Science > Physics > University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jan Panteltje" |
| Date: |
24 Aug 2007 11:02:09 AM |
| Object: |
University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers_Find_Gaping_Hole_In_The_Universe_999.html
'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous hole in the Universe,
nearly a billion light-years across, empty of both normal matter such as stars,
galaxies and gas, as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While earlier
studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure of the Universe,
this new discovery dwarfs them all.
'
My idea, _What _If there was an area where EM radiion could not pass?
An absence, a place without ether?
Oh well....
Anyways, it is near Eridanus.
.
|
|
| User: "q-bit" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
25 Aug 2007 03:38:48 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote
University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers_Find_Gaping_Hole_In_The_Universe_999.html
'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous hole in the Universe,
nearly a billion light-years across, empty of both normal matter such as stars,
galaxies and gas, as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While earlier
studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure of the Universe,
this new discovery dwarfs them all.
'
My idea, _What _If there was an area where EM radiion could not pass?
An absence, a place without ether?
Oh well....
Anyways, it is near Eridanus.
I don't understand what's so spectacular about a space region
that is empty; for me a very normal thing.
As I see it it's only a cheap sensationalism
by some black sheeps in the scientific community
who want to sell a hot air story to the dumb press...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
26 Aug 2007 04:28:02 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:38:48 +0200) it happened "q-bit"
<johnsmith@nospamorg.org> wrote in <faq420$dk3$1@aioe.org>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote
University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers_Find_Gaping_Hole_In_The_Universe_999.html
'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous hole in the Universe,
nearly a billion light-years across, empty of both normal matter such as stars,
galaxies and gas, as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While earlier
studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure of the Universe,
this new discovery dwarfs them all.
'
My idea, _What _If there was an area where EM radiion could not pass?
An absence, a place without ether?
Oh well....
Anyways, it is near Eridanus.
I don't understand what's so spectacular about a space region
that is empty; for me a very normal thing.
As I see it it's only a cheap sensationalism
by some black sheeps in the scientific community
who want to sell a hot air story to the dumb press...
I find it interesting to see what sort of forces are at work to create
such a void.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
24 Aug 2007 11:18:49 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:famve4$nud$1@news.datemas.de...
: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers_Find_Gaping_Hole_In_The_Universe_999.html
:
: 'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous hole in the
Universe,
: nearly a billion light-years across, empty of both normal matter such as
stars,
: galaxies and gas, as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While
earlier
: studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure of the
Universe,
: this new discovery dwarfs them all.
: '
Is it a black one?
: My idea, _What _If there was an area where EM radiion could not pass?
: An absence, a place without ether?
:
: Oh well....
It would be a black hole.
:
: Anyways, it is near Eridanus.
Mars is near Pittsburgh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
24 Aug 2007 01:14:07 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:JxDzi.107858$lx3.54812@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:famve4$nud$1@news.datemas.de...
: UoMin. Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers_Find_Gaping_Hole_In_The_Universe_999.html
: 'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous
: hole in the Universe, nearly a billion light-years across,
: empty of both normal matter such as stars, galaxies and gas,
: as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While earlier
: studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure
: of the Universe, this new discovery dwarfs them all.
: My idea, _What _If there was an area where EM radiion
: could not pass? -- An absence, a place without ether?
: Oh well....
: '
[Andro]
It would be a black hole.
[Pante]
: Anyways, it is near Eridanus.
[Andro]
Mars is near Pittsburgh
[hanson]
..... ahahahaha... if there are no "Einstein rings" around it
then, if it is a black hole, the thing could be quiet near, to
visit us in 2012... ahahaha.. The Maya knew. Albert didn't.
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
24 Aug 2007 01:31:13 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message news:PdFzi.39$ku.18@trnddc03...
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:JxDzi.107858$lx3.54812@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > "Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:famve4$nud$1@news.datemas.de...
: > : UoMin. Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers_Find_Gaping_Hole_In_The_Universe_999.html
: > : 'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous
: > : hole in the Universe, nearly a billion light-years across,
: > : empty of both normal matter such as stars, galaxies and gas,
: > : as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While earlier
: > : studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure
: > : of the Universe, this new discovery dwarfs them all.
: >
: > : My idea, _What _If there was an area where EM radiion
: > : could not pass? -- An absence, a place without ether?
: > : Oh well....
: > : '
: [Andro]
: > It would be a black hole.
: >
: [Pante]
: > : Anyways, it is near Eridanus.
: >
: [Andro]
: > Mars is near Pittsburgh
: >
: [hanson]
: .... ahahahaha... if there are no "Einstein rings" around it
: then, if it is a black hole, the thing could be quiet near, to
: visit us in 2012... ahahaha.. The Maya knew. Albert didn't.
: ahahahaha... ahahahanson
:
It must be the place where the black body radiation doesn't
come from...
Rect_Al is whining "abuse", do you think he's been cranked?
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
24 Aug 2007 02:32:43 PM |
|
|
AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha... ahahahaha...AHAHAHA...
"Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:RtFzi.108317$lx3.13244@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:PdFzi.39$ku.18@trnddc03...
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:JxDzi.107858$lx3.54812@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > "Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:famve4$nud$1@news.datemas.de...
: > : UoMin. Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers_Find_Gaping_Hole_In_The_Universe_999.html
: > : 'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous
: > : hole in the Universe, nearly a billion light-years across,
: > : empty of both normal matter such as stars, galaxies and gas,
: > : as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While earlier
: > : studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure
: > : of the Universe, this new discovery dwarfs them all.
: >
: > : My idea, _What _If there was an area where EM radiion
: > : could not pass? -- An absence, a place without ether?
: > : Oh well....
: > : '
: [Andro]
: > It would be a black hole.
: >
: [Pante]
: > : Anyways, it is near Eridanus.
: >
: [Andro]
: > Mars is near Pittsburgh
: >
: [hanson]
: .... ahahahaha... if there are no "Einstein rings" around it
: then, if it is a black hole, the thing could be quiet near, to
: visit us in 2012... ahahaha.. The Maya knew. Albert didn't.
: ahahahaha... ahahahanson
:
[Andro]
It must be the place where the black body radiation doesn't
come from...
[hanson]
.... ahahaha... that rad went all into the Einstein Rings which
contracted at the edge of the hole. So now you can't see'em,
because it has become an EINSTEIN HOLE now... but all its
Einstein Dingleberries are still clearly visible... ahahahaha
[Andro]
Rect_Al is whining "abuse", do you think he's been cranked?
[hanson]
..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...NO!!... That can't be, Andro.
Where did he whine?... ahahaha... Rect-Al, the uncle, feels
"abused" after he, rect-Al himself, has called/labeled other
people as "idiot", some 848,000 times, or so googles says.
It may be an ethnic thing with rect-Al.
Did he complain like this, rect-Al-ly?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM
ahahahaha... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
24 Aug 2007 03:30:10 PM |
|
|
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message news:vnGzi.59$hV.1@trnddc02...
: AHAHAHAHA.... ahahahaha... ahahahaha...AHAHAHA...
: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:RtFzi.108317$lx3.13244@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
: > news:PdFzi.39$ku.18@trnddc03...
