I used to wonder
"What the heck is a photon" was.
And I used to wonder
"What the heck is an <angel>" was.
But after I thought about it a little,
it became obvious to me,
that both of these are what some people think
convey changes between a cause and an effect,
and you know what?
If such things exist,
they can't be observed,
as the ONLY thing that can be measured
between a cause and an effect,
is an interaction time.
It seems to me,
that rational, intelligent people,
would quit promoting the idea that
photons and angels exist.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Sam Wormley - 03 Apr 2004 15:15 GMT
> > Did you ever wonder "What the heck is a photon, anyway?"
> >
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> that both of these are what some people think convey changes
> between a cause and an effect...
Too many answers and not enough questions, Potter. The same
problem befell the ancient Greeks and they weren't untutored
fools like you!
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 04 Apr 2004 13:46 GMT
> > > Did you ever wonder "What the heck is a photon, anyway?"
> > >
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> problem befell the ancient Greeks and they weren't untutored
> fools like you!
Okay tutored ( More correctly in his case conditioned.) fool,
here are some questions for you to answer:
1. What conveys changes between causes and effects?
2. Are changes discrete or continuous or both?
Explain.
3. What units are used to measure time and space
changes of electrons?
4. "What, other than a time interval"
can be measured between a cause and an effect?
Answer these,
and I'll see if your conditioning
allows you latitude to answer others.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Sam Wormley - 04 Apr 2004 22:01 GMT
> 1. What conveys changes between causes and effects?
Many cause and effects experienced by humans fall with the domain
of two fundamental forces: gravitation and electromagnetism.
The electromagnetic force is mediated by the spin = 1 boson the
photon and is accurately modeled by QM, specifically QED.
The gravitational force is a manifestation of the local spacetime
curvature and is accurately modeled by General Relativity.
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 05 Apr 2004 16:26 GMT
> > 1. What conveys changes between causes and effects?
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The gravitational force is a manifestation of the local spacetime
> curvature and is accurately modeled by General Relativity.
Would you post the setup and results of experiments that have
tracked ONE of these bosons or gravitons between a cause and an effect?
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Sam Wormley - 05 Apr 2004 18:27 GMT
> > > 1. What conveys changes between causes and effects?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Would you post the setup and results of experiments that have
> tracked ONE of these bosons or gravitons between a cause and an effect?
Potter--I did NOT use (nor imply) "gravitons". Would you like to try
reading my posting again?
A few of examples of cause and effect mediated by photons
o bullet being fired and entering your belly
o shining a laser pointer onto the retina of your eye
o rock falling on your head
We can do the experiments, and record the data to be posted to the
newsgroup at your convenience, although I suggest using a rubber
bullet, low intensity laser and small rock of sufficiently low
velocity with respect to your head, so as not to cause any permanent
damage.
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Robert J. Kolker - 05 Apr 2004 18:37 GMT
> bullet, low intensity laser and small rock of sufficiently low
> velocity with respect to your head, so as not to cause any permanent
> damage.
I presume you mean no permanent damage to the rock.
Bob Kolker
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Sam Wormley - 05 Apr 2004 18:51 GMT
> > bullet, low intensity laser and small rock of sufficiently low
> > velocity with respect to your head, so as not to cause any permanent
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Bob Kolker
I didn't want to upset Potter!
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Double-A - 05 Apr 2004 06:01 GMT
> > Did you ever wonder "What the heck is a photon, anyway?"
> >
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> between a cause and an effect,
> is an interaction time.
It would seem that photons can most certainly be intercepted and
detected, and can be observed as light by our eyes. They serve as an
understandable linkage between the Sun and the sunburn on your face.
And this is a lot more than we have with gravity.
Do you think light exists? Or is it the quantizing of light as a
photon that you object to? Do you think that light exists with purely
a wave nature?
Or are you just trying to play games with people's heads?
> It seems to me,
> that rational, intelligent people,
> would quit promoting the idea that
> photons and angels exist.
The only theory I've heard about angels is that the Koran says that an
angel is required to guide each raindrop to the ground. But that
sounds more like a primitive theory of gravity rather than of light.
Double-A
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 05 Apr 2004 16:28 GMT
> > > Did you ever wonder "What the heck is a photon, anyway?"
> > >
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/photon/schmoton.htm[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> understandable linkage between the Sun and the sunburn on your face.
> And this is a lot more than we have with gravity.
As can be seen, "Double-A"
is trying to create a "gravity" strawman.
As I posted in the "What is gravity" thread today,
gravity is also a faulty concept,
and comes about because of the weakness
in two body math.
But to address "Double-A"'s point
that things like our eyes, and our bodies,
and our instruments, are affected by events,
this is no proof that photons or angels convey these
events between the causes and the effects.
The ONLY thing that can be measured
between a cause and an effect,
is an interaction time.
Huh?
> As I posted in the "What is gravity" thread today,
> gravity is also a faulty concept,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> between a cause and an effect,
> is an interaction time.
You didn't answer my question.
Do you think that light waves exist?
What are you driving at anyway, Potter?
Perhaps you are ignoring my question because you don't want to have to
make the ridiculous sounding statement that "light does not exist",
which would seem to be the only thing you could say that is consistent
with your assertions.
Double-A
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 07 Apr 2004 05:26 GMT
> > > > "Tom Potter" <
tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
news:<c4m787$2kj20e$3@ID-151067.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> which would seem to be the only thing you could say that is consistent
> with your assertions.
The statement that "light does not exist"
may sound "ridiculous", but the fact of the matter is,
that the concepts of light, photons, and E-M waves,
are excess baggage, and aren't needed to model reality.
Events are the true quanta of reality, and
as one poster stated in a recent post,
instead of speaking of a "light-cone",
we should be speaking of a "causality-cone".
One could just as accurately assert that angels,
rather than photons or light,
conveys units of change between a cause and an effect.
Events are propagated through a complex set of anti-nodes,
and transfer one or more units of action from one anti-node
to another, when an event occurs.
Populations of similar and identical anti-nodes exists,
and contiguous populations make up an environment.
Environmental pressure (Entropy), affects the
populations exponentially. (The exponential function
is operative when the rate of change of a population,
is a function of the population.)
1. Entropy squeezes the populations in an environment.
2. Events occur (sh.t happens). ( In quantum steps of action).
3. The populations change in number exponentially.
(Populations increase exponentially in a nurturing environment,
and decrease exponentially in a non-nurturing environment.)
Oh yeah? Then how do you explain the functioning of telescopes,
microscopes, eyeglasses, etc., all of which depend on laws concerning
the behavior of light? How do you explain the gravitational lensing
of light?
> Events are the true quanta of reality, and
> as one poster stated in a recent post,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> rather than photons or light,
> conveys units of change between a cause and an effect.
Do you by extension then declare the other gauge bosons, gluons, etc.
to be fictitious?
> Events are propagated through a complex set of anti-nodes,
> and transfer one or more units of action from one anti-node
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> (Populations increase exponentially in a nurturing environment,
> and decrease exponentially in a non-nurturing environment.)
Sounds like an ant farm.
It ain't an ant farm.
It's an is farm.
Regarding you question:
"Then how do you explain the functioning of telescopes,
microscopes, eyeglasses, etc., all of which depend on laws concerning
the behavior of light? How do you explain the gravitational lensing
of light?"
