physics news - Page 2 - P2P-Zone

mike4947 · 16-08-01, 06:53 PM

I'm waiting with baited breath. That'll teach me to eat sushi

nanook · 16-08-01, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike4947
I'm waiting with baited breath. That'll teach me to eat sushi

sushi/breath

thanks..............it's been very interesting.

Ramona_A_Stone · 16-08-01, 07:10 PM

First of all, Postulate 4 of 'the Kalenuniverse', which has been around awhile and which I've mentioned here before, predicts that "the three space dimensions may possess a decelerated expansion or, instead, time may be slowing to produce the observed cosmic red shift. In either case the velocity of light would be decreasing."

A fundamental problem in physics stems from the fact that experimental results can be described either in terms of waves or particles. The two desrcriptions appear to be mathematically equivalent but conceptually are at odds with each other. Specifically, converting from the wave to the particle concept, which is usually done when measurement data is incorporated into wave theory, sometimes violates the velocity C limit of special relativity.

Electromagnetic waves are emitted from accelerated charge in fixed quantum increments (photons) They radiate, expanding through space, and are then instantly absorbed as (apparently small) particle-like energy units. Heisenberg proposed these particle-like (photon) emissions with his quantum theory in which a photon's energy is E = hf - where f is the photon's frequency and h is an electron's angular momentum, the action h is a very small effort, equal to 10 to the 27th power erg second. (It would take about 10 to the 27th power h's for a fly to flap its wings for one second.) Einstein proposed an equivalent unit photon absorption in his paper on the photoelectric effect.

The wave equation:

Imagine a single photon emitted from an electron near the moon, The photon's wavefront expands radially, somewhat analogous to a sound wave but through the vacuum of space with transverse vibrations of the EM-field in the plane of the wavefront. A little over one second later when the wavefront reaches the earth it has presumably spread over an area of billions of square miles. If a human happens to be looking at the moon, about one square centimeter of this large area is intercepted by his eye. Then a very strange thing occurs: all of the energy of one photon, in spite of its expansion over such a wide area, is instantly recieved by the eye.

The instantaneous reception of a large photon by a tiny reciever is called the collapse of the wave equation. In addition to the seeming preposterous nature of this concept there is the difficulty that according to relativity nothing can move faster than the speed of light - yet this would require that something do so.

Most scientists do not believe that the photon expands and collapses like that. Instead, they say it moves as a tiny wave packet particle in a straight line from its source to its sink. They assume that the Schrodinger wave equation is not a description of the photon, but rather represents a probability function that tells where the particle may be at any instant. Max Born first suggested that the photon may have complex frequency beats that confine it to a small wave packet volume and that the wave equation is not a real picture of the photon waves but instead gives the probability of locating the particle. However, no one has fully accepted the probability interpretation of the wave function....

Another difficulty is that eyes anywhere on the moonward side of the earth can pick up moon-source photons with identical wavefront cycles. This is so for long baseline interferometry observations. Radio antennas at various places on the earth pointed in the same direction and correlated in time have the resolution of one big eye. The same technique can be used with adjacent optical telescopes. Each astronomical pohton appears to have components at least as big as the earth. If not, the wavefront is a strange collection of tiny nearly identical phase correlated wavepackets. If the photon started as a series of expanding continuous wavefronts, how could it get so fragmented yet stay the same?

...

nanook · 16-08-01, 07:19 PM

aahhh, ramona

have missed you. lost your icq number when i unistalled.

i will read your words with much interest.

16-08-01, 07:37 PM

Many photons are coming into the eye at once, in the square centimeter of area. If you are only half the distance away from the moon (120,000 miles), then you will be receiving four times the amount of photons than usual. Or, if you have eight eyes instead of two while on Earth, the effect will be the same. More light will make the image appear larger, brighter, and closer. I suppose if one had an eye the same size as Earth, then one would be able to see from the Earth what one would see with the human eye, while standing on the moon.

Most images we see appear to be two dimensional. If we were to look at one photon, then it would be a singular pinpoint of light, in other words, no dimensional. It wouldn't be a perfect point, but it would become more precise as the freqency or energy increased, right? One photon can not depict the image of the moon perfectly, but then again, neither can all of the photons which come off of it.

