EM photons travel at the speed of light, c, from the moment of their creation, to the moment of their extinction. From the perspective of a photon, time does not pass. You could even say that to a photon, time does not exist. So there is nothing to distinguish the photon's creation from its extinction, or any other point along its path.

From the perspective of a light photon, it exists at all points along its path simultaneously as well as the creation and extinction being indistinguishable. In fact, the concept of "simultaneity" has no meaning from the perspective of a photon.

It rather hurts to think about.

These thoughts came from thinking about how curved space makes a photon curve. The images of a sheet warped in three dimensions showing the path of a photon, has never been clear to me, because it is warped in a their dimension which is not realistic. I wish they would simply draw it as a plane. But then the lines bend toward the large mass and back out again, not showing the path of any object of photon.

BTW, anyone know why Bosons do not have antiparticles? I didn't realize that until now.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On a sunny day (Wed, 5 Oct 2022 07:01:19 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Ricky
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<9dad0255-4928-4e42-b616-9a45eeb1546fn@googlegroups.com>:

>EM photons travel at the speed of light, c, from the moment of their creation,
>to the moment of their extinction. From the perspective of a photon, time
>does not pass. You could even say that to a photon, time does not exist.
> So there is nothing to distinguish the photon's creation from its extinction,
>or any other point along its path.

A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon'
At that time many objected to his idea.
'photon' is just a mathematical construct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct
HE PROVIDES NO MECHANISM.
It is as bad as epicycles were before they _admitted_ earth and other planets orbited the sun.
In MY view LOl, and since it seems to have been shown that gravity propagates at the speed of light,
the Le Sage theory provides a MECHANISM
*This is important, because electrickety without electrons makes no sense
starting at explaining the vacuum diode

So I think (well hehe) that EM radiation may just be a state of the Le Sage particle.
If you think all that through you can see and actually predict a lot of nature.
Maybe some generations are needed to get rid of the Albert E. parroting epicycles kwantuumers.
In a PMT we cry 'photon detected' when an electron is kicked lose from an atom
and then hits the dynode causing to emit more and more at every dynode.
But it is, if you look at the electron in orbit around an atom,
like a ball on a wire connected to a pole in the water,
We cry 'electron' at the point where so much energy is applied by the waves that the wire breaks
But the water molecules are orders of magnitude smaller... and have their own laws..
in the same way Le Sage type particles are real particles like water molecules.
Einstein was a failure uniting graffiti :-) with the other forces of nature and caused idiot
adventures and his songs are almost a dogma worse than the church and earth at the center.

So...
Maybe I am wrong, but then again we aliens are not supposed to help OK forget it.

For observations:
If Le Sage particles exist and originate in processes in stars then the universe will push itself apart (seems to be the case);
If Le Sage particles exist then heavenly bodies should heat up (see Pluto for example).
If Le Sage particles exist then there is a maximum to gravity (all particles intercepted) and the black hole singularity crap is solved.
If Le Sage particles are a carrier of EM radiation then gravity moves at the speed of light (seems to have been confirmed).
Forget all the crap about jumping in the future by going faster etc...
Mamaticians always like to do a divide by zero and like to work with equations that are an incomplete description of reality
and then sell their crap as the ultimate truth,, String theory comes to mind.
If Le Sage particle exist you will see that the pendulum moves slower where there are less (because intercepted by some object
like on the earth surface), and matter is less compressed, the pendulum becomes longer, 'time is slower in a gravity well' this is observed
There are many more things that can be explained that way
It is relatively simple to make predictions from Le Sage theory and do some experiments to verify those.

So I stick to that Le Sage mechanism until I see something better 'if there is something better,'
Without a mechanism advancement is dead. Like Albert E. is!

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:

> A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon'
> At that time many objected to his idea.
> 'photon' is just a mathematical construct.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
>
> Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct
> HE PROVIDES NO MECHANISM.

There's a selection rule, in spectroscopy, that requires photon interaction with matter
to add or take away ONE unit of angular momentum. If 'a photon' were just
an abstraction, that rule would make no sense; you could dump an arbitrary amount of
spin into the electromagnetic field.

