Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: Does light exist per se?

Expand Messages
  • GRAHAM ENNIS
    Dear All, My immediate instinct in all this is that the light is converted into a secondary (infrared) frequency, and radiates away as heat. However, a small
    Message 1 of 15 , Mar 31, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear All,
      My immediate instinct in all this is that the light is converted into a
      secondary (infrared) frequency, and radiates away as heat. However, a small
      possibility is that it has been transferred, (there is no proper word for
      this, it is not radiated) into the vacuum plenum, somehow. it might then
      manifest,(secondary effect) as some kind of electric field. However, this
      is strictly speculation, and Nature always prefers the simplest solution to
      anything..........

      Graham.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: c.h.thompson <<Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: Does light
      exist per se?


      > Dear Gareth
      >
      > > Dear Caroline and Claude,
      > >
      > > Have I missed something? Is there something special in being able negate
      > > light by destructive interference? The principle is used in engineering
      to
      > > reduce noise pollution from stationary machines and both are forms of
      > energy.
      >
      > But I'd be very interested to know what the engineers have to say! It's
      > something I have pondered on from time to time. Do they perhaps think the
      > energy is converted to heat?
      >
      > Cheers
      > Caroline
    • GRAHAM ENNIS
      Em, sorry Gareth. It s half the voltage, but charge is conserved, (except for small losses.). ... From: To:
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 31, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Em, sorry Gareth. It's half the voltage, but charge is conserved, (except
        for small losses.).

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <Gjones33@...>
        To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@egroups.com>
        Sent: 02 April 2000 14:52
        Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: Does light exist per se?


        > Dear Caroline,
        >
        > What a state physics has got itself into. I'll try and comment with an
        open
        > mind. There are two problems here, first no one as far as I know, has
        > provided experimental evidence that photons exist. If you can't prove they
        > exist, how can you prove you've made them disappear?
        >
        > Second, photons are only necessary when you don't have an ether. If you
        have
        > an ether that you don't believe exists, how can you say you have lost
        energy
        > when it could have been changed into something you don't believe in?
        >
        > In my original reply, I mentioned that you could prove the loss of energy
        in
        > a much simpler way. To do this experiment you will need two capacitors of
        the
        > same value, about 100uf or larger are ideal. Charge one capacitor to say
        12
        > volts or more. Disconnect from supply and connect second capacitor in
        > parallel with first. You will find charge is conserved and half the energy
        > has disappeared. The voltage across the capacitors in parallel will be
        half
        > the voltage across the first.
        >
        > If engineers are expected to take physicists seriously then I believe more
        > time and effort should be spent in trying to understand and explain simple
        > experiments such as the above before embarking on the ridiculous nonsense
        of
        > claiming to make things that do not exist disappear.
        > Cheers,
        > Gareth
        > In a message dated 02/04/00 12:29:34 GMT Daylight Time,
        > c.h.thompson@... writes:
        >
        > > ear Gareth
        > >
        > > > Dear Caroline and Claude,
        > > >
        > > > Have I missed something? Is there something special in being able
        negate
        > > > light by destructive interference? The principle is used in
        engineering
        > to
        > > > reduce noise pollution from stationary machines and both are forms of
        > > energy.
        > >
        > > Do you know how this fact is supposed to square with the idea of
        > > conservation of energy?
        > >
        > > That's our problem with disappearing light. Come to think of it, I
        don't
        > > know what QT actually says on the subject! It just waffles on about
        > > interference between probability amplitudes, but what is actually
        supposed
        > > to happen? I suppose all "photons" that do not occur at the minima of
        the
        > > interference pattern must have been pushed to the maxima. David's
        point is
        > > that he can create conditions in which the entire cross-section of the
        beam
        > > represents a minimum, so photons have disappeared according to QT and
        > energy
        > > according to classical theory.
        > >
        > > But I'd be very interested to know what the engineers have to say!
        It's
        > > something I have pondered on from time to time. Do they perhaps think
        the
        > > energy is converted to heat?
        > >
        > > Cheers
        > > Caroline
        > >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > These won't last! Save 50% on Chef Deluxe BBQ Cook Sets.
        > FREE Shipping and a 30 Day Money-Back Guarantee at
        > screaminghotdeals.com
        > http://click.egroups.com/1/2715/3/_/187292/_/954683547/
        >
        >
        > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/forcefieldpropulsionphysics
        > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
        >
        >
        >
      • cyrano@aqua.ocn.ne.jp
        ... Dear Caroline, What is the full url of this? Cheers, Claude
        Message 3 of 15 , Apr 1 7:03 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          >Light might well not equate to energy in the way we've been taught! A
          >colleague of mine, David Chalmers, has done some interesting experiments
          >that show that you can annihilate it. By carefully arranging polarisers,
          >mirrors etc he organises the death of part of the "energy" of a laser beam.
          >It does not seem that the lost energy is converted into anything else: you
          >just have two superposed beams of coherent light, 180 deg out of phase, and
          >they are undetectable. They have vanished.
          >
          >He has now done several experiments of this nature and challenges both
          >classical and quantum theory. In my own version of "classical" theory there
          >is no problem as I don't place much value on the concept of energy anyway!
          >Some of his experiments seem to show that the disappearance of energy is in
          >any case usually reversible: if the two superposed beams were not EXACTLY
          >coaxial then sooner or later they would split and some constructive
          >interference would be seen as well as destructive.