: > : "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: > : news:JxDzi.107858$lx3.54812@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : > "Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > : > news:famve4$nud$1@news.datemas.de...
: > : > : UoMin. Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers_Find_Gaping_Hole_In_The_Universe_999.html
: > : > : 'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous
: > : > : hole in the Universe, nearly a billion light-years across,
: > : > : empty of both normal matter such as stars, galaxies and gas,
: > : > : as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While earlier
: > : > : studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure
: > : > : of the Universe, this new discovery dwarfs them all.
: > : >
: > : > : My idea, _What _If there was an area where EM radiion
: > : > : could not pass? -- An absence, a place without ether?
: > : > : Oh well....
: > : > : '
: > : [Andro]
: > : > It would be a black hole.
: > : >
: > : [Pante]
: > : > : Anyways, it is near Eridanus.
: > : >
: > : [Andro]
: > : > Mars is near Pittsburgh
: > : >
: > : [hanson]
: > : .... ahahahaha... if there are no "Einstein rings" around it
: > : then, if it is a black hole, the thing could be quiet near, to
: > : visit us in 2012... ahahaha.. The Maya knew. Albert didn't.
: > : ahahahaha... ahahahanson
: > :
: [Andro]
: > It must be the place where the black body radiation doesn't
: > come from...
: >
: [hanson]
: ... ahahaha... that rad went all into the Einstein Rings which
: contracted at the edge of the hole. So now you can't see'em,
: because it has become an EINSTEIN HOLE now... but all its
: Einstein Dingleberries are still clearly visible... ahahahaha
: >
: [Andro]
: > Rect_Al is whining "abuse", do you think he's been cranked?
: >
: [hanson]
: .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...NO!!... That can't be, Andro.
: Where did he whine?... ahahaha... Rect-Al, the uncle, feels
: "abused" after he, rect-Al himself, has called/labeled other
: people as "idiot", some 848,000 times, or so googles says.
: It may be an ethnic thing with rect-Al.
: Did he complain like this, rect-Al-ly?
: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9W3UsdRyM
: ahahahaha... ahahahanson
Well, sort of, it was more like this:
"Message-ID: <sYBzi.107832$lx3.2528@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com/ " -- Uncle Rect-Al.
In response to:
: > [snip wet fart]
: >
: > Hey fuckhead!
: >
: > 1) 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
: > light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
: > to travel from B to A' because RABBI EINSTEIN SAYS SO,
: > and you are the dumbfuck Jew that believes it.
: > 2) IDIOT.
: > 3) Stupidity is forever, and you are both ignorant and STOOOPID.
:
I doubt he liked being called a Jew but I meant it in the religious sense,
of course. After all, Einstein is his Rabbi and relativity his religion. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "jbg" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
24 Aug 2007 06:23:46 PM |
|
|
The news articles state that this region is a cold spot and "is not a
black hole." There is 45% less matter (dark or not dark) in the
region. There are other areas that have been observed that are
relatively empty of matter but these have all been orders of magnitude
smaller volumes. It is 5 to 10 billion light years from us and is
about 1 billion light years across.
Be careful reading news releases, even when from solid scientific
organizations. The reporter's -- uhmm-- enthusiasm may result in a
little hyperbole. (e. g. IMO, reports of "empty region" should all
have read "relatively empty region.")
Here is a good press release from NRAO.
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/coldspot/
Here is a source article by Lawrence Rudnick et al.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf
Regards,
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
24 Aug 2007 07:14:30 PM |
|
|
"jbg" <jbgrosh@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:1187997826.761770.312420@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
:
: The news articles state that this region is a cold spot and "is not a
: black hole." There is 45% less matter (dark or not dark) in the
: region. There are other areas that have been observed that are
: relatively empty of matter but these have all been orders of magnitude
: smaller volumes. It is 5 to 10 billion light years from us and is
: about 1 billion light years across.
:
: Be careful reading news releases, even when from solid scientific
: organizations. The reporter's -- uhmm-- enthusiasm may result in a
: little hyperbole. (e. g. IMO, reports of "empty region" should all
: have read "relatively empty region.")
:
: Here is a good press release from NRAO.
: http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/coldspot/
:
: Here is a source article by Lawrence Rudnick et al.
: http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf
:
: Regards,
: John
hahahaha!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
25 Aug 2007 10:41:48 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
[snip]
Nothing.
hahahaha!
Told ya.
Androclitty in physics is a blind man trying to navigate with a
sextant in a rainstorm. Hey Androclitty, who turned the ocean
upside-down?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
25 Aug 2007 10:50:16 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:46D04DBC.607138A3@hate.spam.net...
[snip]
Hey fuckhead!
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID Jew, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein,
who in 1895 failed an examination that would have allowed
him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at
the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).
"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Tom Roberts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
24 Aug 2007 12:24:39 PM |
|
|
On Aug 24, 10:18 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:famve4$nud$1@news.datemas.de...
: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
:http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers...
:
: 'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous hole in the
Universe,
: nearly a billion light-years across, empty of both normal matter such as
stars,
: galaxies and gas, as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While
earlier
: studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure of the
Universe,
: this new discovery dwarfs them all.
: '
Is it a black one?
Possibly.
Black holes are just that; voids caused by intense rotation/rotation-
standing waves that kick out all the virtual particles and turn them
into matter orbitting the black hole. This structure is called
a galaxy.
At a smaller scale, protons do the same thing- and are called atoms.
Obviously this occurs again at much larger scales, and the fact
that we can see it means there are an infinite range of frequencies
for the aether, and one man's void is another man's light-transmitting
aether-sea.
John
Galaxy Model
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
24 Aug 2007 11:40:55 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:famve4$nud$1@news.datemas.de...
University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers_Find_Gaping_Hole_In_The_Universe_999.html
'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous hole in the
Universe,
nearly a billion light-years across, empty of both normal matter such as
stars,
galaxies and gas, as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While
earlier
studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure of the
Universe,
this new discovery dwarfs them all.
'
My idea, _What _If there was an area where EM radiion could not pass?
An absence, a place without ether?
There is no ether, photons are quite happy passing
through the emptiest vacuum.
Rather, suppose it is indicative of structure at
greater than the observable level. Think of the
familiar red-and-blue maps of COBE and WMAP but
such that our Hubble volume is merely a pixel in
one of the blue areas while red indicates regions
of primarily anti-matter. Could inflation expand
regions fast and far enough to freeze in such
random fluctuations? Does that resolve the
baryogenesis problem?
Just random musings with no scientific basis - I'm
bored.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
24 Aug 2007 11:53:05 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:40:55 +0100) it happened "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<waednaTnIflRlVLbnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d@pipex.net>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:famve4$nud$1@news.datemas.de...
University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Minnesota_Astronomers_Find_Gaping_Hole_In_The_Universe_999.html
'University of Minnesota astronomers have found an enormous hole in the
Universe,
nearly a billion light-years across, empty of both normal matter such as
stars,
galaxies and gas, as well as the mysterious, unseen "dark matter." While
earlier
studies have shown holes, or voids, in the large-scale structure of the
Universe,
this new discovery dwarfs them all.
'
My idea, _What _If there was an area where EM radiion could not pass?
An absence, a place without ether?
There is no ether, photons are quite happy passing
through the emptiest vacuum.
