Re: Experimental disproof of the theory of Relativity

From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:14:41 -0700

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Us2Ec.3105$nc.1430@fed1read03...
> Dear greywolf42:
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:10e0s7ntge79h36@corp.supernews.com...
> > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
> message
> > news:aw6Dc.35$nc.10@fed1read03...

{snip higher levels}

> > > Why do you continue to claim
> > > they have not been done, when *only photons and charged particles are
> > > being discussed*.
> >
> > ??? I claim that photon-photon experiments have not been done, *because*
> > no such experiments have been done (AFAIK). Every such claim that I've
> > seen made refers to a photon/charged particle experiment.
> >
> > > What exactly *is* charge to you, anyway?
> >
> > An observable property of matter.
> >
> > > What is it that is
> > > "bonded" to an electron that we call charge?
> >
> > This is a theoretical question. The answer varies with the theory.
> >
> > > Is it a photon or not?
> >
> > That depends upon the theory.
> >
> > I merely point out that no light-light (photon-photon) experiment has
> > ever been done. Why do you resist this simple fact?
>
> I don't resist the fact that you make the claim. I resist your insistence
> that there has been no testing.

The please identify an experiment wherein real, observable photons enter a
reaction area and collide directly with real, observable photons. Without
any extraneous, possibly confounding particles.

> URL:http://www.photonics.com/spectra/tech/XQ/ASP/techid.1279/QX/read.htm
> positrons created by the collision of backscattered photons and a laser
> beam.
> <QUOTE>
> In that case, the researchers monitored a collision event between terawatt
> laser pulses and a 46.6-GeV electron beam that produced backscattered
> high-energy photons that could interact with those from the laser and that
> produced real positrons. "Their underlying microscopic mechanism involved
> [the] creation of real particles (in contrast to ours), and, consequently,
> our proposal would test different aspects of QED," he said.
> <END QUOTE>

I prefer to use the actual E144 paper (from which I have already provided
excerpts), instead of a derivative reference. And the E144 paper was
explicit. E144 collided electrons off of a laser beam.

> URL:http://epaper.kek.jp/p95/ARTICLES/FPD/FPD02.PDF
> <QUOTE>
> From earliest times, man has known that light does not affect light. In
> modern terms, if you shine one
> flashlight on a wall, and direct the beam of a second flashlight through
> the beam of the first flashlight, shaking the second beam up and down, no
> matter how violently, will not affect the first beam. Maxwell formalized
> this in his famous electrodynamic equations, from whose linearity we would
> quickly deduce the above-described phenomenon. Of course, none of this is
> true in quantum mechanics, and the scattering of light upon light
(Delbruck
> scattering), a quantum electrodynamic effect (QED), was first proposed in
> 1933 [4]. This phenomenon was first observed in 1954, and an experiment is
> now under way to carefully study this and other nonlinear QED effects [5].
> <END QUOTE>

But the so-called experiment for Delbruck scattering was not a
light-on-light experiment. Contrary to the claim in the quote above. If
you find the reference upon which that quote was taken, I believe you'll
find that it was another electron-photon collision experiment. (Wherein an
unobservable 'virtual photon' was imputed to be the interaction vector.)

> Now I ask you again, and note that I am asking YOU, not an encyclopedia,
> where does the photon reside?

What photon are you referring to? In the E144 experiment, the incoming
photons would be from the laser.

> Why is charge different as relates to photons?

For one thing, photons aren't charged.

> Don't you wonder if *anything* except a photon can interfere
> with another photon?

I believe you mean 'interact?' If so, I personally have no problem
accepting that electrons (for example) can interact directly with photons
(without the need for a 'virtual photon' mediary).

But this is irrelevant to the issue of E144 being an electron-laser beam
interaction.

> Just your opinions now, I understand that there are nearly
> as many hypotheses as there are grains of sand.

Then I'd rather focus on the substantive issue. That there are no
experiments that have yet been done that actually collide light with light. 

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Simple question about a laser pushing a proton.
    ... How does the laser beam go faster than c then? ... So the photons that make up the laser beam are travelling faster than light. ... Mirror reflects photons which then push proton ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang
    ... >> There are no crossed laser experiments. ... >> electron beam, followed by a collision between the high energy ... >> several laser photons to produce an electron positron pair. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang
    ... >> There are no crossed laser experiments. ... >> electron beam, followed by a collision between the high energy ... >> several laser photons to produce an electron positron pair. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang
    ... > There are no crossed laser experiments. ... > at the Final Focus Test Beam at SLAC." ... > obtained by the E-144 collaboration on the interactions of electrons ... > process in which laser photons are backscattered to GeV energies by ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Bill Bryson and the big bang
    ... > There are no crossed laser experiments. ... > at the Final Focus Test Beam at SLAC." ... > obtained by the E-144 collaboration on the interactions of electrons ... > process in which laser photons are backscattered to GeV energies by ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading