Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2008

> What are you on about? Try explaining your problem rather than being
> cryptic.

> Try assuming a photon has equal positive and negative charge and rotates
> [1] and see what that offers! No one is going to do that because it has
> been decided that a photon has 'no internal structure' (quoting Tom
> Roberts) and while that doctrine is accepted it ensures that no particle
> model can encroach upon the terrain of EM theory.
>
> [1] "The spinning photon" R A Waldron Spec in Sc & Tec. Vol 6 No 2
> (1983) >>

> >You don't need a pinhole to shoot a bird.
> >...Unless the bird is shooting back at you.
> >> >Are photons divisible?
>
> >> I don't know. Provided the energy equations balance I see no theoretical
> >> reason why a photon should not be split into two lower energy photons.
> >> Is there some point to your question? If you are asking whether you can
> >> detect the same photon twice then no not without violating the
> >> conservation laws. Detecting a photon involves the transfer of energy
> >> and you cannot get two lots of energy from the same photon.
>
> >> If I am trying to make a point I explain it in sufficient detail that
> >> you, and anyone else understands the point I am making. If my argument
> >> requires supporting text I provided it. You appear to be playing some
> >> sort of game where you point me to URL's expect me to flog through them
> >> and try and guess what point it is you are making. I won't play that
> >> game if you have a point you wish to make then make it.

> >The VLTI does not help you decide if photons are divisible?

> >And if thay are, is there a little fairy
> >out in space that knows the VLTI needs
> >four pieces so the fairy quarters them
> >on the fly?
>
> Very cryptic!
>
> >> >Isn't that a pion experiment ?
>
> >> Yes but it is one of the photons which is expected to navigate the
> >> collimator.
>
> >If it did the experiment may be a candidate for a Nobel prize/
> >I will stay tuned.
>
> As a pion, if it exists at all exists for only 8.4 x 10^-17 s it was not
> what was expected to find its way down the barrel of a gun.
>
> >> >There is also  some probabilityy an atomic oscillator will
> >> >change energy states. It can be much more predictable
> >> >than lightning strikes with a path integral.
>
> >> >If you could use QED for lightning, the probability will kill you.
> >> >This, because the classical path is a part of the probability
> >> >amplitude.
>
> >> Probability never killed anyone, neither did a mathematical equation.
> >> They are both essentially metaphysical.
>
> >You were grasping for the term "probability amplitude"
> >so you can interpret as you please. It is not vadid
> >argument for the abandon of statistical analysis.
>
> I never said it was. Call it what you will probability says what happens
> it is not a substitute for and understanding of what causes something to
> happen.
>
> >> >> There must be a physical reason why a photon heads off in a particular
> >> >> direction we don't know what it is and even if we did we have not got
> >> >> enough information about a particular photon to predict the result.
>
> >> >We certainly do know. We could not build lasers if we didn't.
> >http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html
>
> >> If you have a point you wish to make then make it. I was talking about
> >> the direction taken by a photon from the direction of the double slits.
>
> >As many slits as you like:

> >The same rules apply.
>
> Explain! I'm not going to trawl URLs trying to guess what your point is.
>
> >> >If you think classical paths illogical then remove all the lenses on
> >> >your optics and sell whatever you have that could be an antenna
> >> >for scrap metal.
>
> >> I haven't a clue what you mean. If I throw a dice it has an equal
> >> probability of coming up with one of 6 numbers. If you could devise a
> >> machine which always starts with the dice in the same orientation and
> >> imparts to the dice exactly the same motion every time then in theory
> >> you should end up with the same number every time. Although the causal
> >> sequence is highly complex the result is never the less a result of that
> >> causal sequence. The fact that that causal sequence is too difficult to
> >> analyse does not mean that we have to enter the realm of mysticism and
> >> ascribe to the process weirdness and haziness.
>
> >Whether you call it mysticism or something else we DO have
> >to enter the realm of classical EM if we want correct
> >probabilities for atomic absorbtion.
>
> all that says is that at the moment that it is the only mathematical
> model which works. I'm sure the same was said of the Ptolemaic system
> until a better one, more firmly based on reality, gave the same results
> with simpler mathematics.
>
> >> >if you can do a path integral, the cat's fate will become more
> >> >certain.
>
> >> >> >(you have nearly clarified that later in your
> >> >> >posting. Call me overly critial but don't take
> >> >> >it personally )

> >> >> >The assumption that photons move on any particular
> >> >> >path usually accompanies a faulty assumption they have some
> >> >> >coupling to the gravito-inertial field. They do not.
>
> >> >> What on earth does that mean. If it means that I assume a photon has
> >> >> mass then yes I do. It could not be plainer.
>
> >> >Since you can't figure how it knows which way to go
> >> >perhaps need to rethink that a bit.
>
> >> If you have a point you wish to make then make it.
>
> >No...Your third self delusion convinced me you are
> >a self mutilator. I want no part of it. :-)
>
> >> >> ><<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
> >> >> >transformation will convert electric or magnetic
> >> >> >fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
> >> >> >but no transformation mixes them with the
> >> >> >gravitational field. >>

> >> >> Physics says it cannot have mass because that would mean SR is wrong. It
> >> >> does and it is.
>
> >> >It is only the *light-particles* that make SR ~wrong~.
>
> >> >i<<in reality there is not the least incompatibility between
> >> >the principle of relativity and the law of propagation of light,>>
>
> >> >See equation 511
> >> >"Retarded potentials"

> >> "We are now in a position to understand electromagnetism at its most
> >> fundamental level. A charge distribution $\rho({\bf r}, t)$ can thought
> >> of as built up out of a collection, or series, of charges which
> >> instantaneously come into existence, at some point ${\bf r}'$ and some
> >> time $t'$, and then disappear again."- like magic how can a sane person
> >> possibly believe in this stuff.
>
> >Indeed... many blame their insanity on the rigours of
> >studying Maxwell but none offer anything better.

> >> Try Google "retarded potentials Walter Ritz"
> >> e.g.

> >The VLTI at paranal ?
> >The need to polish mirrors to nanometer accuracy ?
>
> >The Ritz dog don't hunt.
>
> Very cryptic - You will have to explain the relevance of the VLTI and
> what you think it proves.
>
> --
> John Kennaugh