I explained this in
steps 1,2 and 3
above.
Entropy squeezes.
Units of action leave some populations. ( Natural de-selection)
Units of action enter some populations. (Natural Selection)
The ONLY thing that can be measured
between a cause and an effect,
is an interaction time.
Photon is the name given to either a cause or an effect,
and some people think that events travel between
a cause and an effect, and they fantacize that
a fictional object called a "photon" does this job.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 03 Apr 2004 12:47 GMT
> Tom Potter,
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Let me ask you this, why would the electron be any less fantasy than
> the photon?
As I indicated,
"The existence of <A> unique atom
can be traced.through time/space.
The existence of <A> unique photon,
cannot be traced.through time/space."
I suggest that things that are persistent,
and can be observed over extended time and space,
are less of "fantasies", than things that are
not extended in time and space.
A photon is less real than a dream.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Robert J. Kolker - 03 Apr 2004 13:55 GMT
> A photon is less real than a dream.
Photons and atoms are equally real. They are hypothetical entities (no
one has directly perceived either) which produce accurate and as yet
unfalsified predictions of physical outcomes under specified conditions.
Much of modern physics assumes the existence of entities which are never
-directly- observed.
Bob Kolker
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 04 Apr 2004 13:45 GMT
> > A photon is less real than a dream.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Much of modern physics assumes the existence of entities which are never
> -directly- observed.
So does religion.
As I posted,
objects, like electrons,
can be tracked continually in time and space,
whereas a so-called dream or angel or photon cannot.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Robert J. Kolker - 04 Apr 2004 16:13 GMT
> So does religion.
But religion can not be falsified by an experiment. A scientific theory
can, and there is the difference.
> As I posted,
> objects, like electrons,
> can be tracked continually in time and space,
> whereas a so-called dream or angel or photon cannot.
No one has ever seen or perceived an electron in any manner. Like an
atom it is a hypothetic entity which is used to explain and predict
observable phenomena. Photons, electrons and atoms are equally real.
Bob Kolker
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] ZZBunker - 05 Apr 2004 03:20 GMT
> > A photon is less real than a dream.
>
> Photons and atoms are equally real. They are hypothetical entities (no
> one has directly perceived either) which produce accurate and as yet
> unfalsified predictions of physical outcomes under specified conditions.
Atoms are infinitely different than photons.
Since virtual atoms seem to exist virtually nowhere,
and virutal photons seem to exist virtually everywhere.
> Much of modern physics assumes the existence of entities which are never
> -directly- observed.
But, much of modern physics assumes that
direct observation has something
to do with William Shatner's written approval.
> Bob Kolker
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Robert J. Kolker - 05 Apr 2004 03:50 GMT
>>Photons and atoms are equally real. They are hypothetical entities (no
>>one has directly perceived either) which produce accurate and as yet
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Since virtual atoms seem to exist virtually nowhere,
> and virutal photons seem to exist virtually everywhere.
Neither here not there. They are both hypothetical entities, regardless
of what their hypothetical properties. No one has ever seen either one.
Bob Kolker
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Robert J. Kolker - 03 Apr 2004 13:57 GMT
> A photon is less real than a dream.
Explain the photoelectric and Compton effects without using photons or
some other hypothesis of quantification. Classic Maxwell electrodynamics
cannot account for the photoelectric effect.
Bob Kolker
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 04 Apr 2004 13:44 GMT
> > A photon is less real than a dream.
> >
> Explain the photoelectric and Compton effects without using photons or
> some other hypothesis of quantification. Classic Maxwell electrodynamics
> cannot account for the photoelectric effect.
It is not up to me to explain anything.
It is up to the people who promote photons and angels,
to provide evidence of these things.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Robert J. Kolker - 04 Apr 2004 16:11 GMT
> It is up to the people who promote photons and angels,
> to provide evidence of these things.
The various quantum theories are well supported by experiment and have
not yet been falsified. That is the evidence. Physics without photons or
some kind of quantized e.m. radiation cannot deal with the photoelectric
effect. In short, Classical Electrodynamics (nonquantized) fails to deal
the photoelectric effect. It is a deficient theory. In fact the energy
carried by a maxwellian wave is the sqare of its amplitude and is in no
way dependent on its frequency, which is completely at odds with
experiment.
Bob Kolker
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 05 Apr 2004 16:28 GMT
> > It is up to the people who promote photons and angels,
> > to provide evidence of these things.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> way dependent on its frequency, which is completely at odds with
> experiment.
First off, my position is that reality is quantized,
BUT in the form of events, NOT photons.
Photon is the name used to describe either a cause or an effect event,
and some imaginary object that exists between a cause and an effect.
The photo-electric effect has to do with how events affect electrons,
and the quanta in the photo-electric effect has to do with
the electron, not some imaginary photon.
Regarding your comment:
"the energy carried by a maxwellian wave is the sq<u>are of its amplitude",
what amplitude?
E, H, etc.
The fact of the matter is E-M waves don't convey energy,
they convey power,
and this power is spread over a wave front.
The wave has electric (E) and a magnetic (H) fields,
and the product of E and H is called the Poynting Vector,
which is the power per unit area.
Energy does not come into play
until time is brought into the picture.
energy = power * time = E * H * area = h * frequency
where h is the quanta of action. (Planck's constant)
No matter which direction you approach the energy from
( An E-H wave, or frequency )
what determines the quanta is the electron.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 03 Apr 2004 14:22 GMT
>As I indicated,
>"The existence of <A> unique atom
>can be traced.through time/space.
It can be so traced by a sequence of discrete events, like ionizations in
a wire chamber that are detected as currents on particular wires, versus
time. Or by aiming a light probe of appropriate frequency and imaging
returned light flashes versus time.
>The existence of <A> unique photon,
>cannot be traced.through time/space."
Unless you're looking at a straight track through a cloud chamber, a
sequence of exposed grains in a stack of photographic paper, or something
of the sort.
>I suggest that things that are persistent,
>and can be observed over extended time and space,
>are less of "fantasies", than things that are
>not extended in time and space.
What would the fantasy coefficient of a neutron be, then?
Signature
"We don't grow up hearing stories around the camp fire anymore about
cultural figures. Instead we get them from books, TV or movies, so the
characters that today provide us a common language are corporate
creatures" -- Rebecca Tushnet
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 04 Apr 2004 13:44 GMT
> >As I indicated,
> >"The existence of <A> unique atom
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> sequence of exposed grains in a stack of photographic paper, or something
> of the sort.
Where does the enegry come from to produce the track,
or expose the grain?
> >I suggest that things that are persistent,
> >and can be observed over extended time and space,
> >are less of "fantasies", than things that are
> >not extended in time and space.
>
> What would the fantasy coefficient of a neutron be, then?
7.4
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 04 Apr 2004 14:12 GMT
>> >As I indicated,
>> >"The existence of <A> unique atom
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>Where does the enegry come from to produce the track,
>or expose the grain?
From the photon, I would presume.
>> >I suggest that things that are persistent,
>> >and can be observed over extended time and space,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>7.4
Signature
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 04 Apr 2004 14:42 GMT
> >> >As I indicated,
> >> >"The existence of <A> unique atom
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> From the photon, I would presume.
