Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/11/05 

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:04:52 -0600

TomGee wrote:
> RP wrote:
>
>>TomGee wrote:
>>
>>>RP wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>TomGee wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>SNIP
>>>
>>>
>>>>>My light requires a media sea of invisible photon particles, and
>
> my
>
>>>>>model claims such a medium exists called Dark Matter which covers
>>>
>>>all
>>>
>>>
>>>>>space devoid of visible matter. Thus, all the photon particles
>>>
>>>ever to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>be needed are there available for lightwaves to crash through and
>>>>>create light. My model does not need to have small numbers of
>>>
>>>photons
>>>
>>>
>>>>>in order for it to work since all that are ever needed exist ready
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>be used anytime. For higher intensities, more photons are
>
> created;
>
>>>for
>>>
>>>
>>>>>lower intensities, less are created. Simple, no?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's the mechanism?
>>>>Light is functionally just the mediation of em interactions,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>True, but that doesn't tell us much. How do the interactions
>
> create
>
>>>and radiate light? What is radiated as particles? What are the
>>>mechanics of the mediation?
>>>
>>>
>>>>and the
>>>>purpose of theory is two-fold:
>>>>1) to quantify the interactions
>>>>2) to provide a mechanism
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I had thought I had done both, but let's see how much further I
>
> must
>
>>>go.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your's isn't a mechanism, since it requires a mechanism, or IOW,
>
> now
>
>>>>you need a theory to account for the interaction between your waves
>>>>and your photons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have posted my theory in bits and pieces in various ngs here
>
> lately,
>
>>>but I will try to briefly describe it without running off-track
>
> into
>
>>>more specific explanations of it.
>>>
>>>The mechanism I propose is one well-accepted in several other
>>>explanations which show the transfer of energy between mediating
>>>forces. Photons driven at electrons can free them from their atoms
>
> or
>
>>>cause them to release more photons. Lightwaves contain energy
>
> which
>
>>>can infuse particles having less energy with more energy as shown
>
> in
>
>>>the photoelectric effect.
>>>
>>>My model claims that space is filled with negative matter and
>
> energy
>
>>>particles which correspond to the Dark Matter and Dark Energy
>
> phenomena
>
>>>under hurried scrutiny today. Negative matter lacks any positive
>>>energy and thus becomes invisible to us and we see through it as
>>>"space".
>>
>>>Lightwaves expand from their source in a spherical fashion in quick
>>>succession which allows us to view the universe to the extent of
>
> which
>
>>>our eyes are capable. Lightwaves move through space and collide
>
> with
>
>>>Dark Matter particles and infuse them with +energy which increases
>>>their negative mass and energy to an extent where the particles
>
> become
>
>>>real particles having positive matter and energy, which in turn
>
> makes
>
>>>them visible to us.
>>
>>Your wave is just a proxy wave of QM, or "Ghostwave" as Einstein
>>called it, and your conversion of virtual photons to real photons
>>differs none whatsoever from that of QED, with the exception that
>>you've tried to localize them and failed to call your wave a
>>probability wave. QED leaves the question of locality of the photons
>>open, deferring only to probabilities.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, thank you. I have no wave distinct from an ordinary light wave,
> however, so I would not say it is a probability wave. It is a physical
> wave emitted by a source capable of producing such waves. It is not a
> theoretical wave but a real wave associated with ordinary light.

Yes, I'm aware of this, but since you are using it only as a catalyst,
then it is the functional equivalent of a probability wave. If you'll
recall, this is also why I noted that your photons were redundant,
that is, if you maintain that it is real energy propagating then you
don't need the photons, they are superfluous, the theory would not be
functionally altered without them.

>
> I appreciate your view that my conversion process can be confirmed
> under QED, since that could eliminate the need for me to show that such
> events can and do happen, if QED is correct.

