Re: photons


"sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:42627ce8$0$79452$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1113745252.53233.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4262225a$0$79458$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1113724929.21225.2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:42618d22$0$79460$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:1113682802.19664.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:42615c09$0$79461$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:1113669294.28609.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:42611f39$0$79461$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > news:1113653999.49689.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:4260ef18$0$79452$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > "Dr ***" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1113638265.7963.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1113602289.742333.27370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > I am satisfied that photons *represent* the energy that an
> > > > atomic oscillator gains or looses in emission or absorbion
> > > > of a unit of electromagnetic energy. My involvement in
> > > > this thread titled "photons" is mainly make the case that the
> > > > statistical tool of a corpuscular model is a poor substitute
> > > > for a good understanding of the electrodynamics involved
> > > > in aquiring a qualitative understanding of propagation.
> > > > dr
> > > > I have no disagreement with that only the implication that I was
> > > supporting
> > > > a statistical tool of a corpuscular model:-)
> > > dr
> > > So did you have issue with my interpretation of a photon ?
> > <<Does anybody disagree that photons are electric field wave packets
> > comprised
> > of at least two wavelengths carrier and modulator, in radio terms. The
> > frequencies and amplitude of which are dictated by the structure
emitting
> > them and this in no way can be taken to indicate that the electric
fields
> > themselves are quantumized. >>
> > s
> > Yes ;-)
> > dr
> > Great!, so what do you think they are then???
> s
> They are EXACTLY what Max Planck defined them to be!
> dr
> Funny that is *nearly* exactly what I would have said but as he never AFAK
> gave a descrition then I felt mine was as near as I could get to what he
> would have written if he had. I did miss out in my description that the
> packet size was probaly of Plank length and it conformed to other quanta
> critera but to confirm that needed a lot of quantitive work that I have
not
> yet got round to. Do you disagree that photon length in the direction of
> propagation is of Plank length then ? In what other ways do you disagree
> with my discription in part 3v032 ?

Plank length? ROFL
[PDF] Theoretical Prediction for the radius of an Electron
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Dr
Hang on this is about a photon not an electron,are you reading the correct
bit of part 3v032 .

.... respectively, using the Plank length in a renormalization calculation.
An ...
where the radius of one winding is on the order of the Plank length (l ...
www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-3/GME.pdf - Similar pages
ROFL

<< There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive
solution could provide considerable elucidation. What
becomes of the energy of a photon after complete
emission? Does it spread out in all directions with further
propagation in the sense of Huygens' wave theory, so
constantly taking up more space, in boundless progressive
attenuation?
dr
I've answered this before and the answer is still yes it does that.
s
Or does it fly out like a projectile in one
direction in the sense of Newton's emanation theory?
dr
Its a wave form, it can do both as the attenuating wave still carries the
sub harmonics of what it was so that if the attenuated wave interacts with
an absorbing situation the sub harmonic component from the interacting waves
accumulate to quantum photon energy level to trigger an electron exchange.
s
In the first case, the quantum would no longer be in the
position to concentrate energy upon a single point in
space in such a way as to release an electron from its
atomic bond, and in the second case, the main triumph
of the Maxwell theory - the continuity between the static
and the dynamic fields and, with it, the complete
understanding we have enjoyed, until now, of the fully
investigated interference phenomena - would have to be
sacrificed, both being very unhappy consequences for
today's theoreticians. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html

<< When this did not work, Planck decided, instead,
to make a very unusual assumption:
ATOMIC OSCILLATORS may not emit or absorb any energy E, but
only energies from a discrete set, made of integer multiples
of a smallest possible value:
dr
Yes dont disagree with that in priciple.

(equation)
http://panda.unm.edu/courses/finley/p262/ThermalRad/img21.gif

In this equation, f is the basic oscillator frequency.
Today, we describe this assumption by saying that
the energy of an ATOMIC OSCILLATOR is quantized. >>