          Dear Caroline,

          What is the full url of this?

          Cheers,

          Claude
        • c.h.thompson
          ... Light might well not equate to energy in the way we ve been taught! A colleague of mine, David Chalmers, has done some interesting experiments that show
          Message 4 of 15 , Apr 1 10:52 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Gareth wrote:
            > >If you don't believe in electrons,
            > >how about light, does light have mass?
            >
            Claude:
            > Does light exist per se?

            Light might well not equate to energy in the way we've been taught! A
            colleague of mine, David Chalmers, has done some interesting experiments
            that show that you can annihilate it. By carefully arranging polarisers,
            mirrors etc he organises the death of part of the "energy" of a laser beam.
            It does not seem that the lost energy is converted into anything else: you
            just have two superposed beams of coherent light, 180 deg out of phase, and
            they are undetectable. They have vanished.

            He has now done several experiments of this nature and challenges both
            classical and quantum theory. In my own version of "classical" theory there
            is no problem as I don't place much value on the concept of energy anyway!
            Some of his experiments seem to show that the disappearance of energy is in
            any case usually reversible: if the two superposed beams were not EXACTLY
            coaxial then sooner or later they would split and some constructive
            interference would be seen as well as destructive.

            David, incidentally, interprets all his results in terms of photons - a
            point on which we have had to agree to differ! His photons seem very
            well-behaved, so that in practice his theory differs from mine only, I
            think, in one tiny and untestable detail concerning "geometric phase".

            I'm sending him a copy of this message so that he can correct me if I've
            misrepresented him.

            Cheers
            Caroline

            http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
          • c.h.thompson
            Dear Claude You ask for a URL on the following that I wrote yesterday. David has a web site, http://www.chalmers.freeserve.co.uk ( got this from my own site,
            Message 5 of 15 , Apr 2 12:37 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Claude

              You ask for a URL on the following that I wrote yesterday. David has a web
              site, http://www.chalmers.freeserve.co.uk ( got this from my own site,
              having lost a lot of this kind of info when I lost my hard disc directory
              the other week. The web site version wasn't quite right ... must correct
              this). Most of my understanding comes from private correspondence, though.
              I can forward his most recent message to anyone interested - it's quite a
              long file as it includes some bitmap diagrams. He approved, incidentally,
              of the way I expressed his ideas in my message.

