Re: photon model

On Jul 15, 5:46 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Jul 14, 8:15 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
malibu wrote:
On Jul 14, 5:44 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John... What is your purpose in posting this nonsense? Your
animation has nothing to do with anything experiment and
observation shows about photons.
They are quantum objects.
Dirac's equations for photons are probably the best explanation.
Photon properties routinely measured include
o wavelength
o momentum
o energy
Also
o photons are emitted (by charged particles)
o photons propagate at c
o photons are absorbed (by charged particles)
Show me a picture/model of a photon, Sam.
One that you agree with.
If you cannot, your QM theory/religion not
only doesn't have a model- it rejects logic.
If your religion rejects logic, your
'religion' wants white to be black, good to be evil,
sense to be nonsense.
You call what I am trying to do nonsense?
And yet nothing your 'theory'/'religion' says can be
understood unless you are thoroughly indoctrinated
in it?
You cannot explain anything to a 10-year-old and
have him understand it?
You cannot explain anything to anyone and have them
understand it?
The point of Science is to fucking explain what is
around us.
Your 'theory'/'religion'- QM- obscures everything.
The last 100 years have been a detour in a cul-de-sac of
pure nonsense.
I re-fucking-peat.
SHOW ME ANY PICTURE OF A PHOTON THAT YOU
CONSIDER REPRESENTATIVE OF REALITY.
Or shut the *** up.
John
Some things are not described by images John.
o photons
o emotion of a Beethoven symphony
o big bang
o vacuum

Your theory is a farce and a lie.
Your theory is a rejection of the
basic priciples of Science.
Your theory is Anti-Science.

Here- here is a description of what
I am picturing- in YOUR language:

The spin of a particle is quantized, so when we make a measurement
at any specific angle we get only one of the two results UP or DOWN.
This was shown by the famous Stern/Gerlach experiment. They passed a
beam of particles (atoms of silver) through a magnetic field (with
a particular orientation) and found that the beam was split into two
beams, one deflected UP (relative to the direction of the field) and
the other deflected DOWN, with about half of the particles in each.

This implies that the state-vector for spin has just two components,
v_UP and v_DOWN, for any given direction v. These components are
weighted and the sum of the squares of the weights equals 1. (The
overall state-vector for the particle can be decomposed into the
product of a non-spin vector times the spin vector.)

The observable "spin" then corresponds to three operators that are
proportional to the Pauli spin matricies:

| 0 1 |
S_x = i hbar | |
| 1 0 |

| 0 -i |
S_y = i hbar | |
| i 0 |

| 1 0 |
S_z = i hbar | |
| 0 -1 |

As you can see, these operators satisfy the commutation relations

[S_x,S_y] = i hbar S_z

[S_x,S_z] = i hbar S_y

[S_y,S_z] = i hbar S_x

which we would expect by the correspondence principle from ordinary
(classical) spin.

The phenomenon of polarization for light is formally similar to spin
for massive particles. Actually, the true "spin axis" of a photon is
always the direction of motion (because photons travel at c), but
light acts like a transverse wave, i.e., the electric field oscillates
transversely in a plane normal to the direction of motion (and of
course the magnetic field oscillates in a direction perpindicular to
both the electric field and the direction of motion). So if you
are looking at a photon as it comes directly towards you, it will
"look" sort of like this

|E
|
_______|______B
|
|
|

where E signifies the oscillating electric field and B the magnetic
field. (This orientation is not necessarily fixed - it's possible
for it to rotate like a windmill - but it's simplest to concentrate on
"plane-polarized" photons.) The photon is said to be polarized in the
direction of E.

A typical beam of ordinary light has photons with all different
polarizations mixed together. However, a *** of polaroid basically
only allows photons to pass through if their electric field is
oscillating in one a particular direction, so when you pass a beam
of light through a polaroid *** the light that passes through is
"polarized", because all the photons have their electric fields
aligned. A polaroid *** cuts the intensity of an ordinary light
beam about in half.

