Re: SR theory is simplistic

PHOTONS

bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:vrKpSAIwBOzFFwxl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:+MWdbjMFY4yFFw5d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

bz wrote:
John Kennaugh <JKNG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Uv1njHCEbIxFFwHd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

....
Ballistic theory fails to explain how a c-v photon can be boosted to a
velocity of c.

My understanding of standard extinction theory (different to what I
proposed) says that when a photon hits an atom it is absorbed and then
re-emitted at c relative to the atom. It has the same energy relative to
the atom. A photon travelling at c-v is redshifted relative to the atom
because it is moving slower. When it is re emitted at c it is redshifted
because it is a lower frequency photon rather than a slow photon. The
basic idea is well established as is the mathematics of the probability
of encountering an atom in this way and how far light has to travel
before it would lose its speed identity. I am not an expert. Look it up
on the web. try:
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binaries.htm

http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/light-speed_and_aether.pdf
...........

I am merely describing what relativity is describing. According to
Maxwell (god!) the MMX should only give a null result if the apparatus
is stationary w.r.t the aether. Lorentz tried to explain it Einstein
simply wrote a postulate describing exactly what an observer stationary
w.r.t the aether would observe.

Apples do not fall up. Why? [I don't know]

If they did natural selection would have eliminated them as there is no
soil in the up direction in which they could germinate.

Photons do not travel at any velocity other than c. Why? [I don't know]

Why do you think that is true? There is little direct evidence. Maybe
you believe everything you are told. Then again according to Tom Roberts

" Photons to not "travel" in any normal sense of the word, because they
are QUANTUM PARTICLES ..... it is perhaps less violence to the language
to say 'they travel in all possible directions at all possible speeds,
and interfere in important ways with themselves and each other'. But
even that is overly simplistic."

If you think of a source surrounded by masses of observers all
travelling at different speeds then photons have to leave the source at
all possible speeds relative to the source so as to be c in each and
every inertial FoR.

Who says physics isn't silly? Not me that's for sure.

When we run 'time trials' on photons, we don't see any sign of them
traveling at different speeds.

Sorry you may think someone performs such an experiment but it is
incredibly difficult to do.

Not all that difficult. The moons of jupiter gave sufficient data to
determine the speed of light rather accurately.

Absolutely but the value you get is totally independent of whether you
assume the speed of light is constant w.r.t the source or w.r.t the
observer.
..........

The model that you have been objecting to all this time. The wavicle
model.

You will have to explain that to me. I have spent a lot of time
explaining myself to you I think it is your turn.

Which do you want me to explain? Why science requires you to provide a
model that is as good or better than the one you want to supplant? I would
hope that would be evident to you.

If you want me to explain the wavicle model of the photon, you will have to
wait until I understand it better myself for a good explaination, I will
tell you waht I do understand.

Even though some experiments look at only one portion of the nature of the
photon (either its wavelike nature or its particle like nature) NEITHER of
these can be separated from the actual photons.

agreed

The photon is ALWAYS somewhat like a wave and somewhat like a particle. A
stream of photons from a single source can be split, some photons sent
through a pair of slits, showing their wave nature; while the second
portion of the stream of photons can be sent against a photo cathode, where
they will eject one electron for each photon and that electron will have an
energy equal to the photons energy minus the work function of the photo
cathode material. All of the photons are identical. All are wave and
particle like.

agreed


In the first experiment, billiard ball like photons could not create
diffraction patterns. They MUST have a wave like nature.

My understanding is that you can get diffraction patterns with
electrons.

My model of the photon was not like a billiard ball it rotated, it had
frequency and it had phase it has at least potential to create
diffraction patterns.


In the second experiment, water wave like photons would not exhibit quantum
effects. Waves arriving at different angles would eject electrons with
different energies (as opposed to ejecting electrons with the same energies
in different directions). Putting a 50% transmission filter in the path
would reduce the energy of the ejected electrons rather than reducing the
number of electrons ejected.

Maxwell's equations describe Part of the nature of photons, the wave
nature.

And their success - based as they are on the force between electrical
charges - strongly suggest a link between charge and photons.

QED's equations describe the quantum characteristics of the photons.

AFAIK, no one has devised a single equation that describes BOTH natures
sufficiently well so as to allow the equation to be used as a basis for
complete understanding of photons. Of course, I could be wrong about this.



--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... interaction between two electrons. ... >>This means that photons move with the speed of light. ... and 'c' is the speed of propagation of free photons. ... > propagates at different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Constant Speed of Light
    ... |>> I think that the photons never actually slow down. ... |>> is used to kick electrons up to higher energy levels. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... > forget Sagnac and the other things, the very nature of the E-B ... If light is primarily made of photons there is no need to assume an aether ... how photons behave so convincingly as waves but there is no reason to ... Air, water, steel are all particulate yet sound ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... for no good reason" is a valid statement and an indictment of physics as ... forget Sagnac and the other things, the very nature of the E-B ... If light is primarily made of photons there is no need to assume an aether ... has been considered a wave since Snell's time. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OT: Quantum Enigma, part 1
    ... they offer the well known dual wave/particle nature ... of light, ie. photons, by projecting light onto a metal surface ... target is observed only after the projection of *many* photons, ...
    (rec.arts.movies.current-films)