Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/07/05
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv REPLY TO DEAN"
- Previous message: Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato: "Re: Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) and GPS function."
- Next in thread: Chris: "Light"
- Reply: Chris: "Light"
- Maybe reply: TomGee: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 7 Mar 2005 13:28:36 -0800
bz wrote:
> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1110172705.112424.104090@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > bz wrote:
> >> "TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1110137889.141845.222460
> >> @g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > bz,
> >> >
> ...
> >> As far as I know, a photon does not know, or care if it is part of
a
> >> stream of coherent light or being emitted by the hot filament of a
> >> light bulb. It travels outward in a straight line from the
source.
> >>
> >>
> > If in that statement you mean a photon normally travels out from a
> > source in a straight line, that is inconsistent with the
well-accepted
> > explanation that light normally propagates as spherically shaped
waves
> > from its source.
>
> That view of light is inconsistent with observations. The
'spherically
> shaped waves' were thought to exist by people that were working with
huge
> numbers of photons emitted by omnidirectional, multichromatic
sources.
>
>
You mean like the light from the Sun and other stars?
>
>
> When one has access to detectors that allow the observation of single
> photon events, the flaws in that view become obvious, even when
observing
> such sources.
>
>
And those flaws are...?
> >>
>
> >> I doubt that a 450 nm photon from my laser pointer is ANY
different
> >> from a 450 nm photon from the light bulb above my right shoulder.
> >>
> >>
> > The size may be the same, but I assume the energy level is much
higher
> > when ordinary light is made into coherent light.
>
> A photon is a photon. The energy is ONLY dependent on the wavelength.
>
> >>
What do you mean by that? The atoms in a laser are excited with
high-energy photons into producing more photons of the same energy and
phase.
Their electrons are energized to an excited state by an external energy
source. Then they can be "stimulated" by a photon of exactly the
same wavelength as the photon about to be emitted. Since more energy
is required to excite atoms from their ordinary states into coherent
light, the energy levels of the photons used to do that must be higher,
as I said.
>
> >>
> >> If you look at
> >> the link I posted, and read through the experiment, you see that
single
> >> photon, double slit experiments can be done with incoherent light,
> >> also, using a good filter.
> >>
> >>
If the experiment can be confirmed, it would show amazing insight on
the part of those who invented it. There has been a lot of money and
effort put into isolating photons into one-at-a-time propagation by
several teams recently working on that. For the solution to have been
so simple as using a green-colored filter does not surprise me, but it
does make me wish I had thought of it first. It shows the value of
brainstorming sessions vs individuals thinking alone.
>
>
> > Apparently, that is so, as the green filter allows only certain
photons
> > through one at a time.
>
> The green filter only allows certain photons through. The opacity is
> adjusted to allow only one at at time through. That is independent of
the
> fact that the filter passes a single color[actually a band of
colors].
> >>
> >> I asked "what makes you think that all 'light waves' are
spherically
> >> expanding?" As a matter of fact, what makes you think that ANY
'light
> >> waves' are spherically expanding?
> >>
> >>
> > I gave you my response to that but you blew it off we know enough
about
> > light to contradict Huygens. I disagree with that, since you give
no
> > references to show support for that, nor any personal idea you may
hold
> > which contradicts Huygens. Just saying Huygens was wrong is not
enough
> > because talk is cheap while support requires effort.
>
> http://fuse.pha.jhu.edu/~wpb/spectroscopy/basics.html
>
> I gave you the URL of an experiment that any college physics student
can
> run. Did you read it carefully?
>
>
I carefully went through the first section of the above link but found
nothing that contradicts Huygens. I asked for a reference quote, not a
reference to a-waste-of-time website which makes no reference to the
issue at hand. Nothing in it precludes the fact of spherical
lightwaves.
>
>
> http://www.teachspin.com/products/two_slit/experiments.html
> The results are inconsistent with an expanding 'wave' view of light.
>
>
How are they inconsistent?
>
>
> Here is a question: if light is a wave that expands like a wave upon
the
> water, how can one create a beam of light? I can create a plane water
wave
> inside a wave guide of some kind on the water, but once the wave is
> launched 'into space', it will expand. Try it with waves on water.
There is
> no way to _keep_ them formed into a beam.
>
> Experience (flashlights, Lasers) show that the 'wave upon water'
analogy
> does not work very well for light.
>
>
I never said it did. In fact, I made a point that it did not.
>
>
> Light must be considered to consist of
> photons.
>
>
Yes, everyone agrees that is one side of the dual nature of light.
>
>
> Photons have a dual nature.
>
>
Current thought is that all particles are dual-natured.
>
>
> On a very small scale, they can act
> like waves, at times, but they act like those waves are closely
associated
> with very small bundles of energy. They do NOT spread like waves upon
> water.
>
> Single photon experiments confirm this.
>
>
Are you referring to what are called "wavelets"?
> >>
> >>
> >> I also explained the 'missing photons' you were wondering about.
The
> >> intensity falls as the inverse of the square of the distance.