16-08-01, 06:53 PM	#21
mike4947 I'd rather be sailing Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 1,648	I'm waiting with baited breath. That'll teach me to eat sushi __________________

16-08-01, 07:19 PM	#24
nanook just one of the gang... Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 1,777	aahhh, ramona have missed you. lost your icq number when i unistalled. i will read your words with much interest. __________________ "rock on, all"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16-08-01, 07:10 PM	#23
Ramona_A_Stone Formal Ball Proof Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 2,948	First of all, Postulate 4 of 'the Kalenuniverse', which has been around awhile and which I've mentioned here before, predicts that "the three space dimensions may possess a decelerated expansion or, instead, *time may be slowing* to produce the observed cosmic red shift. In either case the velocity of light would be decreasing." A fundamental problem in physics stems from the fact that experimental results can be described either in terms of waves or particles. The two desrcriptions appear to be mathematically equivalent but conceptually are at odds with each other. Specifically, converting from the wave to the particle concept, which is usually done when measurement data is incorporated into wave theory, sometimes violates the velocity C limit of special relativity. Electromagnetic waves are emitted from accelerated charge in fixed quantum increments (photons) They radiate, expanding through space, and are then instantly absorbed as (apparently small) particle-like energy units. Heisenberg proposed these particle-like (photon) emissions with his quantum theory in which a photon's energy is E = hf - where f is the photon's frequency and h is an electron's angular momentum, the action h is a very small effort, equal to 10 to the 27th power erg second. (It would take about 10 to the 27th power h's for a fly to flap its wings for one second.) Einstein proposed an equivalent unit photon absorption in his paper on the photoelectric effect. The wave equation: Imagine a single photon emitted from an electron near the moon, The photon's wavefront expands radially, somewhat analogous to a sound wave but through the vacuum of space with transverse vibrations of the EM-field in the plane of the wavefront. A little over one second later when the wavefront reaches the earth it has presumably spread over an area of billions of square miles. If a human happens to be looking at the moon, about one square centimeter of this large area is intercepted by his eye. Then a very strange thing occurs: all of the energy of one photon, in spite of its expansion over such a wide area, is instantly recieved by the eye. The instantaneous reception of a large photon by a tiny reciever is called the collapse of the wave equation. In addition to the seeming preposterous nature of this concept there is the difficulty that according to relativity nothing can move faster than the speed of light - yet this would require that something do so. Most scientists do not believe that the photon expands and collapses like that. Instead, they say it moves as a tiny wave packet particle in a straight line from its source to its sink. They assume that the Schrodinger wave equation is not a description of the photon, but rather represents a probability function that tells where the particle may be at any instant. Max Born first suggested that the photon may have complex frequency beats that confine it to a small wave packet volume and that the wave equation is not a real picture of the photon waves but instead gives the probability of locating the particle. However, no one has fully accepted the probability interpretation of the wave function.... Another difficulty is that eyes anywhere on the moonward side of the earth can pick up moon-source photons with identical wavefront cycles. This is so for long baseline interferometry observations. Radio antennas at various places on the earth pointed in the same direction and correlated in time have the resolution of one big eye. The same technique can be used with adjacent optical telescopes. Each astronomical pohton appears to have components at least as big as the earth. If not, the wavefront is a strange collection of tiny nearly identical phase correlated wavepackets. If the photon started as a series of expanding continuous wavefronts, how could it get so fragmented yet stay the same? ...

16-08-01, 07:37 PM	#25
eclectica Posts: n/a	Many photons are coming into the eye at once, in the square centimeter of area. If you are only half the distance away from the moon (120,000 miles), then you will be receiving four times the amount of photons than usual. Or, if you have eight eyes instead of two while on Earth, the effect will be the same. More light will make the image appear larger, brighter, and closer. I suppose if one had an eye the same size as Earth, then one would be able to see from the Earth what one would see with the human eye, while standing on the moon. Most images we see appear to be two dimensional. If we were to look at one photon, then it would be a singular pinpoint of light, in other words, no dimensional. It wouldn't be a perfect point, but it would become more precise as the freqency or energy increased, right? One photon can not depict the image of the moon perfectly, but then again, neither can all of the photons which come off of it.