Rather, suppose it is indicative of structure at
greater than the observable level. Think of the
familiar red-and-blue maps of COBE and WMAP but
such that our Hubble volume is merely a pixel in
one of the blue areas while red indicates regions
of primarily anti-matter. Could inflation expand
regions fast and far enough to freeze in such
random fluctuations? Does that resolve the
baryogenesis problem?
It is fascinating (and after all we are talking about part of a million's of a degree)
that they say: photons lose energy in that empty space (so red shift),
and state that otherwise they gain energy.
I can imagine that if you stretched space, then you in fact stretch the photon
wave, so expanding space created a (extra) redshift (longer wavelength)?
As to 'photon as particle', well that is the biggest joke in my view, and gets
you stuck at the very basic level.
You could look at it - or calculate with it - that way, but much simpler is
to look at the photon as a wave packet, made of several periods of frequency f,
with an attack and decay (envelope form).
Works well for me in electronics.
Even Planck himself stated that Einstein (who dreamed up photon) should
look more at what happens at the border of matter and EM radiation.
We have to distinct things: The amount of energy released when
an electron changes orbit (a fixed amount for a given atom in a given state),
and what we can detect in any possible way,
Already some month ago I predicted that we will have detectors that can detect less then
a 'whole' photon (say half a photon), as what many scientists call photon, the
tick in the photomultiplier (when there was enough EM energy to knock lose
an electron) does not take into account things as thermal noise, in fact
only the _difference_ energy is needed to add that last little bit of push to knock the photon
lose.
Statistically..... a dangerous game.
So, for me at least, photon is a wave, something must then wave, Freddy Fxxx??? I do not
know, but _something_ must wave, and if _something_ is not there, there cannot be EM radiation.
Now that would scrap that photon particle idea for good.
Still bored?
:-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
25 Aug 2007 05:08:38 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fan2dl$3b3$1@news.datemas.de...
....
I can imagine that if you stretched space, then you in fact stretch the
photon
wave, so expanding space created a (extra) redshift (longer wavelength)?
Many articles on cosmological redshift describe it
precisely that way. The extra energy shifts mentioned
in the article are in addition to that.
As to 'photon as particle', well that is the biggest joke in my view, and
gets
you stuck at the very basic level.
You could look at it - or calculate with it - that way, but much simpler
is
to look at the photon as a wave packet, made of several periods of
frequency f,
with an attack and decay (envelope form).
Works well for me in electronics.
That is basically what the wavefunction is though you
cannot view it literally in the classical wave sense,
the maths doesn't work.
Even Planck himself stated that Einstein (who dreamed up photon) should
look more at what happens at the border of matter and EM radiation.
We have to distinct things: The amount of energy released when
an electron changes orbit (a fixed amount for a given atom in a given
state),
and what we can detect in any possible way,
Already some month ago I predicted that we will have detectors that can
detect less then
a 'whole' photon (say half a photon), as what many scientists call photon,
the
tick in the photomultiplier (when there was enough EM energy to knock lose
an electron) does not take into account things as thermal noise, in fact
only the _difference_ energy is needed to add that last little bit of push
to knock the photon
lose.
Statistically..... a dangerous game.
If you fire a photon of frequency nu at a surface,
the ejected photons have energy h.nu-W where W is a
characteristic of the surface. If you choose nu such
that h.nu = 4W, a classical wave description says
you could get either one electron with E = 3W or two
low energy electrons whose kinetic energies add up
to 2W. The latter never happens.
So, for me at least, photon is a wave, something must then wave, Freddy
Fxxx??? I do not
know, but _something_ must wave, and if _something_ is not there, there
cannot be EM radiation.
Now that would scrap that photon particle idea for good.
Still bored?
Yep, what you are describing is what Planck envisaged
in 1914 when he solved the problem of black body
radiation. It was later, when Einstein looked at the
photoelectric effect, that the idea had to be discarded
in favour of the particle model.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
26 Aug 2007 07:11:45 AM |
|
|
On Aug 25, 7:08 am, "George Dishman" <geo...@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fan2dl$3b3$1@news.datemas.de...
...
I can imagine that if you stretched space, then you in fact stretch the
photon
wave, so expanding space created a (extra) redshift (longer wavelength)?
Many articles on cosmological redshift describe it
precisely that way. The extra energy shifts mentioned
in the article are in addition to that.
As to 'photon as particle', well that is the biggest joke in my view, and
gets
you stuck at the very basic level.
You could look at it - or calculate with it - that way, but much simpler
is
to look at the photon as a wave packet, made of several periods of
frequency f,
with an attack and decay (envelope form).
Works well for me in electronics.
That is basically what the wavefunction is though you
cannot view it literally in the classical wave sense,
the maths doesn't work.
Even Planck himself stated that Einstein (who dreamed up photon) should
look more at what happens at the border of matter and EM radiation.
We have to distinct things: The amount of energy released when
an electron changes orbit (a fixed amount for a given atom in a given
state),
and what we can detect in any possible way,
Already some month ago I predicted that we will have detectors that can
detect less then
a 'whole' photon (say half a photon), as what many scientists call photon,
the
tick in the photomultiplier (when there was enough EM energy to knock lose
an electron) does not take into account things as thermal noise, in fact
only the _difference_ energy is needed to add that last little bit of push
to knock the photon
lose.
Statistically..... a dangerous game.
If you fire a photon of frequency nu at a surface,
the ejected photons have energy h.nu-W where W is a
characteristic of the surface. If you choose nu such
that h.nu = 4W, a classical wave description says
you could get either one electron with E = 3W or two
low energy electrons whose kinetic energies add up
to 2W. The latter never happens.
If you could direct light like a bullet then Lunar laser
ranging wouldn't use parbolic reflectors.
http://mcdonaldobservatory.org/news/gallery/Tele_laser.html
So, for me at least, photon is a wave, something must then wave, Freddy
Fxxx??? I do not
know, but _something_ must wave, and if _something_ is not there, there
cannot be EM radiation.
Now that would scrap that photon particle idea for good.
Still bored?
Yep, what you are describing is what Planck envisaged
in 1914 when he solved the problem of black body
radiation. It was later, when Einstein looked at the
photoelectric effect, that the idea had to be discarded
in favour of the particle model.
Did you read that in Grimm's Fairy Tales?
<<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
that the Academy recognised the particle
nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .
As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency has to have
a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.
The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
Sue...
George-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
25 Aug 2007 08:00:41 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:08:38 +0100) it happened "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<tpOdnSTwhJ_GY1LbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@pipex.net>:
As to 'photon as particle', well that is the biggest joke in my view, and
gets
you stuck at the very basic level.
You could look at it - or calculate with it - that way, but much simpler
is
to look at the photon as a wave packet, made of several periods of
frequency f,
with an attack and decay (envelope form).
Works well for me in electronics.
That is basically what the wavefunction is though you
cannot view it literally in the classical wave sense,
the maths doesn't work.
This is what I think needs some more attention.
Look at this nice article that was recently posted in sci.physics:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html
with thanks to Florian.
Run the animation in figure 6.
This wave thingy is _not_ some imaginary thing!
The imaginary thing is that Einstein called the little energy blurb 'particle
of light'.
Clearly it has only wave properties.