              > >Light might well not equate to energy in the way we've been taught! A
              > >colleague of mine, David Chalmers, has done some interesting experiments
              > >that show that you can annihilate it. By carefully arranging polarisers,
              > >mirrors etc he organises the death of part of the "energy" of a laser
              beam.
              > >It does not seem that the lost energy is converted into anything else:
              you
              > >just have two superposed beams of coherent light, 180 deg out of phase,
              and
              > >they are undetectable. They have vanished.
              > >
              > >He has now done several experiments of this nature and challenges both
              > >classical and quantum theory. In my own version of "classical" theory
              there
              > >is no problem as I don't place much value on the concept of energy
              anyway!
              > >Some of his experiments seem to show that the disappearance of energy is
              in
              > >any case usually reversible: if the two superposed beams were not EXACTLY
              > >coaxial then sooner or later they would split and some constructive
              > >interference would be seen as well as destructive.

              Thinking about it, I wonder if, despite destructive interference of the
              component we recognise as "light", other components (some of the
              longitudinal or scalar wave parts - the raw phi-waves in my own model) might
              survive, carrying momentum and hence producing "radiation pressure"?

              Cheers
              Caroline
              http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
            • Gjones33@aol.com
              Dear Caroline and Claude, Have I missed something? Is there something special in being able negate light by destructive interference? The principle is used in
              Message 6 of 15 , Apr 2 1:06 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Caroline and Claude,

                Have I missed something? Is there something special in being able negate
                light by destructive interference? The principle is used in engineering to
                reduce noise pollution from stationary machines and both are forms of energy.

                There is a much easier way to make energy disappear.
                Cheers
                Gareth

                In a message dated 02/04/00 09:44:50 GMT Daylight Time,
                c.h.thompson@... writes:

                > Dear Claude
                >
                > You ask for a URL on the following that I wrote yesterday. David has a web
                > site, http://www.chalmers.freeserve.co.uk ( got this from my own site,
                > having lost a lot of this kind of info when I lost my hard disc directory
                > the other week. The web site version wasn't quite right ... must correct
                > this). Most of my understanding comes from private correspondence, though.
                > I can forward his most recent message to anyone interested - it's quite a
                > long file as it includes some bitmap diagrams. He approved, incidentally,
                > of the way I expressed his ideas in my message.
                >
                > > >Light might well not equate to energy in the way we've been taught! A
                > > >colleague of mine, David Chalmers, has done some interesting experiments
                > > >that show that you can annihilate it. By carefully arranging
                polarisers,
                > > >mirrors etc he organises the death of part of the "energy" of a laser
                > beam.
                > > >It does not seem that the lost energy is converted into anything else:
                > you
                > > >just have two superposed beams of coherent light, 180 deg out of phase,
                > and
                > > >they are undetectable. They have vanished.
                > > >
                > > >He has now done several experiments of this nature and challenges both
                > > >classical and quantum theory. In my own version of "classical" theory
                > there
                > > >is no problem as I don't place much value on the concept of energy
                > anyway!
                > > >Some of his experiments seem to show that the disappearance of energy is
                > in
                > > >any case usually reversible: if the two superposed beams were not
                EXACTLY
                > > >coaxial then sooner or later they would split and some constructive
                > > >interference would be seen as well as destructive.
                >
                > Thinking about it, I wonder if, despite destructive interference of the
                > component we recognise as "light", other components (some of the
                > longitudinal or scalar wave parts - the raw phi-waves in my own model)
                might
                > survive, carrying momentum and hence producing "radiation pressure"?
                >
                > Cheers
                > Caroline
                >
              • c.h.thompson
                Dear Gareth ... energy. Do you know how this fact is supposed to square with the idea of conservation of energy? That s our problem with disappearing light.
                Message 7 of 15 , Apr 2 3:53 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Gareth

                  > Dear Caroline and Claude,
                  >
                  > Have I missed something? Is there something special in being able negate
                  > light by destructive interference? The principle is used in engineering to
                  > reduce noise pollution from stationary machines and both are forms of
                  energy.

                  Do you know how this fact is supposed to square with the idea of
                  conservation of energy?