So what you are saying is:
that if a photon leaves a little of itself at various places
along its' path, it is still the same photon?
Or are you saying that the photon does not change
in its travel through a bubble chamber.
In contrast, if a heavy atom decayed in steps,
as it traveled through time and space,
is it the same atom all the time?
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 05 Apr 2004 01:30 GMT
>> >> >As I indicated,
>> >> >"The existence of <A> unique atom
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>that if a photon leaves a little of itself at various places
>along its' path, it is still the same photon?
Leaves a little of itself? It leaves a little kinetic energy here and
there, the same as any other particle.
At any rate, if we take that as a new photon after each interaction, I
have trouble seeing how that implies photons don't exist. It would imply
that the photon coming out of the system is not the same as the photon
coming into the system, but I don't see how it follows that a photon
didn't go into the system, a photon didn't come out of the system, and
perhaps a succession of intermediate photons didn't exist inside the
system.
>Or are you saying that the photon does not change
>in its travel through a bubble chamber.
>
>In contrast, if a heavy atom decayed in steps,
>as it traveled through time and space,
>is it the same atom all the time?
If a heavy atom decayed in steps, does that mean heavy atoms don't exist?
Signature
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 05 Apr 2004 11:50 GMT
[snip]
> >So what you are saying is:
> >that if a photon leaves a little of itself at various places
> >along its' path, it is still the same photon?
>
> Leaves a little of itself? It leaves a little kinetic energy here and
> there, the same as any other particle.
It can only be created or annihilated. There is nothing else it can
do by way of "leaving a little kinetic energy here and there". That
makes it quite distinct from a fermion.
> At any rate, if we take that as a new photon after each interaction, I
> have trouble seeing how that implies photons don't exist. It would imply
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> perhaps a succession of intermediate photons didn't exist inside the
> system.
That's better.
[snip]
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 05 Apr 2004 14:36 GMT
>[snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>do by way of "leaving a little kinetic energy here and there". That
>makes it quite distinct from a fermion.
The momentum, spin, and energy is still there before and after an
interaction. Any fermion interaction involves a destruction operator and
a creation operator. What's different about the two cases?
Signature
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is
poetry, imagination." -- Max Planck
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 05 Apr 2004 21:44 GMT
> >[snip]
> >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> interaction. Any fermion interaction involves a destruction operator and
> a creation operator. What's different about the two cases?
The creation and destruction operators are concerned with the photon
field.
Photons come and go, but fermions are forever. In any Feynman
diagram, the fermion lines are continuous, (counting starting and
stopping at infinity as being continuous) but photon lines have starts
and ends.
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 06 Apr 2004 02:14 GMT
>> >"Gregory L. Hansen" <
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
>message
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
>Franz
That depends on how seriously you want to take the "particle travelling
back in time" line of reasoning. Or look at the lowest order for
photon-photon scattering.
But I see what you mean, a vertex has two fermion lines and one photon
line.
Which is only helpful to Potter if he digs Feynman diagrams. I have a
feeling he doesn't like them since they involve photons and virtual
particles, in which case it can't support his argument.
Signature
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong."
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 06 Apr 2004 04:21 GMT
> >> >"Gregory L. Hansen" <
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
> >message
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> feeling he doesn't like them since they involve photons and virtual
> particles, in which case it can't support his argument.
I "dig Feynman diagrams",
although they focus on linking a set of related objects,
rather than dealing with how AN object is affected by
ALL of the objects contiguous to it.
I suggest that an object reacts to the summation of all
contiguous objects having "forces" that the object is
affected by.
In other words, "Feynman diagrams",
portray a particle that is not affected by
particles outside a certain set.
It seems to me,
that with today's personal computers,
that one could write a program whereby
one could position all kinds of objects,
about a particle of interest, and see how the
environment of a particle affects it.
I dare say that a view focusing on ONE particle
in a large, complex, contiguous, multi-force, shielding, environment,
would be closer to the truth. This way, one could
add and subtract, and move other particles
(Manipulate the environment.),
and see how it affects an entity in the environment.
And, of course, one could manipulate the
qualities of the entity to be analyzed,
to see how various entities, would be affected,
by a particular environment.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 06 Apr 2004 15:22 GMT
> > >> >"Gregory L. Hansen" <
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
> > >message
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> rather than dealing with how AN object is affected by
> ALL of the objects contiguous to it.
Fleshing out the Feynman diagram for a given process with the
well-specified accompanying maths allows you to calculate anything
which is observable about that process. There is no more to ba said
about a process than being able to confidently predict the outcome of
any observation of any aspect of that process.
> I suggest that an object reacts to the summation of all
> contiguous objects having "forces" that the object is
> affected by.
I suggest thhat you are talking crap.
> In other words, "Feynman diagrams",
> portray a particle that is not affected by
> particles outside a certain set.
That was gobbledegook.
> It seems to me,
> that with today's personal computers,
> that one could write a program whereby
> one could position all kinds of objects,
> about a particle of interest, and see how the
> environment of a particle affects it.
Yes. One does in fact do that. One very early on in the formulation
of the problem finds out which particles in ite surroundings matter
and which ones do not. One then concentrates the rest of the
calculation only by studying the interaction between those which
matter. That is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method as
applied to physics.
> I dare say that a view focusing on ONE particle
> in a large, complex, contiguous, multi-force, shielding, environment,
> would be closer to the truth. This way, one could
> add and subtract, and move other particles
> (Manipulate the environment.),
> and see how it affects an entity in the environment.
I take it that you are not familiar with multiple scattering
processes.
> And, of course, one could manipulate the
> qualities of the entity to be analyzed,
> to see how various entities, would be affected,
> by a particular environment.
You are speaking in tongues.
In non-biblical language, you are spouting sh.t.
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 07 Apr 2004 05:26 GMT
> > "Gregory L. Hansen" <
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
> message
[quoted text clipped - 82 lines]
>
> That was gobbledegook.
Are you asserting that "Feynman diagrams" take into account
the particles in the medium (Bubble chamber medium),
and the particles in the container,
and the particles in sensors, etc.
in their modeling?
As I indicated:
"Feynman diagrams" .. focus on linking a set of related objects,
rather than dealing with how AN object is affected by
ALL of the objects contiguous to it."
This is like modeling how billiard balls interact
without considering that the billiard table might be tilted,
and a wind blowing on the balls.
"Feynman diagrams" are okay,
but they don't take the environment into account
as you imply with your post.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 07 Apr 2004 11:52 GMT
> > > "Gregory L. Hansen" <
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
> > message
[quoted text clipped - 101 lines]
> but they don't take the environment into account
> as you imply with your post.
Quit bullshitting, you know nothing
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 08 Apr 2004 15:24 GMT
> > > > "Gregory L. Hansen" <
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
> > > message
[quoted text clipped - 117 lines]
>
> Quit bullshitting, you know nothing
It is interesting to see that Franz "knows something"
about making nasty, low class, childish statements,
and how to avoid confronting a dichotomy,
that might expose the fallacies of his dogma.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 09 Apr 2004 22:44 GMT
> > Quit bullshitting, you know nothing
>
> It is interesting to see that Franz "knows something"
> about making nasty, low class, childish statements,
> and how to avoid confronting a dichotomy,
> that might expose the fallacies of his dogma.