In my view, if we get a bit deeper, the waveform (in the widest sense,
I am saying it may not be one pure frequency, but can have sidebands, sidebands
created by any other event in the neighbourhood when the electron orbit
changed), so it carries more info then just its polarisation and frequency.
The way to get that data back is a product detector, it should be possible to
have the incoming 'photon' (= wave packet) interfere with a similar one
of the same frequency to get the product, and then detect the sideband info
(its modulation).
The idea that 'it' is quantised _only_ applies to the generation of the photon
wave, not to its reception (clearly we only ever see a small area of the wave
and so a small part of it energy, as the waves emanates in all directions (usually).
Even Planck himself stated that Einstein (who dreamed up photon) should
look more at what happens at the border of matter and EM radiation.
We have to distinct things: The amount of energy released when
an electron changes orbit (a fixed amount for a given atom in a given
state),
and what we can detect in any possible way,
Already some month ago I predicted that we will have detectors that can
detect less then
a 'whole' photon (say half a photon), as what many scientists call photon,
the
tick in the photomultiplier (when there was enough EM energy to knock lose
an electron) does not take into account things as thermal noise, in fact
only the _difference_ energy is needed to add that last little bit of push
to knock the photon
lose.
Statistically..... a dangerous game.
If you fire a photon of frequency nu at a surface,
the ejected photons have energy h.nu-W where W is a
characteristic of the surface. If you choose nu such
that h.nu = 4W, a classical wave description says
you could get either one electron with E = 3W or two
low energy electrons whose kinetic energies add up
to 2W. The latter never happens.
Yes, you describe the photo electric effect, and in that specific
case you need to knock lose an electron, this needs a known amount of energy.
It is a bad insensitive detector type!!!
So, for me at least, photon is a wave, something must then wave, Freddy
Fxxx??? I do not
know, but _something_ must wave, and if _something_ is not there, there
cannot be EM radiation.
Now that would scrap that photon particle idea for good.
Still bored?
Yep, what you are describing is what Planck envisaged
in 1914 when he solved the problem of black body
radiation.
No, I do not think so, maybe.
It was later, when Einstein looked at the
photoelectric effect, that the idea had to be discarded
in favour of the particle model.
It will be very difficult I guess for people to admit that Einstein
(Albert E.) was more a political figure, then a scientist.
After De Broglie published his papers E. fled to the US, where
he did thought experiments for the rest of his life trying to
unite gravity with the other forces, AND FAILED.
However even today people think he was a genius and build LIGO to look
for some (obviously not happening) gravity waves.
His whole reasoning of 'particles of light' has lead to a particle physics that
has given us now ITER, an other guaranteed non net energy producing experiment.
It creates thousands of jobs, in electronics too, so it is supported,
but should it not ring a bell somewhere "WE ARE ON THE WRONG WAY'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
25 Aug 2007 08:38:35 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fap95p$e8s$1@news.datemas.de...
On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:08:38 +0100) it happened "George
Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<tpOdnSTwhJ_GY1LbnZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@pipex.net>:
As to 'photon as particle', well that is the biggest joke in my view,
and
gets
you stuck at the very basic level.
You could look at it - or calculate with it - that way, but much simpler
is
to look at the photon as a wave packet, made of several periods of
frequency f,
with an attack and decay (envelope form).
Works well for me in electronics.
That is basically what the wavefunction is though you
cannot view it literally in the classical wave sense,
the maths doesn't work.
This is what I think needs some more attention.
Look at this nice article that was recently posted in sci.physics:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html
with thanks to Florian.
Run the animation in figure 6.
This wave thingy is _not_ some imaginary thing!
I've seen something like that before. I haven't
gone into the detail yet but my impression was
that this could be seen as the time evolution
of a probability so it needs more careful thought
than I can give in this reply.
The imaginary thing is that Einstein called the little energy blurb
'particle
of light'.
Clearly it has only wave properties.
Far from it, all particles have wave properties.
In my view, if we get a bit deeper, the waveform (in the widest sense,
I am saying it may not be one pure frequency, but can have sidebands,
sidebands
created by any other event in the neighbourhood when the electron orbit
changed), so it carries more info then just its polarisation and
frequency.
'Hidden variable' theories have been extensively
tested so you may fall foul of those.
The way to get that data back is a product detector, it should be possible
to
have the incoming 'photon' (= wave packet) interfere with a similar one
of the same frequency to get the product, and then detect the sideband
info
(its modulation).
You will have trouble separating it from uncertainty.
The idea that 'it' is quantised _only_ applies to the generation of the
photon
wave, not to its reception (clearly we only ever see a small area of the
wave
and so a small part of it energy, as the waves emanates in all directions
(usually).
See later.
Even Planck himself stated that Einstein (who dreamed up photon) should
look more at what happens at the border of matter and EM radiation.
We have to distinct things: The amount of energy released when
an electron changes orbit (a fixed amount for a given atom in a given
state),
and what we can detect in any possible way,
Already some month ago I predicted that we will have detectors that can
detect less then
a 'whole' photon (say half a photon), as what many scientists call
photon,
the
tick in the photomultiplier (when there was enough EM energy to knock
lose
an electron) does not take into account things as thermal noise, in fact
only the _difference_ energy is needed to add that last little bit of
push
to knock the photon
lose.
Statistically..... a dangerous game.
If you fire a photon of frequency nu at a surface,
the ejected photons have energy h.nu-W where W is a
characteristic of the surface. If you choose nu such
that h.nu = 4W, a classical wave description says
you could get either one electron with E = 3W or two
low energy electrons whose kinetic energies add up
to 2W. The latter never happens.
Yes, you describe the photo electric effect, and in that specific
case you need to knock lose an electron, this needs a known amount of
energy.
Yeah, the point is that a photon with 5 times
that energy still only ever frees one electron
not two.
It is a bad insensitive detector type!!!
I suggest you look at the quantum efficiency
of modern detectors.
So, for me at least, photon is a wave, something must then wave, Freddy
Fxxx??? I do not
know, but _something_ must wave, and if _something_ is not there, there
cannot be EM radiation.
Now that would scrap that photon particle idea for good.
Still bored?
Yep, what you are describing is what Planck envisaged
in 1914 when he solved the problem of black body
radiation.
No, I do not think so, maybe.
I suggest you check the history. It might
be apocryphal but I think it is correct.
It was later, when Einstein looked at the
photoelectric effect, that the idea had to be discarded
in favour of the particle model.
It will be very difficult I guess for people to admit that Einstein
(Albert E.) was more a political figure, then a scientist.
Irrelevant, we are only interested in whather
his conclusions are borne out or falsified by
actual experiments. Anyone who looks at the man
instead of the work misses the point regardless
of which side he is on.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
26 Aug 2007 04:25:53 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:38:35 +0100) it happened "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in <xqqdnZFZToISsk3bRVnyjAA@pipex.net>:
This is what I think needs some more attention.
Look at this nice article that was recently posted in sci.physics:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html
with thanks to Florian.
Run the animation in figure 6.
This wave thingy is _not_ some imaginary thing!
I've seen something like that before. I haven't
gone into the detail yet but my impression was
that this could be seen as the time evolution
of a probability so it needs more careful thought
than I can give in this reply.
The imaginary thing is that Einstein called the little energy blurb
'particle
of light'.