                  That's our problem with disappearing light. Come to think of it, I don't
                  know what QT actually says on the subject! It just waffles on about
                  interference between probability amplitudes, but what is actually supposed
                  to happen? I suppose all "photons" that do not occur at the minima of the
                  interference pattern must have been pushed to the maxima. David's point is
                  that he can create conditions in which the entire cross-section of the beam
                  represents a minimum, so photons have disappeared according to QT and energy
                  according to classical theory.

                  But I'd be very interested to know what the engineers have to say! It's
                  something I have pondered on from time to time. Do they perhaps think the
                  energy is converted to heat?

                  Cheers
                  Caroline
                • JhanDavis@aol.com
                  [Earlier post]: Have I missed something? Is there something special in being able negate light by destructive interference? The principle is used in
                  Message 8 of 15 , Apr 2 5:40 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    [Earlier post]:
                    Have I missed something? Is there something special in being able negate
                    light by destructive interference? The principle is used in engineering to
                    reduce noise pollution from stationary machines and both are forms of
                    energy.
                    But I'd be very interested to know what the engineers have to say! It's
                    something I have pondered on from time to time. Do they perhaps think the
                    energy is converted to heat?

                    [Jhan]:
                    From the engineering standpoint, you can negate any base-frequency of any
                    waveform simply by subjecting it to a waveform equal in amplitude and
                    180-degrees out of phase. This works well with light, and David appears to
                    have a very good handle on the fact that it can be done by exciting electrons
                    just-so, while doing the opposing type of excitation with another laser. The
                    point to be made here is that the photon (actually light wave-front) in this
                    experiment is the exact image of the state of the electron at instant of
                    excitation. Nothing ever just disappears; you just get standing-waves as the
                    output. Which sometimes, in some media, appear to make the "n" (in this case
                    n=2) baseline frequencies of the inputs to the process disappear. No
                    violation of the conservation laws. No heat as output! Just messing-around
                    with our perception of the processes' outputs. However, most inputs to this
                    kind of process also have harmonics, what I call sidebands (which David has
                    removed from his experiments by selecting very pure baseline input
                    frequencies without any visible harmonics). With emitters containing
                    harmonics, the cancellation can make for interesting interference patterns of
                    their own, within a context of the basal being canceled-out already, and
                    those sidebands can then be the dickens to cancel-out. This is the
                    "parasitic" problem in the final output stage of every high-power radio or TV
                    transmitter. Neutralization then becomes a matter of selecting the proper
                    capacitance with which to suppress generation of the unwanted harmonics.

                    David Chalmers is what science is all about. Do actual experiments and see
                    what happens! We need more original work if we're going to get establishment
                    science unconstipated. Math got science gummed-up. A resurgence of actual
                    hardware-physics is going to have to serve as the Metamucil!
                  • Gjones33@aol.com
                    Dear Caroline, What a state physics has got itself into. I ll try and comment with an open mind. There are two problems here, first no one as far as I know,
                    Message 9 of 15 , Apr 2 6:52 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Caroline,

                      What a state physics has got itself into. I'll try and comment with an open
                      mind. There are two problems here, first no one as far as I know, has
                      provided experimental evidence that photons exist. If you can't prove they
                      exist, how can you prove you've made them disappear?

                      Second, photons are only necessary when you don't have an ether. If you have
                      an ether that you don't believe exists, how can you say you have lost energy
                      when it could have been changed into something you don't believe in?

                      In my original reply, I mentioned that you could prove the loss of energy in
                      a much simpler way. To do this experiment you will need two capacitors of the
                      same value, about 100uf or larger are ideal. Charge one capacitor to say 12
                      volts or more. Disconnect from supply and connect second capacitor in
                      parallel with first. You will find charge is conserved and half the energy
                      has disappeared. The voltage across the capacitors in parallel will be half
                      the voltage across the first.