But Potter, you *really do know nothing*, and you really should quit
bullshitting.
Those are not "nasty, low class, childish statements,". They are a
sober assessment of your mental state, plus a piece of good advice.
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 12 Apr 2004 07:35 GMT
> > > Quit bullshitting, you know nothing
> >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Those are not "nasty, low class, childish statements,". They are a
> sober assessment of your mental state, plus a piece of good advice.
It is interesting to see that Franz "knows something"
about making nasty, low class, childish statements,
and how to avoid confronting a dichotomy,
that might expose the fallacies of his dogma.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 12 Apr 2004 09:55 GMT
> > > > Quit bullshitting, you know nothing
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> > Those are not "nasty, low class, childish statements,". They are a
> > sober assessment of your mental state, plus a piece of good advice.
[snip]
> It is interesting to see that Franz "knows something"
> about making nasty, low class, childish statements,
> and how to avoid confronting a dichotomy,
> that might expose the fallacies of his dogma.
Try to do better than sticking the needle into an old groove. It
shows up your essential hollowness.
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 16 Apr 2004 16:23 GMT
> > > > "Franz Heymann" <
notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> message
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Try to do better than sticking the needle into an old groove. It
> shows up your essential hollowness.
It is interesting to observe that "Franz Heymann's"
needle is always in the same old, scratchy groove,
that plays back the same childish, low class insults,
over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over,
over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over..
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Sam Wormley - 16 Apr 2004 16:34 GMT
> > > > > "Franz Heymann" <
notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> > message
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over,
> over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over..
Correct physics, plays correctly no matter how many times to don't
listen, Potter.
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 19 Apr 2004 15:38 GMT
> > > > > > "Franz Heymann" <
notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> > > message
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> > over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over,
> > over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and
over..
> Correct physics, plays correctly no matter how many times to don't
> listen, Potter.
I must point out to Sam Wormley
that personal attacks, insults, trash talk,
and phony references are not physics.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 07 Apr 2004 14:44 GMT
>Are you asserting that "Feynman diagrams" take into account
>the particles in the medium (Bubble chamber medium),
>and the particles in the container,
>and the particles in sensors, etc.
>in their modeling?
That depends on the person writing them. A typical diagram is
\ /
\ /
\ /
/\/\/\/\
/ \
/ \
and we say the legs are free, or real, particles. They're free in the
sense that they're far from the interaction region and we can consider
them semi-classical particles. But the interaction with an electrion in a
detector really looks something like
\ /
\ /
\ /\/\/\/
\ / \
\ / \
/\/\/\/\
/ \
/ \
where the right-most line is an electron in the detector, and that
formerly free particle now looks like just another virtual electron.
Every leg can be traced, as appropriate, forward or backward in time to a
future or past interaction. That becomes onerous when there's a mole of
particles interacting in a detector or somesuch, although methods of
condensed matter physics has tools that can handle that sort of problem.
They're usually done with non-relativistic QED, but there's no essential
problem with extending it to the relativistic case. But the success of
the usual calculational methods in QED show it's fortunately not
necessary to go to all that trouble to get good results.
It's entirely your choice, not a limitation of the formalism.
Signature
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 07 Apr 2004 22:35 GMT
> >Are you asserting that "Feynman diagrams" take into account
> >the particles in the medium (Bubble chamber medium),
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> It's entirely your choice, not a limitation of the formalism.
Nicely put.
Many folk don't realise that if you really want to form a holistic
picture of an interaction, you have to actually consider an indefinite
sequence of elementary Feynman diagrams. The situation is saved
entirely by the fact that your additional "external" virtual
particles are so close to their mass shells that you might as well
take them as being free, thereby terminating the diagram at a suitable
complexity, i.e. decoupling the detector from the primary interaction.
The only problem with that is that then you are stuck with the silly
arguments about "collapse of the wavefunction" which stands in as
substitute for the interactions you have snipped.
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 08 Apr 2004 01:55 GMT
>Nicely put.
>Many folk don't realise that if you really want to form a holistic
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>arguments about "collapse of the wavefunction" which stands in as
>substitute for the interactions you have snipped.
And it doesn't just confuse laymen, either. It's been known to confuse
grad students, too. Or at least it's confused one of us.
Signature
"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we shall find the
truth... But let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been
put to the proof by the waking understanding." -- Friedrich August Kekulé
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 08 Apr 2004 15:13 GMT
> >Are you asserting that "Feynman diagrams" take into account
> >the particles in the medium (Bubble chamber medium),
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> make it impossible to use e-mail as a marketing tool."
>
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2003/11/10/newscolumn6.html
Of course, when you add a leg to a "Feynman diagram",
( And you must to model reality.)
you are in effect saying,
that Uncertainty Principle" come sinto play,
and affects the flow of events modeled
by the diagram.
Diddle the magnetic or electric field,
and you get a completely different chain of events.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 08 Apr 2004 15:47 GMT
>> >Are you asserting that "Feynman diagrams" take into account
>> >the particles in the medium (Bubble chamber medium),
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>Diddle the magnetic or electric field,
>and you get a completely different chain of events.
Then add a few photon legs.
\ /
\ /\/\/\/\
\ /\/\/\/
\ / \
\ / \
/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/ \
/ \
You realize those are just representative diagrams. There would be all
manner of legs and virtual lines attached to all possible locations in a
full analysis. It's not an easy thing to work out. But you can keep
goign with it for as long as you have the stamina.
Signature
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it. "
-- Gene Spafford, 1992
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 06 Apr 2004 15:22 GMT
> >> >"Gregory L. Hansen" <
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
> >message
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> back in time" line of reasoning. Or look at the lowest order for
> photon-photon scattering.
I take that concept just seriously enough to enable me to
(mathematically correctly) draw continuous fermion lines. I know thw
ones going backwards are positrons going forward.
> But I see what you mean, a vertex has two fermion lines and one photon
> line.
Yes. That is the gist of the point I was trying to make.
> Which is only helpful to Potter if he digs Feynman diagrams. I have a
> feeling he doesn't like them since they involve photons and virtual
> particles, in which case it can't support his argument.
Well, what Potter thinks and does not think does not matter a blind
toss.
I am hoping that there are lurkers who might get a little insight from
discussions like these, and to hell with wilful ignorami.
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 07 Apr 2004 05:32 GMT
> >> >> >As I indicated,
> >> >> >"The existence of <A> unique atom
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>
> If a heavy atom decayed in steps, does that mean heavy atoms don't exist?
It means that they don't exists as FUNDAMENTAL entities.
Objects (Real things) can be subdivided into finer and finer bits,
but eventually no further sub-division is possible.
If you divide a non-real thing into finer and finer bits,
it eventually disappears.
In other words, it never existed in the first place.
A photon is assembled from nothing.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Jon Bell - 04 Apr 2004 19:59 GMT
>>The existence of <A> unique photon,
>>cannot be traced.through time/space."
>
>Unless you're looking at a straight track through a cloud chamber, a
>sequence of exposed grains in a stack of photographic paper, or something
>of the sort.