Clearly it has only wave properties.
Far from it, all particles have wave properties.
You snipped my reference to De Broglie, so that was known.
In my view, if we get a bit deeper, the waveform (in the widest sense,
I am saying it may not be one pure frequency, but can have sidebands,
sidebands
created by any other event in the neighbourhood when the electron orbit
changed), so it carries more info then just its polarisation and
frequency.
'Hidden variable' theories have been extensively
tested so you may fall foul of those.
The way to get that data back is a product detector, it should be possible
to
have the incoming 'photon' (= wave packet) interfere with a similar one
of the same frequency to get the product, and then detect the sideband
info
(its modulation).
You will have trouble separating it from uncertainty.
I think - actually I wanted to write just a smiley (;-) ) as a reply
today, but now we are still serious (as regards to triggering your adrenaline
to stand up and defend status quo and have that end the 'boredom') -
so this 'uncertainty thingy is pretty well described on that link
I gave.
No I was not referring to hidden variables (Aspect, Bell), in fact
I have now read so much about those experiments that I cannot give you a clear view
(so I am still evaluating that) - but see this remark I made some time ago
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/e54166aa9adcfeb/243c974fce18a9dc?lnk=gst&q=panteltje+anti+particle&rnum=2#243c974fce18a9dc -
'A message from the future'-, when we look closer at that the universe is a closed system
where past present and future are fixed, like a precise machine, clockwork, and
that includes the idea of 'free will', so building on that, the experiment
we do and the results is has is just a movement of a wheel connected to all other
things time and space locked you can see in past present and future.
Nice, nothing to worry about.
Oh my God, and that on Sunday morning, I wanted to just reply with ;-)
LOL
The idea that 'it' is quantised _only_ applies to the generation of the
photon
wave, not to its reception (clearly we only ever see a small area of the
wave
and so a small part of it energy, as the waves emanates in all directions
(usually).
See later.
Yeah, the point is that a photon with 5 times
that energy still only ever frees one electron
not two.
Easier to understand is:
A wave with 5 times the frequency ......
As that is what photon (energy) is, just the product of Planck's constant and frequency,.
When we look at the process of knocking lose an electron, we
need to wiggle the electron in its orbit so its orbit
becomes unstable, and this is frequency dependent (De Brogly wave),
not so much amplitude dependent (number of photons).
(I have posted some theory about that wiggling effect in the past).
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html
It is a bad insensitive detector type!!!
I suggest you look at the quantum efficiency
of modern detectors.
Right, squids for example.
'Quantum' is just a mathematical approach, uncertainty is an illusion :-)
hehe
It will be very difficult I guess for people to admit that Einstein
(Albert E.) was more a political figure, then a scientist.
Irrelevant, we are only interested in whather
his conclusions are borne out or falsified by
actual experiments.
Albert E. never did an experiment in his life, other then some hair
styling.
Anyone who looks at the man
instead of the work misses the point regardless
of which side he is on.
George
He has no point, better to forget him, just like we forgot about earth,
water and fire from the Greeks.
He represents only ideas from the nineteenth century that will hold back
physics for many more years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
26 Aug 2007 09:38:20 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fargv1$rb4$1@news.datemas.de...
On a sunny day (Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:38:35 +0100) it happened "George
Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in <xqqdnZFZToISsk3bRVnyjAA@pipex.net>:
This is what I think needs some more attention.
Look at this nice article that was recently posted in sci.physics:
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/JCEWWW/Articles/DynaPub/DynaPub.html
with thanks to Florian.
Run the animation in figure 6.
This wave thingy is _not_ some imaginary thing!
I've seen something like that before. I haven't
gone into the detail yet but my impression was
that this could be seen as the time evolution
of a probability so it needs more careful thought
than I can give in this reply.
The imaginary thing is that Einstein called the little energy blurb
'particle
of light'.
Clearly it has only wave properties.
Far from it, all particles have wave properties.
You snipped my reference to De Broglie, so that was known.
Sorry, that was accidental but it's not the
contentious point.
In my view, if we get a bit deeper, the waveform (in the widest sense,
I am saying it may not be one pure frequency, but can have sidebands,
sidebands
created by any other event in the neighbourhood when the electron orbit
changed), so it carries more info then just its polarisation and
frequency.
'Hidden variable' theories have been extensively
tested so you may fall foul of those.
The way to get that data back is a product detector, it should be
possible
to
have the incoming 'photon' (= wave packet) interfere with a similar one
of the same frequency to get the product, and then detect the sideband
info
(its modulation).
You will have trouble separating it from uncertainty.
I think - actually I wanted to write just a smiley (;-) ) as a reply
today, but now we are still serious (as regards to triggering your
adrenaline
to stand up and defend status quo ..
I wouldn't put it that strongly, I just think
the photoelectric effect is quite clear but
there is so much accumulated data on photons
as particles now that I am surprised that
anyone still doubts it.
and have that end the 'boredom') -
so this 'uncertainty thingy is pretty well described on that link
I gave.
No I was not referring to hidden variables (Aspect, Bell), in fact
I have now read so much about those experiments that I cannot give you a
clear view
My point was actually quite simple, though maybe
not clear. Sidebands carry modulation which is
information. If sidebands existed, there should
be an effect on any experiment that statistically
tests for the presence of extra information, AKA
'hidden variables'.
(so I am still evaluating that) - but see this remark I made some time ago
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/e54166aa9adcfeb/243c974fce18a9dc?lnk=gst&q=panteltje+anti+particle&rnum=2#243c974fce18a9dc -
'A message from the future'-, when we look closer at that the universe is
a closed system
where past present and future are fixed, like a precise machine,
clockwork, and
that includes the idea of 'free will', so building on that, the experiment
we do and the results is has is just a movement of a wheel connected to
all other
"is has is" ? A typo I guess.
things time and space locked you can see in past present and future.
Nice, nothing to worry about.
Oh my God, and that on Sunday morning, I wanted to just reply with ;-)
LOL
I don't believe Aspect or Bell actually deny
intrinsic randomness, in fact they are designed
taking it into account because they can only
look at statistics. That uncertainty is what
breaks Newton's "clockwork universe" and allows
free will, at least to the extent that Brownian
Motion in cerebral chemical transfers creates an
unpredictable element in decision making.
The idea that 'it' is quantised _only_ applies to the generation of the
photon
wave, not to its reception (clearly we only ever see a small area of the
wave
and so a small part of it energy, as the waves emanates in all
directions
(usually).
See later.
Yeah, the point is that a photon with 5 times
that energy still only ever frees one electron
not two.
Easier to understand is:
A wave with 5 times the frequency ......
A wave can have any energy if measured for long
enough. perhaps clearer would be "a wave-like
packet containing 5 times that energy".
As that is what photon (energy) is, just the product of Planck's constant
and frequency,.
You have to be careful to distinguish energy
from power - waves are continuous.
When we look at the process of knocking lose an electron, we
need to wiggle the electron in its orbit so its orbit
becomes unstable, and this is frequency dependent (De Brogly wave),
Sure but why can't a wave packet with five times the
energy needed to release one electron release more
than one?
not so much amplitude dependent (number of photons).
Let's stick to single photons for now. The question
of why muplitple wave-packets cannot have a cumulative
effect to release an electron when their individual
energies are slightly too low is another aspect.