                      If engineers are expected to take physicists seriously then I believe more
                      time and effort should be spent in trying to understand and explain simple
                      experiments such as the above before embarking on the ridiculous nonsense of
                      claiming to make things that do not exist disappear.
                      Cheers,
                      Gareth
                      In a message dated 02/04/00 12:29:34 GMT Daylight Time,
                      c.h.thompson@... writes:

                      > ear Gareth
                      >
                      > > Dear Caroline and Claude,
                      > >
                      > > Have I missed something? Is there something special in being able negate
                      > > light by destructive interference? The principle is used in engineering
                      to
                      > > reduce noise pollution from stationary machines and both are forms of
                      > energy.
                      >
                      > Do you know how this fact is supposed to square with the idea of
                      > conservation of energy?
                      >
                      > That's our problem with disappearing light. Come to think of it, I don't
                      > know what QT actually says on the subject! It just waffles on about
                      > interference between probability amplitudes, but what is actually supposed
                      > to happen? I suppose all "photons" that do not occur at the minima of the
                      > interference pattern must have been pushed to the maxima. David's point is
                      > that he can create conditions in which the entire cross-section of the beam
                      > represents a minimum, so photons have disappeared according to QT and
                      energy
                      > according to classical theory.
                      >
                      > But I'd be very interested to know what the engineers have to say! It's
                      > something I have pondered on from time to time. Do they perhaps think the
                      > energy is converted to heat?
                      >
                      > Cheers
                      > Caroline
                      >
                    • cyrano@aqua.ocn.ne.jp
                      Dear Gareth, ... the ... I enjoy your reply! Cheers, Claude
                      Message 10 of 15 , Apr 2 7:37 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Gareth,

                        >What a state physics has got itself into. I'll try and comment with an open
                        >mind. There are two problems here, first no one as far as I know, has
                        >provided experimental evidence that photons exist. If you can't prove they
                        >exist, how can you prove you've made them disappear?
                        >
                        >Second, photons are only necessary when you don't have an ether. If you have
                        >an ether that you don't believe exists, how can you say you have lost energy
                        >when it could have been changed into something you don't believe in?
                        >
                        >In my original reply, I mentioned that you could prove the loss of energy in
                        >a much simpler way. To do this experiment you will need two capacitors of
                        the
                        >same value, about 100uf or larger are ideal. Charge one capacitor to say 12
                        >volts or more. Disconnect from supply and connect second capacitor in
                        >parallel with first. You will find charge is conserved and half the energy
                        >has disappeared. The voltage across the capacitors in parallel will be half
                        >the voltage across the first.
                        >
                        >If engineers are expected to take physicists seriously then I believe more
                        >time and effort should be spent in trying to understand and explain simple
                        >experiments such as the above before embarking on the ridiculous nonsense of
                        >claiming to make things that do not exist disappear.

                        I enjoy your reply!

                        Cheers,

                        Claude
                      • cyrano@aqua.ocn.ne.jp
                        Dear Jhan, ... Agreed! We need more original work if we re going to get establishment ... Agreed. Math got science gummed-up. A resurgence of actual ...
                        Message 11 of 15 , Apr 2 7:41 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Jhan,

                          >David Chalmers is what science is all about. Do actual experiments and see
                          >what happens!

                          Agreed!

                          We need more original work if we're going to get establishment
                          >science unconstipated.

                          Agreed.

                          Math got science gummed-up. A resurgence of actual
                          >hardware-physics is going to have to serve as the Metamucil!

                          Ha,ha,hilarious!!!!

                          Cheers,

                          Claude

                          PS:Our politicians,by the way,would need Metamucil too....
                        • Gjones33@aol.com
                          Why sorry Graham? Half the energy is lost no matter what size of capacitors or voltage you start with. The result is always the same - half the energy is
                          Message 12 of 15 , Apr 2 1:07 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Why sorry Graham? Half the energy is 'lost' no matter what size of capacitors
                            or voltage you start with. The result is always the same - half the energy is
                            lost.

