Re: A Snapshot of a Photon


"Deups" <deups@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d268a$42cfec24$d8080e14$32386@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> A Snapshot of a Photon
>
> "Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre
> minds." - A. Einstein
>
> The photon has been viewed as a somewhat mysterious entity which
> sometimes has the properties of a particle and sometimes has the properties
> oaf a wave. It would seem interesting to see, therefore, whether we can
> determine what a photon would look like if we had a "godlike" ability to
> "see" it without the restrictions imposed by our limits of observation.
>
> Since the photon is electromagnetic in nature, perhaps the best place
> to start is by examining the nature of an electromagnetic wave emitted by a
> dipole, such as the antenna of a radio transmitter.


There is no question
> that this radiation consists of crossed electric and magnetic fields having
> a 90 degree phase relationship to each other.

Oh?
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif From:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html

Sue...


These fields are readily
> observed and allow us to use them for communication over distance. (See
> http://einsteinhoax.com/cf131.gif ). We also know by observation that this
> wave is actually composed of discrete "lumps" of energy called photons
> because it is noisy. The noise energy of the wave varies in proportion to
> the square root of its total energy. As a result, the signal (energy in the
> wave) to noise (energy in the wave components) ratio of the wave itself
> varies inversely with the square root of the waves strength. The effect is
> well described in handbooks on electromagnetic communication and seems
> beyond challenge.
>
> If we attenuate the wave sufficiently, it becomes a parade of the
> individual particles (photons) appearing as separate entities which may be
> detected separately. The question to be answered is what the nature of these
> particles must be so that in the aggregate they can form a smooth continuous
> wave. To meet this requirement, the photons in the wave must be coherent.
> This means that they must have the same polarization and be appropriately
> phased so that they can add properly. (In lasers this coherency is defined
> as the distance of millions of cycles over which the phase and polarization
> match is maintained.)
>
> The question to be answered is what form does the photon have to be in
> order to be capable of combining with other wavelets to form the coherent
> wave. The answer is probably provided by the "Impulse Function", 1/(e*x^2).
> Multiplying the continuous wave by this function provides, for the photons
> which compose the wave. a shape shown by http://einsteinhoax.com/cf133.gif.
> One only need to imagine the electric and magnetic components of this
> construction propagating along its axis at the velocity of light to envision
> what a photon "looks like".
>
> When one combines this shape with the quantum coupling between photons
> which has been demonstrated by the work of Quantum Physicists, one finds
> that he describes the kind of entity that has the dual wave an particle
> properties we associate with a photon. The only question left is why the
> nature of the photon is considered to be mysterious.
>
> The Source of Gravitational Energy
>
> When one applies the correct relativistic transformations to the
> gravitational field, the source of gravitational energy becomes apparent.
> Unfortunately, due to a sophomoric error in the derivation of General
> Relativity, it has become accepted that the relativistic transformations for
> gravity are:
>
> Force = 1
> Length = 1
> Time = 1/(1+$)
>
> Where "1/(1+$)" is the time transformation as provided by General Relativity
> (GTR).
>
> Unfortunately, the error in its generation made the mathematics
> impossible of solution within the constraints of three dimensional Euclidian
> Geometry and it took 18 months for a solution to be obtained. (The 18 months
> were not used up in solving the matrix equation, as current writings would
> have you believe, they represented the length of time it took for Dr.
> Einstein to adapt the geometry of Riemann (which is based upon the faulty
> description of a straight line implicit in all current geometries but which
> does not effect Euclidean Geometry). In applying Riemannian Geometry , Dr.
> Einstein added the fiction of curved space and added the spurious degree of
> freedom needed to solve his equations. This approach was accepted by a
> conference on the subject with the statement "why shouldn't we consider
> space to be curved, no one can prove it isn't. (Actually the proof is quite
> simple and is provided in http:/einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm). The
> acceptance of curved space required a term for the curvature as a function
> of the gravitational field. Surprise surprise, that curvature term turned
> out to be equal to the term for time.
>
> When one applies the legitimate rules of measurement (as would be
> required in any of the more mundane fields of Science) and accepted and
> easily verified physical laws to the study of the gravitational field, one
> finds it possible to rigorously devise a different set of gravitational
> transformations which do not require space to be curved:
>
> Force = 1
> Length = 1/(1-$)
> Time = (1-$)
>
> (The term "$" is identical with the equivalent term in General
> Relativity).Testing these transformations against observation reveals that
> they yield the same conclusions within the Solar Field and in comparison
> with observations of massive and/or dense stars as does GTR to an accuracy
> well beyond experimental capabilities. There is one important difference,
> however. They reveal that the end result of gravitational collapse is not a
> singularity but is a stable object the size of its horizon radius. THEY ALSO
> REVEAL THE SOURCE OF GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY.
>
> In an F(orce)-L(ength)-T(ime) system of units, the dimensional content
> of energy is F*L. Since the gravitational transformation for length is
> unity, this means that the gravitational transformation for energy is equal
> to the gravitational transformation for Length and is therefore equal to
> 1/(1-$). If we accept that the Principle of Relativity applies, the locally
> measured mass equivalent energy of an object must remain unchanged as it
> moves to a different elevation reference frame. In order to meet this
> requirement, the move to a different elevation in the field the object must
> gain or lose energy in terms of the units of measurement for energy existing
> at its original location. To do this, a force must result as it moves. The
> product of this force and the distance of fall is the energy of fall.
>
> If we apply this process to an object falling from a quasi-infinite
> distance to the event horizon, we find that, in terms of the units of
> measurement existing at the quasi-infinite radius, the gravitational
> transformation for energy requires shows that the object converts all of its
> rest mass equivalent energy to kinetic energy. When it reaches the event
> horizon and its velocity equals the velocity of light, the original rest
> mass equivalent energy has become zero because it has been converted to
> kinetic energy (all as measured with the units of measurement existing at
> the quasi-infinite radius). In terms of the units of measurement existing at
> the event horizon however, the rest mass equivalent energy of the object is
> unchanged and the kinetic energy is infinite.
>
> Since Relativity is all about observations made in systems where the
> size of the units of measurement are affected by the elevation and/or
> velocity, Dimensional Analysis is required to deal rationally with the
> process. Despite this, I have received an E-mail from an individual who
> strongly asserted that Dimensional Analysis is of no benefit in the study of
> velocity and gravitational effect. The frightening thing in this E-mail is
> that the sender is probably an academic busily damaging the minds of his
> students.
>
>
> The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
> "The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
> Relativity (1999) located at http://einsteinhoax.com/ . EVERYTHING WHICH WE
> ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
> TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
> MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
> REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
> THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
>
> All Newsposts by this Website are available at
> http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm
>
> Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
> a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
> as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
> please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
> have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
>
> E-mail:- einsteinhoax@xxxxxxx
>
> The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
> years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
> MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
> individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
> questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
> objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
> Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
> exception for which a correction was provided.
>
>


.

Quantcast