Are you sure about that? I did my dissertation as part of a
bubble-chamber experiment, and we never saw actual photon tracks. We only
saw the tracks left by the e+ and e- after a pair-production event. We
called the distinctive pair of oppositely-curling tracks a "gamma." Our
software for analyzing the digitized pictures had to calculate the total
(vector) momentum of the e+ and e- and extrapolate it backwards in order
to decide whether a gamma was probably "associated" with a visible
interaction vertex, which could be a long distance away.
A very high-energy photon produced correspondingly high-energy e+ and e-
which usually produced more photons in turn via bremsstrahlung as they
passed through the bubble-chamber fluid (a liquid neon and hydrogen
mixture). Those photons produced more e+e- pairs, etc. The result was
sometimes a spectacular blossoming "tree" of e+ and e- tracks that filled
a large fraction of the bubble chamber. But we never "saw" a track for
the photon itself.
Signature
Jon Bell <
jtbellm4h@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 04 Apr 2004 20:32 GMT
>>>The existence of <A> unique photon,
>>>cannot be traced.through time/space."
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>to decide whether a gamma was probably "associated" with a visible
>interaction vertex, which could be a long distance away.
Those were pretty high energy gammas. I thought you could see tracks with
lower energy x-rays.
Signature
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 05 Apr 2004 11:50 GMT
> >>>The existence of <A> unique photon,
> >>>cannot be traced.through time/space."
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Those were pretty high energy gammas. I thought you could see tracks with
> lower energy x-rays.
No. If you pass a beam of low energy X-rays through, for example, a
bubble chamber, all you get is an uncorrelated mish-mash of very short
recoil electron tracks from Compton scatters, and some photoelectron
tracks.
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 05 Apr 2004 14:38 GMT
>> >>>The existence of <A> unique photon,
>> >>>cannot be traced.through time/space."
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>recoil electron tracks from Compton scatters, and some photoelectron
>tracks.
Okay, so that was a bad example, then.
Signature
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 05 Apr 2004 16:26 GMT
> >>>The existence of <A> unique photon,
> >>>cannot be traced.through time/space."
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Those were pretty high energy gammas. I thought you could see tracks with
> lower energy x-rays.
You can only
"see tracks with lower energy x-rays"
if you are wearing "clown" glasses.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Edward Green - 05 Apr 2004 00:01 GMT
> >>The existence of <A> unique photon,
> >>cannot be traced.through time/space."
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> a large fraction of the bubble chamber. But we never "saw" a track for
> the photon itself.
These are deep waters, Watson.
The existence of a unique _anything_ cannot be traced through time and
space, in some sense: except of course in the sense it can. :-)
Anyway, we might ask to what extent a sequence of events in a cloud
chamber mimics the macroscopic persistence of a quasi-macroscopic
object labeled a "photon". You tell us that the presence of a photon
is deduced from pair electron/positron pair creation. My follow-on
question is whether the model surrounding these events leads you to
believe in each case a photon was completely annihilated, or if a
successor photon instead staggers on with reduced energy, possibly
provisionally earning the title of the "same" photon?
But maybe this is the wrong experiment. Is there such a thing as a
gamma ray track through a stack of photographic paper, as Greg
suggests? Although the gamma ray must forfeit some energy to each
interaction, and we could argue whether it were absorbed and a second
photon readmitted, such a thing at least would look like a track of a
unique photon "traced through time and space".
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree]
jmfbahciv@aol.com - 05 Apr 2004 11:26 GMT
Yay!
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 05 Apr 2004 11:50 GMT
> > >>The existence of <A> unique photon,
> > >>cannot be traced.through time/space."
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> object labeled a "photon". You tell us that the presence of a photon
> is deduced from pair electron/positron pair creation.
And from Compton recoil electrons and from photoelectrons.
> My follow-on
> question is whether the model surrounding these events leads you to
> believe in each case a photon was completely annihilated, or if a
> successor photon instead staggers on with reduced energy, possibly
> provisionally earning the title of the "same" photon?
The only quantitative theory which successfully handles problems
concerned with the creation, interactions and annihilation of photons
is QED. It has never failed. According to QED, the only thing which
can happen to a photon is that it can be created, it can propagate
itself, and it can be annihilated. What a boring life.
> But maybe this is the wrong experiment. Is there such a thing as a
> gamma ray track through a stack of photographic paper, as Greg
> suggests?
No there is not. Having participated in a number of experiments which
involved blocks of nuclear emulsion, I can confirm that the situation
viv-a-vis photons of any energy is in all respects like that described
by Jon Bell. Photons do not leave tracks. (As an aside, I have never
heard of anyone producing particle tracks in photographic paper.)
> Although the gamma ray must forfeit some energy to each
> interaction, and we could argue whether it were absorbed and a second
> photon readmitted, such a thing at least would look like a track of a
> unique photon "traced through time and space".
Nope. Putting it at its simplest level, and exaggerating a little,
but not so much as to spoil the gist of my statement, the interaction
cross sections for a photon with the particles available in a typical
detector are such that it interacts at most once in passaging through
the detector.
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Old Man - 19 Aug 2004 20:04 GMT
> > >>The existence of <A> unique photon,
> > >>cannot be traced.through time/space."
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> photon readmitted, such a thing at least would look like a track of a
> unique photon "traced through time and space".
In nuclear gamma decay, the nucleus recoils with momentum
equal and opposite to that of the gamma. So, in principle, one
can track a gamma via detection of the nuclear recoil momentum
(a vector).
[Old Man]
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 04 Apr 2004 22:29 GMT
[snip]
> >The existence of <A> unique photon,
> >cannot be traced.through time/space."
>
> Unless you're looking at a straight track through a cloud chamber, a
> sequence of exposed grains in a stack of photographic paper, or something
> of the sort.
Photons do not produce tracks of any kind in any detector.
[snip]
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Mike Helland - 04 Apr 2004 07:58 GMT
> > >The existence of <A> unique atom
> > >can be traced.through time/space.
> > >The existence of <A> unique photon,
> > >cannot be traced.through time/space.
<snip>
> > True, but I don't think this should matter.
<snip>
> I suggest that things that are persistent,
> and can be observed over extended time and space,
> are less of "fantasies", than things that are
> not extended in time and space.
Again, I don't think this should matter. I'm open to considering any
agruments you might have, but if you think critically about your
statement it may turn out to be an assumption that can't be justified.
By the way, an electron can't be traced through time or space either.
I asked earlier if you thought the electron was less fantasy than the
atom. In order to be consistent in your thinking the photon and
electron would have to be equally "unreal."
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 04 Apr 2004 13:30 GMT
> > > >The existence of <A> unique atom
> > > >can be traced.through time/space.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> atom. In order to be consistent in your thinking the photon and
> electron would have to be equally "unreal."
This is interesting, no doubt, but I do not think it completely
addresses the issue. I could be wrong, but here is my understanding:
We have two electrons, A and B at the beginning of an experiment:
| B
| A
---------------------
And then we have two electrons at the end of an experiment
| D
| C
---------------------
According to QED, in order to make the proper calculuations one needs
to consider the possibility that A has moved to C _and_ the
possibility that A has moved to D. There is no concrete mechanism that
will allow us to know which electron is which.