(I have posted some theory about that wiggling effect in the past).
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html
It is a bad insensitive detector type!!!
I suggest you look at the quantum efficiency
of modern detectors.
Right, squids for example.
CCDs for example, I was looking at one on the
SBIG site and the QE peaks at 85%.
'Quantum' is just a mathematical approach, uncertainty is an illusion :-)
hehe
:-)
It will be very difficult I guess for people to admit that Einstein
(Albert E.) was more a political figure, then a scientist.
Irrelevant, we are only interested in whather
his conclusions are borne out or falsified by
actual experiments.
Albert E. never did an experiment in his life, other then some hair
styling.
Ad hominem insults Jan? Exactly my next point:
Anyone who looks at the man
instead of the work misses the point regardless
of which side he is on.
He has no point, better to forget him, just like we forgot about earth,
water and fire from the Greeks.
He represents only ideas from the nineteenth century that will hold back
physics for many more years.
As long as the experiments match his equations,
the equations are useable. That's the way science
works, end of story.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Park" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
26 Aug 2007 01:22:01 PM |
|
|
"George Dishman" (george@briar.demon.co.uk) writes:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fargv1$rb4$1@news.datemas.de...
[...]>
Albert E. never did an experiment in his life, other then some hair
styling.
Ad hominem insults Jan? [...]
Untrue ones at that. In 1915 Einstein and de Haas investigated the g-value
of the electron by experiments with an a iron rod; Einstein subsequently
continued the work independently.
His results would later be overthrown, but he was working at the limit of what
was then technically possible.
--John Park
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
26 Aug 2007 10:59:57 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:38:20 +0100) it happened "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<gKednZpQq9OTEkzbnZ2dnUVZ8tKsnZ2d@pipex.net>:
I think - actually I wanted to write just a smiley (;-) ) as a reply
today, but now we are still serious (as regards to triggering your
adrenaline
to stand up and defend status quo ..
I wouldn't put it that strongly, I just think
the photoelectric effect is quite clear but
there is so much accumulated data on photons
as particles now that I am surprised that
anyone still doubts it.
Sue gave this link, read it all up to and including QED:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
You will see that the subject has been sort of evaded, and replaced by a mathematical
model.
To advance we need some mechanical model too (mechanical is not the right
word, but some understanding of a mechanism).
My point was actually quite simple, though maybe
not clear. Sidebands carry modulation which is
information. If sidebands existed, there should
be an effect on any experiment that statistically
tests for the presence of extra information, AKA
'hidden variables'.
If you want it to apply to explain that Aspect experiment,
I am not sure that is the right way to set out about it.
The right way is to understand the mechanism.
Math can then be applied later.
Physics does it the other way around these days it seems.
Math accepted as a mechanism? Now that sucks.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/e54166aa9adcfeb/243c974fce18a9dc?lnk=gst&q=panteltje+anti+particle&rnum=2#243c974fce18a9dc -
'A message from the future'-, when we look closer at that the universe is
a closed system
where past present and future are fixed, like a precise machine,
clockwork, and
that includes the idea of 'free will', so building on that, the experiment
we do and the results is has is just a movement of a wheel connected to
all other
"is has is" ? A typo I guess.
No,
the experiment we do, and the result is has, is just a movement of a wheel connected to
I saved punctuation marks to reduce global warming.
things time and space locked you can see in past present and future.
Nice, nothing to worry about.
Oh my God, and that on Sunday morning, I wanted to just reply with ;-)
LOL
I don't believe Aspect or Bell actually deny
intrinsic randomness, in fact they are designed
taking it into account because they can only
look at statistics. That uncertainty is what
breaks Newton's "clockwork universe" and allows
free will, at least to the extent that Brownian
Motion in cerebral chemical transfers creates an
unpredictable element in decision making.
That depends on the signal strength.
I think you are familiar with information theory.
The decisions our chemical (and electrical) based brain
takes, come from the subconscious processing and perception,
we then 'decide' but it is all clockwork.
Sure, chemical or electrical signals can influence this,
put electrodes in your head, use drugs, whatever, but
a closer look will show that that simply follows the laws
of nature too.
Easier to understand is:
A wave with 5 times the frequency ......
A wave can have any energy if measured for long
enough. perhaps clearer would be "a wave-like
packet containing 5 times that energy".
As that is what photon (energy) is, just the product of Planck's constant
and frequency,.
You have to be careful to distinguish energy
from power - waves are continuous.
When an electron orbiting an atom is engulfed by an EM field,
it starts to wobble in its orbit.
In my view at some specific frequency you can resonate it out of its orbit.
Relativistically the own frequency of that electron, and that
of the EM radiation, can sum, to do this.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/debrog.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/davger.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/davger2.html#c1
When we look at the process of knocking lose an electron, we
need to wiggle the electron in its orbit so its orbit
becomes unstable, and this is frequency dependent (De Brogly wave),
Sure but why can't a wave packet with five times the
energy needed to release one electron release more
than one?
More energy (see definition of Planck's constant) means a higher frequency.
_Only_ from the above given frequency or close to it, will you be able
to knock an electron free.
'Quantum' is just a mathematical approach, uncertainty is an illusion :-)
hehe
:-)
Albert E. never did an experiment in his life, other then some hair
styling.
Ad hominem insults Jan? Exactly my next point:
What!? He is famous for his hairstyle, what are you on about?
Everybody who wants to look like a confused theoretical physicist
wears their hair like that.
I watch Hollywood.
As long as the experiments match his equations,
the equations are useable. That's the way science
works, end of story.
No, there is no end to the story, it begins where we understand a mechanism.
The math came later.
(Going by) math (alone) can be totally wrong, as we see in LIGO and ITER,
getting you stuck and nowhere.
Reality check!
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
30 Aug 2007 02:44:33 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fas81v$uvi$1@news.datemas.de...
Jan, I'm short on time so I'll trim this
somewhat.
Sue gave this link, read it all up to and including QED:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
You will see that the subject has been sort of evaded, and replaced by a
mathematical
model.
Physics is only maths. The extras on top are
philosophy. QM works fine as physics but nobody
has a logical understanding of what it tells us,
so I'm with Feynman, "If you think you understand
quantum mechanics, you haven't studied it enough."
To advance we need some mechanical model too (mechanical is not the right
word, but some understanding of a mechanism).
My point was actually quite simple, though maybe
not clear. Sidebands carry modulation which is
information. If sidebands existed, there should
be an effect on any experiment that statistically
tests for the presence of extra information, AKA
'hidden variables'.
If you want it to apply to explain that Aspect experiment,
I am not sure that is the right way to set out about it.
The right way is to understand the mechanism.
Math can then be applied later.
Physics does it the other way around these days it seems.
Math accepted as a mechanism? Now that sucks.
The sequaence is first to observe then to model
mathematically and then maybe attach some meaning
to that. Bottom line though is that the goal is
to provide tools and many of the most useful
equations are simply empirical.
I don't believe Aspect or Bell actually deny
intrinsic randomness, in fact they are designed
taking it into account because they can only
look at statistics. That uncertainty is what
breaks Newton's "clockwork universe" and allows
free will, at least to the extent that Brownian
Motion in cerebral chemical transfers creates an
unpredictable element in decision making.