                            In a message dated 02/04/00 19:29:42 GMT Daylight Time,
                            chiefpilot@... writes:

                            > Em, sorry Gareth. It's half the voltage, but charge is conserved, (except
                            > for small losses.).


                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: <Gjones33@...>
                            > To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@egroups.com>
                            > Sent: 02 April 2000 14:52
                            > Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: Does light exist per se?
                            >
                          • Adrian
                            Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: Does light exist per se? Thanks Gareth. Crossed photons disappearing are [oops: seem!] a case of taking photons as
                            Message 13 of 15 , Apr 2 2:10 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: Does light exist per se?


                              Thanks Gareth.

                              Crossed photons disappearing are [oops: seem!] a case of taking photons as
                              like 'objects' which they are not in a first place. Tackled as waves it is
                              simpler, I did NOT say simple. Wave Mechanics has it that waves harmonic
                              create standing waves, waves anharmonic don't or make noise and third one is
                              no noise at all. There is it not assumed there's pushing or pulling power,
                              [that arises from a sensory delusion about here and there] power and it
                              resembles what happens with crossed polaroid lenses too. Get two, keep the
                              slits aligned, light passes with a small loss of intensity. Cross the two at
                              90 degrees and no light gets through. Cross two capacitors and the same
                              thing happens. Loss and gain across "domains".

                              Apply that to electric motors, they run because the fields are at triangular
                              positions, not 90 not 180, which holds also in astrology for the effects of
                              conjunctions. The electric motor can have the 60 angles slightly modified to
                              vary the speed. There's a winding which makes the rotor accelerate only,
                              used inside vacuum cleaners.

                              Now get rid of all the sensory hooplah, just an illusion, objects and waves
                              alike, one created by the eyes, the other by the ears and the digital bit
                              too. Observably we are left with angles. such that at certain angles things
                              happen at others they disappear or don't at all. Get rid of speed, get rid
                              of the spectrum of energy and we are forced to give that a name, so called
                              it aether. Relative to the angle, which varies with other angles as created
                              by what appears to be different media, densities, spectrums, etc, which
                              second or 3rd etc angle varies the first angle as for an electric motor, we
                              get or do not get effects.
                              This "settles" that fields do interact, as obvious, because the whole
                              interacts with itself as a whole. Now, again, for certain angles something
                              happens, it produces an effect. For certain other angles it shifts into
                              another field, the label used by sheer ignorance and to stick with how we
                              reason by way of the senses, cream cheese would do as well.for a label,
                              though I prefer peasoup. and for certain other angles nothing happens
                              because IT doing things with IT just walks past each other. That puts us in
                              the origami business and, maybe that's where harmonics comes in. Nothing
                              ever appears or disappears it just happens to interacts with itself or with
                              other bits of itself or not, Because we are sensorily tuned to get SOME of
                              that game, for us it appears and disappears.

                              That reduces it to the humble relation between things, as friends, enemies,
                              indifferent or music, noise and no noise at all. For physical effects that
                              shifts into the angles and harmonics between the angles, with the in between
                              bits for resonance and it is in the resonance domain things happen for and
                              to us?
                              Is that crazy enough to make sense? It is not Physics that got itself into
                              a state, we have, attaching beliefs to it,

                              Since, basically we are hunting for energy, find the rabbit holes that leak
                              it our way. Sounds like a good idea to go fishing for "effects" that make
                              things appear and disappear and get a protractor out. For astrology and
                              solar flares that's tricky as for every planet there would have to be a
                              triangular rabbit holes and how all the rabbit holes line up is real fun. So
                              keep it to one thing at a time.

                              There's no objects, there's no waves, but eppur si muove, still it happens.
                              which leaves us with form, relative to our detection mechanisms, because
                              there's no form out there either and no out there too. A system of leakage
                              to keep itself in-formed. Oh, yes, we're all just peddling our favorite
                              metaphors.
                              And for metaphors we're at the limit of what that metaphor can portray. Oh
                              yes, again, in 3d and 4d 'fields' the angles will get funny, won't they? In
                              fact, most of that is what I already wrote to Jhan over his loops. They just
                              won't stand still for long enough to take snapshots.