I will need to learn more about the page you cited to be able to say
that for sure. Although I would assume that the paths drawn by the
experiment are the positions of particles over time in our
observations and to assume that they are infact the same electrons in
every frame is a safe assumption, but still only an assumption. For
example, in QED, we would also have to consider the fact that in the
frames we don't "see" the electron and positron rejoined to a photon
and then came back to their positions before the next frame.
Highly highly astronomically unlikely, but the possibility must be
entertained by theory... as I understand it. Is that correct?
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 08 Apr 2004 15:26 GMT
> > > "Tom Potter" <
tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
news:<c4m9ka$2kut9n$2@ID-151067.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> >
> > Take a look at the bubble chamber track at the url below:
Do a Google search on
"Pauli exclusion principle".
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 09 Apr 2004 22:44 GMT
[snip]
> According to QED, in order to make the proper calculuations one needs
> to consider the possibility that A has moved to C _and_ the
> possibility that A has moved to D. There is no concrete mechanism that
> will allow us to know which electron is which.
That is correct. In the calculation, both possibilities have to be
taken into account.
[snip]
Franz
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Mike Helland - 11 Apr 2004 19:48 GMT
> [snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> That is correct. In the calculation, both possibilities have to be
> taken into account.
Potter's position is that photons cannot be traced through time and
space so they are not real.
My position is that electron's cannot be traced definitively through
time and space so if a photon cannot be considered real then an
electron must not be considered real either.
This is of course an extremely grey area because it is noted that
electrons can be partially traced through time and space and we may
make good assumption on the rest, although theory reminds us that
these assumptions are still only assumptions.
My question is, are you agreeing with Potter or with me? Or are you
arguing that we're both wrong without taking any real position of your
own?
The latter seems to be typical of your involvement in these types of
discussions.
Mike
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree]
FrediFizzx - 11 Apr 2004 20:27 GMT
| > [snip]
| >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
|
| If this is true, then have you not contradicted your previous message:
| Potter's position is that photons cannot be traced through time and
| space so they are not real.
Well, there certainly is real consequences when they run into something. Or
are emitted by something.
| My position is that electron's cannot be traced definitively through
| time and space so if a photon cannot be considered real then an
| electron must not be considered real either.
But Franz told you that charged particles can be tracked thru space and
time. And we have a notion of what particles are that can't be tracked by
effects that can be tracked. Like in a bubble chamber photograph we see
charged particles drastically change course all of a sudden. Something that
we couldn't track hit it.
| This is of course an extremely grey area because it is noted that
| electrons can be partially traced through time and space and we may
| make good assumption on the rest, although theory reminds us that
| these assumptions are still only assumptions.
Theory also tells us that since the calculations work out, that they are
very good assumptions.
> | Potter's position is that photons cannot be traced through time and
> | space so they are not real.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> charged particles drastically change course all of a sudden. Something that
> we couldn't track hit it.
That something is called an "event",
and the physical property
that exists between a cause event
and an effect event,
can be quantized very precisely,
with a time interval,
if cross-correlations are made of many
cause/effect pairs.
The cross-correlation provides the
cause/effect relationship for some
standard topology, and the time interval
provides the smallest "space" (Time interval)
between the cause and the effect.
What this tells us is that topology
affects the statistics of events,
and that the most fundamental events
occur along the shortest path.
Considering your theory today while watching the Masters Tournament, I
began to wonder whether a golf ball really exists between the "whack"
and the "plonk"? Can anyone actually see the ball leave the face of a
driver?
There were two "holes in one" today only ten minutes apart. Perhaps
those events can only be quantified in the time intervals between the
whack/plonk cause/effect pairs?
Eh, Tom?
What are you inferring accompanied the golf ball
from "whack" to "plonk"?
A photon or an angel?
o photons can be counted with instruments
o angels don't exist
o photons transport information
o angels don't exist
o photon is an integer-spin particle which mediates forces between fermions
o angels don't exist
o photons can be detected by the human eye, skin and togue
o angels don't exist
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 19 Apr 2004 15:47 GMT
> > > "Tom Potter" <
tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
news:<c5ddh6$co9d$7@ID-151067.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> > > > > | If this is true, then have you not contradicted your previous
> > message:
Hopefully Sam Wormley will
explain where these photons hang out,
between a cause and an effect,
and how this can be proven.
As real physicists know,
the ONLY thing that can be measured
between a cause and an effect,
is an interaction time.
To paraphrase Sam's post:
EVENTS can be counted with instruments.
Photons don't exist.
EVENTS transport information.
Photons don't exist.
EVENTS can be detected by the human eye, skin and tongue
Photons don't exist.
To address Sam's other comment:
"a photon is an integer-spin particle
which mediates forces between fermions."
Are you asserting that the photon
"mediates forces between" quarks,
or are you asserting that a quark is not a fermion,
or what?
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Double-A - 20 Apr 2004 23:09 GMT
[snip]
> Hopefully Sam Wormley will
> explain where these photons hang out,
> between a cause and an effect,
> and how this can be proven.
[snip]
Where does a bullet hang out between gun and target?
Double-A
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 21 Apr 2004 15:21 GMT
> [snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Where does a bullet hang out between gun and target?
As I have pointed out,
REAL objects can be tracked through time and space.
Fictious objects, like ghosts, angels and photons,
cannot be tracked through time and space.
And as I have pointed out,
the ONLY thing that can be measured
between a so-called photon cause
and a so-called photon effect,
is an intereaction time.
A photon is the name given to a
cause or effect associated with an electron,
and the interaction time (Space) between
the cause and the effect.
In other words,
you can speak of
an electron cause,
an electron effect,
or an interaction time.
There is no need to postulate
a fictional entity that carries changes
from causes to effects.
--
Tom Potter
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Sam Wormley - 21 Apr 2004 16:02 GMT
Tom [Pathetic] Potter wrote:
> As I have pointed out,
> REAL objects can be tracked through time and space.
>
> Fictious objects, like ghosts, angels and photons,
> cannot be tracked through time and space.
o photons can be counted with instruments
o ghosts and angels don't exist, Potter
o photons transport information
o ghosts and angels don't exist, Potter
o photon is an integer-spin particle which mediates forces between fermions
o ghosts and angels don't exist, Potter
o photons can be detected by the human eye, skin and togue
o ghosts and angels don't exist, Potter
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 22 Apr 2004 14:27 GMT
> Tom [Pathetic] Potter wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> o photons can be detected by the human eye, skin and togue
> o photons and ghosts and angels don't exist, Wormley
To paraphrase Sam Wormley:
o EVENTS can be counted with instruments
o photons and ghosts and angels don't exist, Wormley
o EVENTS transport UNITS OF ACTION
o photons and ghosts and angels don't exist, Wormley
o EVENTS can be detected by the human eye, skin and tongue
o photons and ghosts and angels don't exist, Wormley
Wormley,
the only thing that can be measured between
a quantum unit cause and an effect, is an interaction time.
No one has ever observed a photon, an angel or a ghost
lugging UNITS OF CHANGE between a cause and an effect.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Sam Wormley - 22 Apr 2004 15:54 GMT
> No one has ever observed a photon, an or a ghost
> lugging UNITS OF CHANGE between a cause and an effect.
I'm observing photons as we speak, Potter. BTW, angels
and ghosts don't exist, but photons do!