I agree that yours is functionally equivalent to QED, which is really
just evidence that QED is metaphysics in that there are probably an
infinite number of alternate interpretations in 3d + t that are
functionally equivalent, which has been borne out historically; all of
the acceptable models that emerged in the early years having been
proved later to be mathematically equivalent, or IOW, they differ only
in metaphysical content.

>
> You are correct too in saying that the difference from QED is that I do
> not leave the question of locality open. That is because I refer not
> to probabilities but to alternative explanations to observed effects
> which may offer better scenarios closer to what is actually causing
> those observed effects.

Which is what each of the authors of the models mentioned above
thought as well :)

>
>>
>>Your attempt to relate these photons to dark matter is equivalent to
>>the zero point field approach of Sarfatti and a few others whose
>
> names
>
>>I don't recall. The difference between yours and theirs is that they
>>attribute a material existence to the zpf, and thus real energy
>>located in space between masses, an energy that has mass itself.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, correct. Another difference is that mine explains where the
> energy comes from,

I'll have to disagree with you here, because your model *states* where
the energy comes from, but as of yet I haven't seen an explanation.
Some math would be beneficial to the argument as well, that is,
whenever you decide to provide the mechanism. Seems to me that thus
far your model is remaining true to historical QM form, it generates
more problems than it resolves.

> and it rejects the notion that energy can exist in
> space devoid of anything in it, while it supports the idea that space
> has a material existence IN it - not to it - which is invisible and has
> energy of a type of its own. Thus, it is the space between visible
> matter which has dark matter and energy, and not empty space with a
> mysterious energy to it.

Or IOW, a luminiferous aether. In this case the empirical evidence
would constrain you to LET, and LET is equivalent to SR, which in turn
is equivalent to Minkowski's relativity, which in turn is what I
derive my model from, or better, which in turn is the model that he
derived, even though perhaps it is not in general appreciated for what
it actually states.

Now, since the empirical evidence is what it is, and since each model
of QM, and I will extend the courtesy of including your model in this
group, is empirically correct, within experimental and computational
error, and since my Minkowskian/Bohmian interpretation is also
empirically correct, then what we must do is make a decision as to
which of these models actually *explains* the behaviors, and one
criteria for this should be the elimination of those models containing
redundancies, and/ or any justifications such as "it just does". This
covers every photon based model, and it should, because as I've
already noted, the weirdness of photon behavior stems from the fact
that there is no such material thing. Motion at c can occur only in 3d
  + time manifolds, which according to SR is not the sort of manifold
that we exist in. In Minkowski's spacetime the photon, if it were
inserted, has the peculiar property that its duration in time is zero
wrt the hyperbolic frame. This of course requires that it is
equivalent to a pixie, that is, it is redundant. If we insist that it
does exist because in our 3d + time thought pattern we think we see
evidence of it, and then we also adopt SR in the same context, then we
are erroneously superposing a Galilean frame over a hyperbolic frame.
These two (photons and SR) are mutually exclusive approaches to em
interactions. Force fitting them together has led to what is quite
frankly just plain illogic, though its adherents prefer to call it
quantum logic in order to lend themselves some semblance of
credibility and smartness.

As I related to bz in this thread, it's not you that I'm criticizing
here, just the theory. You are of course free to disagree with my
assessments, but you shouldn't.