                              Adrian.
                            • c.h.thompson
                              ... open ... It s David Chalmers, not me, who believes in photons! But that s not the point. What I m concerned with is the classical idea that a light wave
                              Message 14 of 15 , Apr 2 3:46 PM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Dear Caroline,
                                >
                                > What a state physics has got itself into. I'll try and comment with an
                                open
                                > mind. There are two problems here, first no one as far as I know, has
                                > provided experimental evidence that photons exist. If you can't prove they
                                > exist, how can you prove you've made them disappear?

                                It's David Chalmers, not me, who believes in photons!

                                But that's not the point. What I'm concerned with is the classical idea
                                that a light wave has a fixed amount of energy per unit time associated with
                                it - the classical equivalent of Planck's rule. I seem to have lost track
                                of the meaning of the phrase "energy conservation". I don't know exactly
                                what David's photons are, but I tend to think of them as individual peaks of
                                the waves, which are as real as the complete waves though, individually,
                                rather meaningless.

                                > In my original reply, I mentioned that you could prove the loss of energy
                                in
                                > a much simpler way. To do this experiment you will need two capacitors of
                                the
                                > same value, about 100uf or larger are ideal. Charge one capacitor to say
                                12
                                > volts or more. Disconnect from supply and connect second capacitor in
                                > parallel with first. You will find charge is conserved and half the energy
                                > has disappeared. The voltage across the capacitors in parallel will be
                                half
                                > the voltage across the first.

                                Not having done a basic physics course, this is rather lost on me! What you
                                are saying is that the energy of the system IS the voltage and this has
                                halved? But shouldn't we say instead something about the energy per unit
                                area of the capacitors?
                                This has halved but the total area has doubled.

                                > If engineers are expected to take physicists seriously then I believe more
                                > time and effort should be spent in trying to understand and explain simple
                                > experiments such as the above before embarking on the ridiculous nonsense
                                of
                                > claiming to make things that do not exist disappear.

                                I don't think David's investigations ridiculous, but I do agree that there
                                are some quite ordinary facts that current physics does not explain.

                                Cheers
                                Caroline
                              • c.h.thompson
                                ... to ... I don t think there are standing waves involved in David s experiments - or not in all at any rate. Perhaps this is not quite what you mean. Two
                                Message 15 of 15 , Apr 2 3:56 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Gareth asked:
                                  > Have I missed something? Is there something special in being able negate
                                  > light by destructive interference? The principle is used in engineering
                                  to
                                  > reduce noise pollution from stationary machines and both are forms of
                                  > energy.

                                  CHT:
                                  > But I'd be very interested to know what the engineers have to say! It's
                                  > something I have pondered on from time to time. Do they perhaps think the
                                  > energy is converted to heat?

                                  [Jhan]:
                                  > ... Nothing ever just disappears; you just get standing-waves as the
                                  > output.

                                  I don't think there are standing waves involved in David's experiments - or
                                  not in all at any rate. Perhaps this is not quite what you mean. Two
                                  travelling waves are superposed. The result must be something that travels.
                                  I think my very high frequency phi-waves will still be there, only with a
                                  pattern that is now not recognised as "light". Since the universe is
                                  completely full of phi-waves anyway, these residual waves from the light can
                                  sometimes be ignored: they are not much different so far as our detectors
                                  are concerned from random ones. Some kind of detector might exist, though,
                                  that is sensitive to them.

                                  > Which sometimes, in some media, appear to make the "n" (in this case
                                  > n=2) baseline frequencies of the inputs to the process disappear. No
                                  > violation of the conservation laws. No heat as output! Just
                                  messing-around
                                  > with our perception of the processes' outputs.

                                  Agreed.

                                  > David Chalmers is what science is all about. Do actual experiments and
                                  see
                                  > what happens!

                                  Seconded!

                                  Caroline
                                  http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.