I think you cannot tell me
how a photon is structured.
If you can, let's hear it.
John
A photon is the set of its properties.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: light and neutrinos |
19 Mar 2005 12:31:16 PM |
|
|
Schoenfeld wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
John Sefton wrote:
re charge-pair theory, hypothesis, wet dream, whatever
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/
What I envision at the moment is the positive charge following a
straight line
while the negative charge rotates around it.
You probably mean "revolve".
And I see that you simply don't care for Maxwell's equations.
[snip a lot of nonsensical unsupported assertions]
What do you think?
Well, what do you think?
I think you cannot tell me
how a photon is structured.
If you can, let's hear it.
John
A photon is the set of its properties.
Describe it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