There
> > are
> >> Fewer photons per square inch, the further away you go from the
> >> omnidirectional source.
> >>
> >> >
> > That sounds reasonable enough for me to ask you for a reference
quote.
>
> Here is another.
> [http://www.iscienceproject.com/labs/finished_labs/6355
> _lidecaysdistance.html]
>
>
No, that is not a reference quote, that is a reference to a whole lot
of stuff unrelated to your claim. Quote us something from there that
supports your claim above.
>
>
> > You are saying that the number of photons in an ordinary light wave
>
> Two mistakes. 'An ordinary light wave' assumes a singular event.
> 'A wave'.
>
>
Why is it wrong for me to assume that while below you assume that,
quote, "'a' wave of light is actually a single photon?
> Also you imply there is more than one kind of light, 'ordinary' and
> something else.
>
>
Well, there is.
>
>
> "A" wave of light is actually a single photon.
>
> > falls off as the inverse of the the square of the distance the
light
> > wave travels from the source.
>
> Single photons do not decrease in energy as they travel.
>
>
Why not? How is it they can travel forever using no energy? My model
predicts they give and take energy from dark matter in the process of
making light. How else would you explain it?
>
>
> The event that you are looking at as 'a light wave' is actually the
> launching of a huge number of photons, being 'broadcast' from a
single
> point source. Picture a huge crowd of people at some location. They
are
> alarmed by a fire at the center. They all flee outward from the fire.
This
> is your 'wave'. Now these people are constrained to move at a
constant
> speed and in a straight line. They were on an infinite plane when
they
> started to flee.
>
>
A huge crowd would have to be located on a plane while there is no
plane for light to move on. Without a plane, light should propagate in
a spherical fashion.
>
> Now image this in 3 space with ... oh... a hive of quantum bees. You
have
> a very good analogy for your wave of light. But, each bee is a photon
of
> light and there is no 'wave' per se.
>
But a hive is shaped as a 3d sphere while a plane is not. How do you
make the conversion from one to the other?
>
>
> A laser just begins by constraining the bees to flee in only one
> direction. You still have bees and they still travel in straight
lines and
> at the same speed.
>
>
No, bees do not do that.
>
>
> You can even envision a mixture of different sized bees from a
polychromic
> source, while the laser only launches bees of a single size.
>
>
But the bees would also have to move in phase as they flew off, which
bees do not do, so your whole analogy is based on ideas which conflict
with actual observation.
>
>
> > If so, at what point do they all "fall
> > off" and what happens to the wave once it lacks any photons.
>
> The question is meaningless. Follow any single photon. Its 'brothers'
get
> separated from it by greater and greater distances as they move away
from
> the source, but none of them 'fall off'. The intensity falls off. The
> intensity is measured in photons per square unit.
>
>
Yes, I know, but now, like I said, you have gaps in the lightwave where
the intensity has lessened. You can't have it both ways, sorry.
>
>
> > It may be
> > possible for a wave to maintain its original energy with only one
> > photon left, but I would think that the light wave cannot be
visible
> > without a single photon left to it.
>
> The wave IS the photon. What you are calling a wave is actually a lot
of
> photons.
>
> >
Not so many as the intensity lessens.
> > Now, I know that the strength of the em field of a point charge
>
> That is the E field of a point charge. Point charges do NOT have M
fields
> unless they are in motion.
>
> A photon can be looked at as orthogonal electric and magnetic fields
that
> travel together in a tightly bound packet of energy.
>
>
So you subscribe to the massless photon theory, yet the photon must
have mass according to the Principle of Mass and Energy as well as
E=mc^2, and it does in fact have mass.
>
>
> > decreases in inverse proportion to the square of the distance from
the
> > charge, and that and that the strength of the gravitational field
of a
> > point mass decreases in inverse proportion to the square of the
> > distance from the object, but if what you say is true, light cannot
> > travel forever,
>
> Why not? Or on the other hand, even if what I said were false, what
makes
> you think light could travel forever?
>
>
It seems that, unobstructed light travels without stopping, perhaps
forever if the cbr is evidence of that. What makes you think it does
not travel forever? Where does it end and why?
>
>
> > or certainly not for the many years which have passed
> > since the BB occurred and produced the cbr seen today.
> >
>
> You appear to be conflating several erronious ideas.
>
>
Well, certainly, you're entitled to your opinions, as am I.
>
>
> Again, what makes you think light travels in spherical waves? Cite a
modern
> source.
>
>
No, now it's your turn. You cite a source, new or old, which
specifically refutes the currently most-accepted concept of the
propagation of light. If your source is a website, quote from it
giving its location in the work so all can read it without having to
plough through waste-of-time prose.
TomGee
- Next message: George Hammond: "Re: GOD=G_uv REPLY TO DEAN"
- Previous message: Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato: "Re: Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) and GPS function."
- Next in thread: Chris: "Light"
- Reply: Chris: "Light"
- Maybe reply: TomGee: "Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
