Re: photons


"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???
They are EXACTLY what Max Planck defined them to be!
> >
> > > > 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.
Let it go.
Know thy enemy. ELECTRODYNAMICS. ;-)
> >
> > > dr
> > > and the can intermodulate that's true but the two modulation methods
> > > > can be separated. Bit like pumping an AM and FM signal up the same
> pipe,
> > > > difficult to interpret in transit but after you understand the
> decoding
> > it
> > > > all becomes clear ?
> > > s
> > > No it isn't like that at all. If a charge at the source moves in
> response
> > to
> > > the sum of the AM and FM signals, a charge at the destination will
> > > also move in response to the SUM.
> > > dr
> > > That was not my point and I dont dispute what you say.
> > > s
> > > You can't imbue the properties
> > > of a single charge with the same properties of a *collection* of
> charges.
> > > dr
> > > This below is what you said and what I replied and I was just taking
> issue
> > > with you about your statement that magnetism was just a modulation of
> > > Electric fields to point out that you had not explained what electric
> > fields
> > > are and that saying that magnetism was a modulation of electric fields
> was
> > > in effect avoiding saying what they are. I cant understand the meaning
> of
> > > your statement 'You can't imbue the properties of a single charge with
> the
> > > same properties of a *collection* of charges.' as being meaningful
> because
> > > although that may be true in some cases I cant see how it is true in all
> > > cases. Qualitatively we can in some cases would be my view.
> > s
> > Awwwwwe you caught me. But... I CAN be more specific and
> > describe the *modulation* as relative motion between the charges
> > that make the fields...
> >
> > What *are* charges made of?
> Charges are made of gamma radiation, which is made of charges,
> which is made of gamma radiation, which is made of charges,
> which is made of gamma radiation, which is made of charges,
> which is made of gamma radiation.
>
> IOW they are built in China by a puzzle company. :-)
> dr
> Right well I think I have the address of this puzzle company and I'm trying
> to smuggle out their manufacturing methods Ok :-)
> s
> > or is it relative motion between the fields maxima
> > dr
> > What *are* fields made of?
> Wheat, Sports fans, mathematical operators, Spanish tile,
> oil storage tanks etc.
> dr
> Yes and grass :-)
> > s
> > which we call charges.
> > It depends how your chess board was manufactured. ;-)
> > dr
> > I'm sorry but I feel your explanation is vaguer than mine and more
> circular.
> s
> Haul the *action at a distance fairy* into court and we
> can have the prosecuter level some specific charges. :-)
> 'Till then we are stuck with the circular references of crime
> and criminal.
> dr
> That's what I'm trying to do but you keep denying that I've got her by the
> collar. Who's side are you on ?
> >
> > > > s
> > > > 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
> > > You can't magically invoke all the other charges that comprise a complex
> > > transmission system to argue your POV.
> > > dr
> > > I did not see myself magicaly doing anything what I wrote seemed fairly
> > > reasonable to me.
> > s
> > I know you didn't see that. Why do think I pointed it out? ;-)
> > dr
> > Alright then why do you feel I cant invoke all the other charges that
> > comprise
> > a complex transmission system to argue my POV.
> s
> You were arguing magnetism AKA Lorentz. force. If you use
> more than two charges then Occam will take blade to throat.
> dr
> True I was arguing :-) but magnetism as a somewhat distant aspect of
> contraction/dilation via motion.
> s
> > My pov was that you could modulate a complex pattern on a common medium
> > (vacuum) one being a complex pattern called E fields and one being called
> > magnetic fields and then decode them into there seperate patterns latter
> but
> > while they are intermodulated they may be difficult to interpret without
> the
> > demodulator.
>
> The *common medium* is so far as we know the *action at distance fairy*
> It works without all that stuff ! Comb and pithball is proof.
> dr
> What stuff are you refering to ? My explanation of how the *action at
> distance fairy*
> works ? If you add contraction/dilation via motion to vacuum you have your
> *action at distance fairy* bang to rights:-)
> s
> Magnetism and electric force were quite sucessfully unified some
> long while ago... so I tho't. If the *orthodoxy* has some error in
> this unification as you seem to indicate, then you should be able to
> show us where it is and offer at least a morsel of proof that it is
> an error.
> dr
> 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

morsels of --> proof <--- LOL
;-)
Sue...

>
> s
> > > > s
> > > > The charges on the surface of the earth don't seem to shield the moons
> > > > gravity from the interior of the earth. Eh?
> > > > dr
> > > > No, I thought my description explained that. Its the positive or
> > negative
> > > > which ever way round you want to call them , differences of potential
> > > > between the cores and surface's of the particals of both bodies that
> > > > causes the effect of gravity, probably mainly the core at this
> distance
> > > but
> > > > you would notice the surface if you tried to shove the moon though the
> > > > earth:-). ???
>
> > > s
> > > IMHO the motional component
> > > dr
> > > Of the gravity field which would be an electric field due to potential
> > > diifference ?
>
> > > s
> > > might be passed from atom to atom just
> > > as magentism distributes itself throughout a body of matter.
> > > Dr ***
> > > Sue...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>


.

Quantcast