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 24 Apr 2004 15:49 GMT
> > No one has ever observed a photon, an or a ghost
> > lugging UNITS OF CHANGE between a cause and an effect.
>
> I'm observing photons as we speak, Potter. BTW, angels
> and ghosts don't exist, but photons do!
What you are sensing Wormley,
are not photons, but EVENTS.
EVENTS occur in many flavors,
and can activate senses of touch, hearing and sight.
What you fantasize as photons,
are unit, quantum events that are associated
with electrons.
The only thing that exists
and can be measured between
a unit, quantum cause event and
a unit, quantum effect event
is an interaction time.
And you know what?
That's all you need to define reality.
You don't need to fantasize photons, aethers,
angels, etc.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usis an interaction time
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] hanson - 24 Apr 2004 17:04 GMT
> > > No one has ever observed a photon, an or a ghost
> > > lugging UNITS OF CHANGE between a cause and an effect.
[Sam]
> > I'm observing photons as we speak, Potter. BTW, angels
> > and ghosts don't exist, but photons do!
[Tom]
> What you are sensing Wormley, are not photons, but EVENTS.
> EVENTS occur in many flavors, and can activate senses of touch,
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> You don't need to fantasize photons, aethers, angels, etc.
> Tom Potter ..... is an interaction time
[hanson]
> > Hey, where is Potter, the moral and good man, when you need him?
> >
> Hey, Potter, where is your usual loud mouth about this issue?
> These guys are implying that the mission of your life is a crock
> and a sentiment. How come you are suddenly so quiet? Got religion?
> > ahahahaha......ahahahanson
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 26 Apr 2004 05:38 GMT
> > > > No one has ever observed a photon, an or a ghost
> > > > lugging UNITS OF CHANGE between a cause and an effect.
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
> > and a sentiment. How come you are suddenly so quiet? Got religion?
> > > ahahahaha......ahahahanson
I think it is evident to rational, intelligent, MORAL people
that this posters are making my point ,
that irrational, self-serving, IMMORAL people exist,
and cannot be ignored.
Rationalizing that such qualities exist in people,
does not justify irrationality, selfishness, and immorality.
I suggest that MORALITY is a better position for mankind,
than justifying IMMORALITY by weakening the MORALITY position,
with rationalizations of any kind.
Good is good, and right is right,
even when evil and self-serving people
take these positions.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Sam Wormley - 26 Apr 2004 01:00 GMT
> "Sam Wormley" <
swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> What you are sensing Wormley,
> are not photons, but EVENTS.
ahhahh ahah ahha hahahahhhahha hah a Potter..... hahahahhaa
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 26 Apr 2004 05:44 GMT
> > "Sam Wormley" <
swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> ahhahh ahah ahha hahahahhhahha hah a Potter..... hahahahhaa
As the old saying goes:
"He who laughs last looks stupid."
So I'll leave the last laugh to Sam Wormley.
I might point out to Sam
that he can observe events with all of his senses.
Visual events, aural events, tactile events, etc.
and that photons do not convey quanta of action
to any of these senses.
The ONLY thing that can be measured between
a quantum, unit, cause and the correlated effect,
is an interaction time.
There are no angels, ghosts, or photons
carrying change between causes and effects.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Double-A - 21 Apr 2004 19:48 GMT
> > [snip]
> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> As I have pointed out,
> REAL objects can be tracked through time and space.
Yes, real objects like bullets, golf balls, and photons.
> Fictious objects, like ghosts, angels and photons,
> cannot be tracked through time and space.
If you pop up your head on a firing range between a firing gun and the
target, you will immediately find out were the bullet is as it punches
a hole through your head!
In the same way, if you pop up your head on a high powered laser
firing range between the firing laser and the target, you will
immediately find out were those photons are "hanging out" as they burn
a hole through your head!
> And as I have pointed out,
> the ONLY thing that can be measured
> between a so-called photon cause
> and a so-called photon effect,
> is an intereaction time.
Not true.
> A photon is the name given to a
> cause or effect associated with an electron,
> and the interaction time (Space) between
> the cause and the effect.
Not true.
> In other words,
> you can speak of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> a fictional entity that carries changes
> from causes to effects.
But there is, because the photon travels between the site of the cause
and the site of the effect and can be detected anywhere in between.
Give it up, Tom.
Double-A
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 22 Apr 2004 14:26 GMT
> > > [snip]
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> But there is, because the photon travels between the site of the cause
> and the site of the effect and can be detected anywhere in between.
Arranging objects in an environment,
affects the event distributions within the environment.
I challenge "Double-A" to set up an experiment
that tracks a (Read "a" ) photon through time and space.
The fact of the matter is,
that the ONLY thing that can be measured between
a quantum unit of cause, and an effect,
is an interaction time.
When a photon from a distant star passes near the Sun, its trajectory
bends slightly due to its interaction with curvature of space caused
by the Sun's mass, just as Einstein predicted.
Now if there were no photon travelling between the cause, the distant
star, and the effect, the recording of the photon on the photographic
film of the observatory telescope, then there would be no way for the
mass of the Sun to affect the observed light from the star which in
fact is measured to arrive from a slightly different direction than
the true direction of that star.
This proves that the photons of the light had to be near the Sun at
some point.
And it proves you are wrong, Potter!
I see you have made no attempt to answer this post in two days.
I can't blame you Tom, my argument is so indisputable that you simply
cannot come up with a counter to it. And yet, you are too embarrassed
to admit that you have finally been proven wrong!
That's OK Tom, everybody is wrong sometimes, even the potterbot.
No, especially the potterbot!
It is interesting to see that the "Double-A"bot
does not comprehend that us humans
have real lives apart from responding to trivial posts
in the newsgroups.
To address the point raised by the "Double-A"bot ,
the only thing that can be measured between a cause and an effect,
is a time interval, and the time interval between a cause and an effect is
determined by the configuration of the various
populations within the environment.
I suggest that the programmers of the "Double-A"bot,
do a Google search on the double-slit experiment,
and have the bot make a post on how photons and particles
are split into numerous pieces, and assume numerous paths,
on their way from a cause to an effect.
Oh, I didn't know the potterbot required down time. I thought the
potterbot was up and online 24/7.
> To address the point raised by the "Double-A"bot ,
> the only thing that can be measured between a cause and an effect,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> are split into numerous pieces, and assume numerous paths,
> on their way from a cause to an effect.
The potterbot auto-rejected my indisputable argument, and pulled a
standard double-slit argument from its files.
Since both photons and particles display the same wavelike properties
in a double-slit experiment, you can no more say that it proves
photons don't exist, than you can say it proves particles don't exist.
If particles don't exist, then golf balls don't exist!
So potterbot, do golf balls exist?
(Please turn off the auto-reject and auto-ignore features this time.)
It is interesting to see that Double-A
is trying to change the subject from
the existence of photons,
to the existence of golf balls.
If Double-A thinks that photons exists,
perhaps he should explain what they do
when the encounter multiple paths
between a source and a sink.
Do they split into numerous pieces,
and recombine at some point?
As I have posted,
real world objects can
be traced through time and space.
Ghosts, angels and photons cannot
be traced through time and space.
