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

Re: [jlnlabs] The "photon"

Expand Messages
  • Slavek Krepelka by way of Rabelais - Ab
    Hi Caroline, ... What about fluorescent tubes (may be not so great an example of spherical radiation)? What about vacuum tubes? What about laser diodes? ...
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 9, 2002
      Hi Caroline,


      > > > Isn't conservation of momentum supposed to deal with this?
      > >
      > > What has conservation of momentum to do with this? If your
      > > radiating structure (crystal or gas volume) radiates in all possible
      > > directions quite equally,
      >
      > Presumably nobody does claim this kind of symmetry. Surely under all
      > theories an oscillating dipole has axial symmetry, not spherical?

      What about fluorescent tubes (may be not so great an example of spherical
      radiation)? What about vacuum tubes? What about laser diodes?

      > But you
      > are probably right to query this. Perhaps we need more than axial symmetry,
      > which means that our source must be oscillating like a thunder sheet,
      > sending out waves almost entirely in its direction of oscillation. If this
      > is the case, they will be primarily longitudinal. Polarisation could be
      > introduced by the slanting end mirrors.

      Laser beam generators have slanting mirrors? I have always read about parallel
      and orthogonal to the beam. Have I missed something?

      > My picture agrees with yours, but please can we avoid the word
      > "entanglement"? To me, it means something atrocious -- a link between
      > separated particles such that they are able to have instantaneous effects on
      > each other!

      OK.

      > > > But, as you say in a minute, here there are no particles, just
      > > > continuously varying energy. There is no reason to use the
      > > > word "quanta".
      > >
      > > Why not? Each Hertz represents a specific amount of energy
      > > (at its amplitude) ...
      >
      > Those brackets tell you why! People forget to mention the we assume
      > constant amplitude. And how, might I ask, do you ensure constant amplitude?
      > You may be able to see it if the source is a string. You may know that it
      > is constant if your frequency change has been caused by a Doppler shift.
      > Often you don't know, and land up using circular arguments, deducing the
      > amplitude from the energy.

      Quite right.

      > My main argument againt the word "quanta" is the baggage that accompanies
      > it! It means we have particles, indivisible packets of energy, and
      > altogether a load of nonsense.

      Agreed. The root of the evil may lie in the quantifying of mathematics itself.
      Mathematics is an incremental procedure which calls for incremental results when
      described by mathematics.

      > > > The frequencies are specific, but not the energies.
      > >
      > > OK, I will try another way. Throw a stone into a pond. Each
      > > consecutive circular wave coming from the hypo center of the
      > > impact has lower amplitude, shorter wavelength and higher
      > > frequency.
      >
      > No, I think this is upside-down! The further you get from the centre the
      > lower tha amplitude AND the lower the frequency, just slightly. I wouldn't
      > be sure of this change in frequency without having made a proper study, but
      > what I do know is that the wavelength increases as the amplitude decreases.
      > This is not very noticeable usually, and most books will tell you that it
      > stays constant, yet I've seen aerial photos of the wake of a boat the show
      > it clearly.

      Anyway. I meant every consecutive wave from one stone impact has lover
      amplitude, shorter wavelength and higher frequency than the previous wave of the
      series. I will go through these observations once more in the spring. There may
      be something I may have missed.

      > Water waves are complicated, though, especially surface ones. Different
      > kinds go at different speeds. If you want an analogy with radiation, sound
      > is generally better, though that too can sometimes go at different
      > speeds. I wish I knew more ...

      It is an oscillator. It is actually a magnitude driven oscillator, same as lets
      say a pendulum. Rock a pendulum at any length of stroke, and its frequency
      remains constant under otherwise constant conditions. But, its mean speed
      between the return points increases with amplitude. Magnitude is actually
      another criteria which is completely omitted by standard wave physics along with
      amplitude. They make it easy on themselves.

      > > only state that each wave has a specific quantum of energy,
      > > albeit each such quantum is different.
      >
      > So you can't call it a quantum!

      Not in the orthodox sense.

      > > > Is it possible that a pure gas in a confined space does not
      > > > behave at all the same way as one out in the open?
      > >
      > > I do not think so. What is so pure about ammonia vapor? Why
      > > should space confinement have anything to do with the causality
      > > of the pressure in gas?
      >
      > Fair enough -- especially in view of the fact that unless you're at absolute
      > zero the walls of the container will suffer thermal vibrations. It was just
      > a thought. I don't know if you've encountered "Glird"? He has possibly
      > similar ideas on gases to yours.

      I will check Glird. Thanks.

      > Poor Albert! I totally agree! I can't see how it happened, that anyone
      > ever started to take notice of his crazy ideas! My major beef is his
      > invention of the photon.

      Considering your point of view, I agree with you. It is no unit to count with.

      > Gee! That's great! Let's found our new school of physics straight away!

      That would need some convincing hardware. <g> I am working on it.

      > > Why chance again? That singer has to find the resonant frequency of some
      > > glass.
      >
      > Yes, but perhaps the glass has to be especially weak, or to be in exactly
      > the right spot. It's not that I think anything happens without cause, just
      > that some causes are beyond our control and/or irrelevant. Some processes
      > need "random" inputs and behave differently with regular ones.

      OK.

      > > I am not familiar with this procedure. Never the less, I will point out
      > > the swing again. When you swing someone, you have to push him in phase,
      >
      > I wonder! You push always at the same point, but are you partly trying to
      > force the oscillation, maybe forcing it just a little faster than the
      > natural frequency?

      Yes. I promised to work on this. You have pointed out that the source and the
      resonator couple and you are very justified. The coupling goes always two ways.
      The source has to tend to vibrate at a slightly higher frequency than the
      resonator, while the resonator tends to slow the "vibrator" down. This is a
      bitch to visualize with sound in its classical interpretation of casualty, but
      it is obvious with mechanical systems.

      > The impression I get with modern fundamental physics (not practical,
      > technology-type physics) is that they set out to verify a chosen theory, not
      > simply to try and understand what is going on.

      Even at the cost of fudging the results to go with the flow of the mainstream.

      > Of course things were different then. There were relatively few people
      > involved. They tended to meet face to face at the Royal Society etc.. The
      > referees for the papers would have been members of the same group, who could
      > expect to understand pretty completely what had been done. [[Referees now
      > are still members of the same group, if you're in the right group, but they
      > are anonymous. I very much doubt if they expect to understand what they are
      > sent.] The pure "theoretical physicist" had barely been invented, and was
      > held in scorn by the "real" physicists.

      (smile) Let's stop ranting.

      > > > No! Young himself dealt only with light, and I can see nothing
      > > > whatsoever wrong with his explanation.
      > >
      > > Hmm. I will try to help you here. The below is verbatim form my TTF.
      > >
      > > ****
      > > Double Slot Water Wave Experiment (performed by the author just for
      >
      > I have not time to study this carefully right now. What I do know, though,
      > is that in the "good old days" they did a lot of practical experiments with
      > water tanks (and mercury tanks -- see examples in my phi-waves and forces
      > paper). I think there are some water tank photos in Max Born's nice book,
      > The Restless Universe (1935). Perhaps your conditions were not right!

      Perhaps the still photo will again only show the still picture, not the
      experimental result of mean wave motion pattern on the screen.

      My kind regards, Slavek.



      Messages archives at :

      http://www.egroups.com/group/jlnlabs/

      To unsubscribe, send a blank email to jlnlabs-unsubscribe@egroups.com

      JLN Labs web site at: http://go.to/jlnlabs

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.