That depends on the signal strength.
I think you are familiar with information theory.
The decisions our chemical (and electrical) based brain
takes, come from the subconscious processing and perception,
we then 'decide' but it is all clockwork.
Sure, chemical or electrical signals can influence this,
put electrodes in your head, use drugs, whatever, but
a closer look will show that that simply follows the laws
of nature too.
Sure but those laws are statistical at the lowest
level so although when the SNR is high you get
predictable behaviour, in fine decisions the
tail of the distribution can introduce a random
element so that fundamentally the universe is
not clockwork.
Easier to understand is:
A wave with 5 times the frequency ......
A wave can have any energy if measured for long
enough. perhaps clearer would be "a wave-like
packet containing 5 times that energy".
As that is what photon (energy) is, just the product of Planck's
constant
and frequency,.
You have to be careful to distinguish energy
from power - waves are continuous.
When an electron orbiting an atom is engulfed by an EM field,
it starts to wobble in its orbit.
In my view at some specific frequency you can resonate it out of its
orbit.
Relativistically the own frequency of that electron, and that
of the EM radiation, can sum, to do this.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/debrog.html#c3
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/davger.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/davger2.html#c1
When we look at the process of knocking lose an electron, we
need to wiggle the electron in its orbit so its orbit
becomes unstable, and this is frequency dependent (De Brogly wave),
Sure but why can't a wave packet with five times the
energy needed to release one electron release more
than one?
More energy (see definition of Planck's constant) means a higher
frequency.
_Only_ from the above given frequency or close to it, will you be able
to knock an electron free.
Yes I understand that view but the question then
is why doesn't the electron absorb just enough
energy to be freed leaving a reduced amplitude
wave moving forward with still enough energy to
free a second electron. Instead it seems that
if an electron is freed, it is forced to absorb
_all_ the energy and be ejected with h.nu - W as
kinetic. That's where the "billiard ball" particle
model makes more sense than a wave model.
'Quantum' is just a mathematical approach, uncertainty is an illusion
:-)
hehe
:-)
Albert E. never did an experiment in his life, other then some hair
styling.
Ad hominem insults Jan? Exactly my next point:
What!? He is famous for his hairstyle, what are you on about?
Everybody who wants to look like a confused theoretical physicist
wears their hair like that.
I watch Hollywood.
As long as the experiments match his equations,
the equations are useable. That's the way science
works, end of story.
No, there is no end to the story, it begins where we understand a
mechanism.
The math came later.
Sorry, no. It always begins with observation
then empirical laws and finally a model that
may refine those laws. Look at Wien and Plank's
contributions to black body radiation for example.
(Going by) math (alone) can be totally wrong, as we see in LIGO and ITER,
getting you stuck and nowhere.
The maths always suggested the first LIGO would be
too insensitive and it was right, but the problem
isn't in the maths, it lies in knowing what sources
are out there to be detected. There are always
surprises when a new method of observation is
developed, especially in astronomy.
George
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
30 Aug 2007 06:33:03 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:44:33 +0100) it happened "George Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<F76dnVE-fcOM6UvbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@pipex.net>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fas81v$uvi$1@news.datemas.de...
Jan, I'm short on time so I'll trim this
somewhat.
OK
Physics is only maths. The extras on top are
philosophy.
You can look at it that way.
But remember (and I must have triggered some earthquake in Baez
when I mentioned that, judging by his reaction), now to this:
'math' our mathematics, is, in reality a construction in our neural net,
partly hard(wet)ware, and only a small number of neurons are engaged in this
(relative to the 'philosophy part' you mentioned).
What I am trying to say is: sort of (to keep it short, I just come
from a discussion on the independence of Taiwan from China yippee),
it is a very simplified model we make and then apply to reality, at the moment
we make it, we replace reality with it, then use the rules of that model
to 'predict', _omitting_ the fact that the mathematical description of
reality is *incomplete* to begin with, and because of that all the conclusions we
come to using it.
In fact it is _extremely limited_.
Philosophy, or in this case what I was referring to rather the simulations
in our brain using analogies from the 3D world we live in and gained [brain]
simulation experience with, can, and likely often is, more accurate
with more predictive power, (called understanding), but numerically
in the smallest details lacking what math can give us, if the equations were completely
correct.
I like to give the electronics example, when somebody found current in a conductor
was proportional to voltage, and described a law (Ohm's law), he did not know about electrons.
Although you now have the formula i = U / R, it has no predictive power (over what electrons do)
other then numerical in a very limited field.
When the vacuum tube was found (electricity flow in a vacuum), that defeated Ohm's law as
according to that law there could _not_ be current in a vacuum.
This is where we needed those little 'balls' so we can envision, simulate in our brain
little balls moving in the vacuum of space in that vacuum tube.
Once we had the little balls figured out as a simulation medium for electricity we could make
new math taking into account the properties of those balls.
Experiment came first, understanding 'something moves here where it cannot' was next, math came later.
When the triode was created, a grid was added between anode and cathode, to control those little
electron balls, and then math was created, mathematical relationships between applied
voltage and current flowing were derived, learning us more about electrons in the process.
So, yes, philosophy first (are this things negative? Then seem to stop when I make the grid negative etc).
Now lets measure, OK so here is the curve, and the finally: let's see what sort of equation
this fits.
The rest in numerical, engineering, the philosophy came first.
The guy who invented the wheel did not know about PI!!!!
QM works fine as physics but nobody
has a logical understanding of what it tells us,
so I'm with Feynman, "If you think you understand
quantum mechanics, you haven't studied it enough."
I am not with Feynman, who was a great mathemagician, I admit that,
I say: we need to look closer at what happens, understand the mechanism.
The word 'random' clearly shows 'no clue'.
To refer to what I wrote before: incomplete math leads to conclusions like that,
The link to the simulation I gave you in an earlier post shows clearly there is not such a 'random' thing
but a simple wave effect.
Bottom line though is that the goal is
to provide tools and many of the most useful
equations are simply empirical.
Thats is engineering, in research we need to understand.
I think we sort of agree here.
Sure but those laws are statistical at the lowest
level so although when the SNR is high you get
predictable behaviour, in fine decisions the
tail of the distribution can introduce a random
element so that fundamentally the universe is
not clockwork.
The accuracy of our methods of measurement,
knowing all factors, even the smallest one, makes it perhaps
look like noise, but it is not.
As you can see I never gave up cause and effect for noise.
Yes I understand that view but the question then
is why doesn't the electron absorb just enough
energy to be freed leaving a reduced amplitude
wave moving forward with still enough energy to
free a second electron. Instead it seems that
if an electron is freed, it is forced to absorb
_all_ the energy and be ejected with h.nu - W as
kinetic. That's where the "billiard ball" particle
model makes more sense than a wave model.
Well, some time ago I played a bit with magnets and
magnets on the end of a metal pendulum, to see how much
you needed to shake it for it to fly away....
And at what speed... Somehow it seems logical.
Perhaps if you look at the EM field as a wave pattern
engulfing the whole environment, and the electron
moving in it starting to vibrate (EM interaction),
more and more, as its own frequency (De Broglie)
crosses the frequency it sees from the incoming wave (using Bohr's model,
say it circles around a core), when moving towards the EM source it sees a higher -
and when moving away a lower frequency, at one point
it swings so much it never returns to its orbit...
and that is the highest energy point (vibration amplitude)
it encounters in its orbit.