Richard Perry

>>
>>I don't agree with either approach, but I'll split the difference
>
> with
>
>>both of you: The zpf consists of nonlocalized truly virtual photons,
>>that merely "represent" PE between charges, the extra mass associated
>
>
>>with that PE being accounted for by considering the massive particles
>
>
>>collectively, i.e. total particle-mass + total energy-mass. In the
>>same way, the mass of individual nucleons differs from their
>>collective sum. no reference is made to either the space between or
>>anything being located in it. Mine is consistent with Minkowski's
>>spacetime.
>>
>>
>>>>Upon closer inspection you should realize that your
>>>>photons are redundant, since the electrons can interact directly
>
> with
>
>>>
>>>>the advancing wavefront.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I have considered that, and since Dirac posited that electrons
>
> can
>
>>>lose all +mass and energy and disappear from view until they come
>
> up as
>
>>>particle pairs, I agree it would seem that photon particles are
>>>redundant in this case, and it is not impossible that it will be
>
> found
>
>>>later to be so.
>>>
>>>For now, however, my model finds the photon necessary since it is
>
> the
>
>>>other side of the dual nature of light, and since it is not bound
>
> to
>
>>>atoms like electrons, and that to me indicates there can be a
>
> function
>
>>>for it distinct from the functions of electrons.
>>>
>>>
>>>>This in itself is redundant, since in
>>>>Minkowski's universe the interaction is direct, acting though time.
>>>>IOW, in hyperbolic 4D spacetime there are no em waves, and no need
>
> to
>
>>>
>>>>account for either a medium or mediators.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, but, well, I was talking about the reality of our own
>
> universe,
>
>>>not one which makes space and time interdependent wrt each other.
>>
>>A theoretical reality that has passed every test thrown at it
>>shouldn't be regarded as empirical fiction, even if there is possibly
>
>
>>an alternate explanation.
>>
>>
> What tests were made to show that space and time are interdependent? I
> have asked for any works which show attempts made to show whether or
> not that is true. No one has yet submitted one. AE made that
> declaration when he invented space-time, but my model contends that
> AE's premise is false in view of the fact that while matter and time
> may be dependent on the existence of space, space can exist without
> either, and so space is not in an interdependent relationship with
> time.
>
>>>>The absorption of energy from the field is equivalent to the
>
> emission
>
>>>>of a negative photon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>In what way, or, through which process?
>>
>>
>>Field superposition. Advancing fields don't get absorbed or emitted,
>>they only superpose. Looking at the interactions from the perspective
>
>
>>of a Galilean (Euclidean) space provides the illusion of wave
>>propagation. The actual superpositions in Minkowski's hyperbolic 4d
>>spacetime are always just those of the fields rigidly attached to
>>charged particles. IOW, fields are never independent of fermions.
>>
>>>>Because energy is globally conserved only,
>>>>emission energy equals absorption energy on average, the illusion
>
> of
>
>>>>photon-particle transport is thus very convincing, and because it
>
> is
>
>>>>in actuality relativity underlying the effect, the superposition of
>>>>photon-particles over SR is an exercise in superposition of
>
> Euclidean
>
>>>>and Hyperbolic spacetimes, or IOW, an error in judgment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I agree it is very convincing, but how does relativity underlying
>
> the
>
>>>effect make it an error in judgement?
>>
>>See above.
>>
>>
>>>>This
>>>>superposition of spacetimes in one theory leads to the quantum
>>>>weirdness that is oft mentioned. The adoption of mutually
>
> exclusive
>
>>>>premises does tend to generate weirdness.
>>>>
>>>>Richard Perry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, especially when they conflict.
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>Richard Perry
>
>
> TomGee
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: how does light cause interference phenomena?
    ... electronics noise is a useful signal for measurement purposes. ... A flute produces a near perfect sine wave. ... a particular transition of energy states produces single energy photons ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?
    ... and your conversion of virtual photons to real photons ... >>probability wave. ... if you maintain that it is real energy propagating then you ... I agree that yours is functionally equivalent to QED, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Part 1 Re: Ken, need help with this
    ... where E includes the contribution of the rest mass m0 ... and the kinetic energy from gamma. ... Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are ... > wave functions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?
    ... Photons driven at electrons can free them from their atoms ... Lightwaves contain energy ... >> particles which correspond to the Dark Matter and Dark Energy ... > probability wave. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?
    ... Photons driven at electrons can free them from their atoms ... Lightwaves contain energy ... >> particles which correspond to the Dark Matter and Dark Energy ... > probability wave. ...
    (sci.physics)