You might think that far fewer than half the photons would get
through, because their initial polarization angles are uniformly
distributed in all directions, and the polaroid lets through
only those that are aligned in one particular direction. However,
just as in the Stern/Gerlach experiment mentioned above, the polaroid
*** acts as a measurement for each photon and gives one of two
answers, as if the photons were all in one of just two polarizations,
PARALLEL or PERPINDICULAR. This is analagous to the UP/DOWN results
for spin-1/2 particles like electrons.

If you place a second *** of polaroid behind the first, and orient
its axis in the same direction, then all the light that passes through
the first *** will also pass through the second. If you rotate the
second *** it will start to cut down on the photons allowed through.
When you get the second *** axis at 90 degrees to the first, it will
essentially block ALL the photons. In general, if the two sheets
(i.e., measurements) are oriented at an angle of w relative to each
other, then the intensity of the light passing all the way through
is I*cos^2(w), where I is the intensity of the original beam.

THIS is what I can picture with
my model- exactly.
And you reject this as nonsense?

(The reason the Big Bang can't be
pictured is because it is a lie.)

John

John, are you quoting from "Reflections on Relativity"?
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s9-04/9-04.htm

Conclusion
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/conclusion/conclusion.htm

Despite the spectacular success of Einstein's theory of
relativity, it is sometimes said that tests of Bell's
inequalities and similar quantum phenomena have demonstrated that
nature is, on a fundamental level, incompatible with the local
realism on which relativity is based. However, as we saw in
Section 9.8, Bell's inequalities apply only to strictly
non-deterministic theories, so, as Bell himself noted, they do
not preclude "local realism" for a fully deterministic theory.
Needless to say, the entire framework of classical relativity,
with its unified spacetime and partial ordering of events, is
coherent only from a strictly deterministic point of view, so
Bell's inequalities do not strictly apply. Admittedly the
phenomena of quantum mechanics are incompatible with at least
some aspect of our classical (metrical) idea of locality, but
this should not be surprising, because, as I've tried to show in
the preceding sections, our metrical idea of locality is already
inconsistent with the pseudo-Riemannian metrical structure of
spacetime itself, which forms the basis of modern relativity.

It's tempting to conclude that while modern relativity initiated
a revolution in our thinking about the (pseudo-Riemannian)
metrical structure of spacetime, with its singular null rays and
non-transitive equivalencies, the concomitant revolution in our
thinking about the topology of spacetime has lagged behind.
Although we long ago decided that the physically measurable
intervals between the events of spacetime cannot be accurately
represented as the distances between the points of a Euclidean
metric space, we continue to assume that the topology of the set
of spacetime events is (locally) Euclidean. This incongruous
state of affairs may be due in part to the historical
circumstance that Einstein's special relativity was originally
viewed as simply an elegant interpretation of the existing
Lorentz Ether Theory. According to Lorentz, spacetime really was
a Euclidean manifold with the metric and topology of E4, on top
of which was superimposed a set of functions representing the
operational temporal and spatial components of intervals.
However, these were regarded as mere appearances, on top of the
"actual" components that exhibited the E4 topology.

It was possible to conceive of this because the singularities in
the mapping between the "real" and "operational" components along
null directions implied by the Minkowski line element were not
necessarily believed to be physical, because the validity of
Lorentz invariance was just being established "one order at a
time", and it wasn't clear that it would be valid to all orders.
The situation was somewhat akin to the view of some people today,
who believe that although the field equations of general
relativity predict a genuine

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -...

--------------
the more youmumble abstarct salad of phrases
th eless impressive you are
and the bigger parrot you are
th einorganic nature
is not 'cleaver ' enough' to know about your
abstarct mumblings
it is muchsimpler and much more determined
muchabstart mumblings cannot cover
ignorance
2
physics is not just abstarct matheamtics
and less of that abstact phylosophy !!


Y.Porat
----------------

Y.Porat
----------------

.

Loading