And this wavelength is specific for each atom and orbit.
Well sort of, just have to do this one from memory.
It may well have had other things affecting its orbit such as thermal effects, only
the little extra energy was needed to make it escape, that is why I think
'1 photon detector' is a joke.
Maybe to fail to see that is why QM is so 'statistical' in nature.
But hey, this is philosophy, and just how I jiggle the electron in my brain simulation.
But it allows me to predict things, and so far I have not been a lot wrong on gravity waves etc.
But anyways, I could be wrong, but I prefer my jiggling with electrons this way above incomplete
math that becomes a straightjacket where you are now heading into phantasy,
like wormholes and what not.
the equations are useable. That's the way science
works, end of story.
No, there is no end to the story, it begins where we understand a
mechanism.
The math came later.
Sorry, no. It always begins with observation
then empirical laws and finally a model that
may refine those laws. Look at Wien and Plank's
contributions to black body radiation for example.
See, I knew we would finally agree, I did not need to write all that
(Going by) math (alone) can be totally wrong, as we see in LIGO and ITER,
getting you stuck and nowhere.
The maths always suggested the first LIGO would be
too insensitive and it was right,
'Could' be, as they do not know how many of them black holes are around
merging etc...
But it turns out there are many more then thought.
LIGO should not have been build if the math proved it was too insensitive.
The upgraded LIGO also sees nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dishman" |
|
| Title: Re: University Of Minnesota Astronomers Find Gaping Hole In The Universe |
17 Sep 2007 03:18:18 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fb69tg$trj$1@news.datemas.de...
On a sunny day (Thu, 30 Aug 2007 08:44:33 +0100) it happened "George
Dishman"
<george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
<F76dnVE-fcOM6UvbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@pipex.net>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fas81v$uvi$1@news.datemas.de...
Jan, I'm short on time so I'll trim this
somewhat.
OK
Physics is only maths. The extras on top are
philosophy.
You can look at it that way.
I do.
But remember (and I must have triggered some earthquake in Baez
when I mentioned that, judging by his reaction), now to this:
'math' our mathematics, is, in reality a construction in our neural net,
partly hard(wet)ware, and only a small number of neurons are engaged in
this
(relative to the 'philosophy part' you mentioned).
No, maths is quite rigorous and gives definitive
answers unlike our wooly judgements.
What I am trying to say is: sort of (to keep it short, I just come
from a discussion on the independence of Taiwan from China yippee),
it is a very simplified model we make and then apply to reality, at the
moment
we make it, we replace reality with it, then use the rules of that model
to 'predict', _omitting_ the fact that the mathematical description of
reality is *incomplete* to begin with, and because of that all the
conclusions we
come to using it.
In fact it is _extremely limited_.
Absolutely, but that is the nature of the beast.
Philosophy, or in this case what I was referring to rather the simulations
in our brain using analogies from the 3D world we live in and gained
[brain]
simulation experience with, can, and likely often is, more accurate
with more predictive power, (called understanding), but numerically
in the smallest details lacking what math can give us, if the equations
were completely
correct.
I disagree, many people in this group think that
way but they invariably succumb to "intuitive"
thinking and are regularly way out even
qualitatively.
I like to give the electronics example, when somebody found current in a
conductor
was proportional to voltage, and described a law (Ohm's law), he did not
know about electrons.
Although you now have the formula i = U / R, it has no predictive power
(over what electrons do)
other then numerical in a very limited field.
Take Ohms Law as an example. It is a very limited
description of a resistor. It says the current is
proportional to the voltage but in fact any real
resistor also has random variations, the law only
applies to the mean. On the other hand it is
complete in that it says the relationship is linear.
Any higher order terms would produce harmonics when
an AC signal is passed through it and we don't see
those so it is perfect in that sense. Then if you
go to the next level, we have a simple equation
sqrt(kTBR) which gives the thermal noise and adds
a bit more detail. Again the two remain incomplete
but adding lead inductance and stray capacitance
and so on builds the picture. The point is that
none is the whole story yet those together with
thermal effects and so on describe every aspect of
the device.
If you want to predict what an electron will do in
an electric or magnetic field, of course Ohm's Law
isn't the right one to choose but there are others
that do the job perfectly again.
When the vacuum tube was found (electricity flow in a vacuum), that
defeated Ohm's law as
according to that law there could _not_ be current in a vacuum.
Not at all, Ohm's Law applies to resistors only. Long
before valves were invented, you also had V = L * di/dt
for a coil and I = C * dv/dt for a capacitor (Leyden
Jar in those days). Neither invalidates Ohm's Law.
This is where we needed those little 'balls' so we can envision, simulate
in our brain
little balls moving in the vacuum of space in that vacuum tube.
Once we had the little balls figured out as a simulation medium for
electricity we could make
new math taking into account the properties of those balls.
Experiment came first, understanding 'something moves here where it
cannot' was next, math came later.
Cathode rays !
When the triode was created, a grid was added between anode and cathode,
to control those little
electron balls, and then math was created, mathematical relationships
between applied
voltage and current flowing were derived, learning us more about electrons
in the process.
So, yes, philosophy first (are this things negative? Then seem to stop
when I make the grid negative etc).
Now lets measure, OK so here is the curve, and the finally: let's see what
sort of equation
this fits.
The rest in numerical, engineering, the philosophy came first.
The guy who invented the wheel did not know about PI!!!!
No, experiment first, cathode rays were 'discovered' and
a philosophy had to be invented to model them.
QM works fine as physics but nobody
has a logical understanding of what it tells us,
so I'm with Feynman, "If you think you understand
quantum mechanics, you haven't studied it enough."
I am not with Feynman, who was a great mathemagician, I admit that,
I say: we need to look closer at what happens, understand the mechanism.
The word 'random' clearly shows 'no clue'.
No, random means the outputs are to some degree
uncorrelated to the inputs in a process. That can
be tested statistically to see whether there is
actually a cause-and-effect link in the system
even if we have no knowledge of it and those
tests always say there isn't.
To refer to what I wrote before: incomplete math leads to conclusions like
that,
The link to the simulation I gave you in an earlier post shows clearly
there is not such a 'random' thing
but a simple wave effect.
Bottom line though is that the goal is
to provide tools and many of the most useful
equations are simply empirical.
Thats is engineering, in research we need to understand.
I think we sort of agree here.
Sort of, I am an engineer and a consumer of
the tools (like Ohm's Law), while scientists
are the producers. At the end of the day though,
the tool is the equation and the instructions
for use ("For resistor application only."), not
the model of electrons flowing through metal.
Sure but those laws are statistical at the lowest
level so although when the SNR is high you get
predictable behaviour, in fine decisions the
tail of the distribution can introduce a random
element so that fundamentally the universe is
not clockwork.
The accuracy of our methods of measurement,
knowing all factors, even the smallest one, makes it perhaps
look like noise, but it is not.
As you can see I never gave up cause and effect for noise.
There are experiments that force it though.
Yes I understand that view but the question then
is why doesn't the electron absorb just enough
energy to be freed leaving a reduced amplitude
wave moving f | | | | | | | | | | | |