As I have pointed out, massive particles also display the same effects
of seemingly taking multiple paths and self-interfering in a
double-slit experiment. These observations have been made for
electrons, protons, and even atoms. Now theoretically, even golf
balls should show the same effects in such an experiment because every
particle, no matter how massive, has a wave nature, although the
effects may be too small to be measured.
So the thing is, although the results of the double-slit experiment
may be mysterious, those results are not peculiar to photons.
Therefore you can't use those results to disprove the existence of
photons, anymore than you can use them to disprove the existence of
golf balls.
> As I have posted,
> real world objects can
> be traced through time and space.
An atom being shot through a double-slit cannot be exactly traced
through time and space because it self-interferes.
> Ghosts,
Ask a medium.
> angels
Ask a priest.
> and photons cannot
> be traced through time and space.
A physicist will tell you that photons can be.
Double-A
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Gregory L. Hansen - 27 Apr 2004 19:25 GMT
>> > Since both photons and particles display the same wavelike properties
>> > in a double-slit experiment, you can no more say that it proves
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>double-slit experiment. These observations have been made for
>electrons, protons, and even atoms.
Neutron diffraction is used routinely to study materials properties, and
neutron interferometers have been in operation for a long time. In fact,
Werner et. al. showed in an interferometry experiment that neutrons must
be turned around 4*pi radians to return to their initial state; neutrons
are, indeed, spinors. I've Bragg reflected neutrons from a perfect
crystal, myself, and I can tell you it's all wave mechanics. And also
that the neutrons were coming in slow enough that it was basically one
neutron at a time in the crystal.
C60 has been diffracted.
>Now theoretically, even golf
>balls should show the same effects in such an experiment because every
>particle, no matter how massive, has a wave nature, although the
>effects may be too small to be measured.
I don't think anyone has done golf balls yet.
Signature
"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Double-A - 29 Apr 2004 20:10 GMT
>
> >> >
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> I don't think anyone has done golf balls yet.
Thanks for your input.
Welllll, I see no response from the potterbot, a.k.a Tom Potter.
It seems that the potterbot has searched his memory banks for an
appropriate counter argument and come up "no document found"!
Yes sir, I think it's about time to land the fighter plane on the
carrier deck and declare victory in this argument!
Yes, Tom Tom, there is a photon!
And that photon has many little helpers that make up a whole universe
filled with photons! And these photons are real, as real as a summer
sunset over the Pacific Ocean.
Yes photons are really real, real for all to see. Just look around
you, you see photons everywhere. Can there be any question?
Oh, and one thing more, yes there really is a golf ball moving between
"whack" and "plonk"!
Double-A
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Double-A - 30 Apr 2004 19:02 GMT
Tom Potter:
> > > It is interesting to see that the "Double-A"bot
> > > does not comprehend that us humans
> > > have real lives apart from responding to trivial posts
> > > in the newsgroups.
[snip]
> If Double-A thinks that photons exists,
> perhaps he should explain what they do
> when the encounter multiple paths
> between a source and a sink.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on you, Tom. What with your campaign
to run for Mayor and all, you must be very busy these days.
Fooling all of the people all of the time isn't so easy, is it?
But you have gotten some good practical experience here. If you have
managed to convince anyone here that photons do not exist, then you
might be able to convince a voter that the tax increase, that will
cover your increase in salary, is really in his best interest!
Double-A
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Richard - 27 Apr 2004 04:23 GMT
>>>tdp@earthlink.net (Tom Potter) wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 88 lines]
> This proves that the photons of the light had to be near the Sun at
> some point.
It does no such thing.
The Sun is composed of charged particles, which collectively intercept
em energy from the source. The subsequent generation of this secondary
field superposes over the source field to form a distortion of the field
wrt the Earth observer. It's holographic lensing on a large scale. The
same effect will be observed with sound, it's called interference, and
it will indeed cause the source to appear displaced in space if not
taken into account. Potter is correct.
Could be the Devil himself for all I know.
I mean, wouldn't you sell your soul for a hole-in-one at the Masters?
Double-A
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Scroll to Next Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Franz Heymann - 11 Apr 2004 22:11 GMT
> > [snip]
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> If this is true, then have you not contradicted your previous message:
> Potter's position is that photons cannot be traced through time and
> space so they are not real.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> The latter seems to be typical of your involvement in these types of
> discussions.
I talk from a position of some knowledge. I do sometimes make
mistaken statements. I withdraw them as soon as I notice it.
You and Potter are both quite out of your depths and you refuse to
recognise that fact.
> > Potter's position is that photons cannot be traced through time and
> > space so they are not real.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> You and Potter are both quite out of your depths and you refuse to
> recognise that fact.
As can be seen by his frequent, DEFINITIVE posts on the subject,
"Franz Heymann" has a strong opinion that:
"Potter < And many others.> are both quite out of <their> depths
and refuse to recognize that fact."
I for one, would like to see a DEFINITIVE post by "Franz Heymann"
on the topics of threads as they relate to physics,
and hopefully he will start by taking a DEFINITIVE position
on the subject of photons.
--
Tom Potter
http://tompotter.usReply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Mike Helland - 12 Apr 2004 14:04 GMT
> I talk from a position of some knowledge. I do sometimes make
> mistaken statements. I withdraw them as soon as I notice it.
> You and Potter are both quite out of your depths and you refuse to
> recognise that fact.
<quote>
Uncle Al Said:
Varney is stating that you are incompetent as a physicist.
I think that due to the boldness of my claims I have been immediately
type-cast as a crank, and despite how obviouslly incorrect some of
your biases towards me are (see the above for example) you have
refused to recognize the fact that if I am a crackpot I am a
considerably different kind of crackpot than what you have in mind.
I hope that some type of understanding may be found between me and
this forum.
Mike Helland
PS, knowledge is not wisdom.
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Scroll to Previous Sibling] [Open Message Tree] Sam Wormley - 12 Apr 2004 00:32 GMT
> Potter's position is that photons cannot be traced through time and
> space so they are not real.
Ah, but they can be traced through time and space--particle collision
tracks have many photons. Their "tracks", energy and relative times of
existence routinely measured.
Reply to this Message
[Scroll to Parent Message] [Open Message Tree] Tom Potter - 12 Apr 2004 07:36 GMT
> > Potter's position is that photons cannot be traced through time and
> > space so they are not real.
>
> Ah, but they can be traced through time and space--particle collision
> tracks have many photons. Their "tracks", energy and relative times of
> existence routinely measured.
It is interesting to see that "Sam Wormley"
seems to think that photons convey billiard balls
from collision to collision as evidenced by their
""tracks", energy and relative times of existence routinely measured."
There is no need to postulate fictitious entities such
as photons, angels, gravitons, etc, to convey
changes between causes and effects.
The only thing that is needed,
and can be measured,
is an interaction time.
No doubt, harmonic (Quantum), fermions exist,
and combine to form more complex, aggregate, forms,
such as the elements, plants, animals, etc.
and are subject to division into the more fundamental
forms, but the "sawdust" from these divisions is perceived
as an interaction time, not as an angel, photon or graviton.
Time intervals, NOT photons,
are the "sawdust" of changes in electron systems.
And constitutes a change in an electron system?
A time interval, which is a change in space,
as time intervals are the fundamental substance of space.
The "sawdust" that comes from a division of space,
is the same stuff that space is made of,
time intervals.
Uploading ....