http://panda.unm.edu/courses/finley/p262/ThermalRad/ThermalRad.html

dr
Yes dont disagree with that in priciple.
So where do you disagree with my description in part 3v032
>
> > >
> > > > > s
> > > > > Some E-plane aperture is necessary to if the path is to diminish
at
> > > 1/r^2.
> > > "Antenna With Two Orthogonaly Polarised Beams"
> > > http://www.rsf.rtu.lv/Latvieshu%20lapa/pasn_str/konf/p_6.pdf
> > >
> > > << <<Antenna Aperture Defined
> > > Antenna aperture is a concept that may need some explanation. It is a
> way
> > to
> > > describe how effective an antenna is at absorbing RF
> > > energy from the signal passing by. It is expressed such as . . "An
> > aperture
> > > of 1 square meter." This means that the antenna will
> > > absorb an amount of RF energy equivalent to all the energy coming
> through
> > a
> > > "window" of 1 square meter area. Note that it does not
> > > refer to the physical size of the antenna (as viewed by eye from the
> > > "front.").>>
> > > http://m2.aol.com/bmgenginc/AntPath4.html
> > >
> > > dr
> > > I thought your question was about transmitter aperture.
> > s
> > You only gave me three words. Whadaya expect?
> > dr
> > Ok I forgive you for it then :-) I am very happy with your definition of
> RX
> > aperture.:-)
> >
> > Just like there is no substitute for cubic inches in auto racing
> > there is no substitute for antenna size in coupling to the
> > cosmos.
> > http://www.astrosurf.org/lombry/Documents/arecibo-pedro_torres.jpg
> > > s
> > > The coupling structures get unweildly as you approach atomic
dimensions
> > > but here are a few examples that do:
> > > << The ability to send terahertz waves to arbitrary locations with
> > > arbitrary time-dependent profiles enables the parallel
> > > transmission of many signals or the transmission of complex signals to
> > > different addresses without a separate physical structure
> > > such as an electronic wire or photonic waveguide for each address,
> Nelson
> > > said. Also, because the waves oscillate slowly enough to
> > > perturb both the electrons and nuclei of atoms and molecules, the
> capacity
> > > to amplify and control polariton propagation could lead
> > > to coherent control over material structure. >>
> > > http://www.photonics.com/spectra/research/XQ/ASP/preaid.99/QX/read.htm
> > > <<Free-space electro-optic sampling is an alternative method for the
> > > characterization of freely propagating terahertz beams with
> > > subpicosecond temporal resolution. In contrast to resonant
> photoconductive
> > > dipole antennas, free-space electro-optic sampling via
> > > the linear electro-optic effect (Pockels effect) offers a flat
frequency
> > > response over an ultrawide bandwidth and the potential for
> > > a simple cross-correlation signal of the terahertz and optical pulses.
> > ©1995
> > > American Institute of Physics. >>
> > >
> >
>
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APPLAB0
> > > 00067000024003523000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
> > > http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/thz/source.html
> > > > > > Then don't jiggle any charges and that's what you'll get.
> > > > > > s
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.google.com/search?h­l=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=+­site%3Aww...
> > >
> > dr
> > looking at these bits above for later perhaps:-)
> >
> > > > > If magnetism is a perturbation of electric fields then clearly it
> > isn't
> > > > > "shunted
> > > > > away".
> > > > > dr
> > > > > But I don't see it like that I see them both as modulation of the
> > vacuum
> > > > > state
> > > > s
> > > > *modulation of the vacuum state* is not a substitute for
> > > > electrodynamic theory that has been well documented for over
> > > > 100 years. :-( STOP IT! AARRRRRGH!
> > > > dr
> > > > Get your teeth out of my leg woman :-) Clearly I am touching a raw
> nerve
> > > > here and don't know how to proceed without presumably getting
written
> > off
> > > as
> > > > a kook or something. All I'm trying to do is document how and why
the
> > > things
> > > > that you apply you electrodynamics theory to actually work, the
theory
> > don
> > > 't
> > > > really address this just providing a mechanisms by which the
> applicable
> > > > effects can be applied. If you don't think that fields are
modulation
> of
> > > the
> > > > vacuum state then fine but some of the things I write will not make
> > sense
> > > > unless you have another explanation ?? If you have please present it
> so
> > I
> > > > may try and understand it. The taffy one was ammusing but a little
> > > > incomplete ?
> > > s
> > > Up to a point, we might explain televison transmission in terms of
> > > "tickling the transmission faries". With more in depth inquiry we
> > > will reach a point where the *transmission faries* refuse to share
> > > the same brain space with concepts like *force orthognal to motion*
> > > or *Lepton events of interest*
> > > http://www-d0.fnal.gov/Run2Physics/WWW/events.htm
> > >
> > > We have to make reference to the known body of knowledge,
> > > not the unknown body of our ignorance. It is meaninless to
> > > say "modulate the state of the *action at distance fairy* if you
> > > can't quantify any states.
> > > dr
> > > I think that is a little unfair and a retreat to orthodoxy as the
> > > vacuum is not an *action at distance fairy* to me at any rate
> > > although it appears to be to orthodoxy.
> > s
> > You have yet to offer better explanation for action at a
> > distance so it is not orthodoxy It is only-doxy. ;-)
> > dr
> > Thanks will try and tighten my game:-) because I thought I had offered
an
> > explanation for action at a distance.
> > s
> > Deragatory labels are still two conflict escalations from
> > deragatory names so I suppose I haven't beat you up
> > enouth for misquoting Max Planck. ;-)
> > dr
> > My memory for others speeches is somewhat vague so if I misquoted MP
then
> it
> > was unconsciously but I may have done it consciously if I had know I was
> > doing it.:-) Beat me up some more baby :-)
> > > s
> > > Your square wave forms don't count
> > > because you can't show sheets of opposite charge colocated.
> > > dr
> > > I doubt you can explain charge to me to my satisfaction and what do
you
> > > exactly mean by 'show sheets of opposite charge colocated'.
> > s
> > You couldn't explain it when I inquired, so I certainly can't now.
> > dr
> > Hang on that is not something I have ever said, it must have been
> something
> > you thought I meant but did not.
> s
> Let it go.
> Know thy enemy. ELECTRODYNAMICS. ;-)
> dr
> Ok as I don't have a clear definition of ELECTRODYNAMICS and its
> constituents I will wait till I have acquired this data and be back.:-)
dr
You should have said QED I would have know what you were on about I was off
on a wild goose chase for a minute looking for ELECTRODYNAMICS this not my
enemy as much of it seems ok but I think some bits need mods.

[multi quantums sniped]
> > I am trying to give you morsels but you keep spiting them out and I do
not
> > claim errors for others that's for them to do but I might say they are
> > incomplete
> s
> morsels of --> proof <--- LOL ;-)
> Sue...
> dr
> Thats what I mean :-) you see it as a poison dummy :-)
> I will convince you if you survive.:-)
....said the prosecuter to the jury as three stirred to
semi-consiousness.

[ DISMISSED! SHOUTED THE SNIPPY JURIST ]
dr
Are you sure the red queens not in there somewhere :-)
Dr ***

Sue... :-)




.

Quantcast