Or, you could get a zero-angular-momentum excitation of an electron.

But, that doesn't happen. The EM field has to be quantized into spinny bits or
the whole of atomic physics has to be reformulated somehow.
Mechanism is exactly what the photon IS, in all our experiments with light quanta; it
isn't lacking, it's called 'photon'.

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:09:29 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon'
> > At that time many objected to his idea.
> > 'photon' is just a mathematical construct.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
> >
> > Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct
> > HE PROVIDES NO MECHANISM.
> There's a selection rule, in spectroscopy, that requires photon interaction with matter
> to add or take away ONE unit of angular momentum. If 'a photon' were just
> an abstraction, that rule would make no sense; you could dump an arbitrary amount of
> spin into the electromagnetic field.
>
> Or, you could get a zero-angular-momentum excitation of an electron.
>
> But, that doesn't happen. The EM field has to be quantized into spinny bits or
> the whole of atomic physics has to be reformulated somehow.
> Mechanism is exactly what the photon IS, in all our experiments with light quanta; it
> isn't lacking, it's called 'photon'.

You don't need to get that specialized to show photons of light must exist. But the Jan Man is never going to accept any of it. He's been seasoning his mushrooms with Le Sage and marjoram. Hmmm... that's making me hungry.

The irony is that while Jan Man is negging on Einstein for his paper on the photo-electric effect, that is actually what earned a Nobel prize for, in spite of his work on relativity. It's especially ironic that Jan Man is complaining that Einstein didn't need to conjure up an artificial mechanism, such as the æther or Le Sage spices.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On a sunny day (Wed, 5 Oct 2022 18:09:25 -0700 (PDT)) it happened whit3rd
<whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
<4811f5c4-8831-428c-9d40-7962c9b18ed4n@googlegroups.com>:

>On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
>> A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon'
>> At that time many objected to his idea.
>> 'photon' is just a mathematical construct.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
>>
>> Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct
>> HE PROVIDES NO MECHANISM.
>
>There's a selection rule, in spectroscopy, that requires photon interaction with matter
>to add or take away ONE unit of angular momentum. If 'a photon' were just
>an abstraction, that rule would make no sense; you could dump an arbitrary amount of
>spin into the electromagnetic field.
>
>Or, you could get a zero-angular-momentum excitation of an electron.
>
>But, that doesn't happen. The EM field has to be quantized into spinny bits or
>the whole of atomic physics has to be reformulated somehow.
>Mechanism is exactly what the photon IS, in all our experiments with light quanta; it
>isn't lacking, it's called 'photon'.

If EM waves are a state of Le Sage particles then always there is interaction with matter.
That idea predicts it from basics.
But at a much finer (smaller) level.
The quantization is at the size of Le Sage particles.
Photon is just related to electron charge. Even Planck pointed out that
we should not take his constant as a basic thing.

The HOLE of atomic fishsicks is what job creation at CERN is all about.
God particle, theory of everything, every few years a new song.
Nothing really useful to show for it.
Einstein was a failure

parrotting ..... no end .... understanding?
You humming beans.. so silly

Alien

On 06/10/2022 02:50, Ricky wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 9:09:29 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 10:59:04 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A guy named Albert E. came up with 'photon' At that time many
>>> objected to his idea. 'photon' is just a mathematical construct.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
>>>
>>> Albert E.'s theory is just a mathematical construct HE PROVIDES
>>> NO MECHANISM.
>> There's a selection rule, in spectroscopy, that requires photon
>> interaction with matter to add or take away ONE unit of angular
>> momentum. If 'a photon' were just an abstraction, that rule would
>> make no sense; you could dump an arbitrary amount of spin into the
>> electromagnetic field.
>>
>> Or, you could get a zero-angular-momentum excitation of an
>> electron.
>>
>> But, that doesn't happen. The EM field has to be quantized into
>> spinny bits or the whole of atomic physics has to be reformulated
>> somehow. Mechanism is exactly what the photon IS, in all our
>> experiments with light quanta; it isn't lacking, it's called
>> 'photon'.
>
> You don't need to get that specialized to show photons of light must
> exist. But the Jan Man is never going to accept any of it. He's
> been seasoning his mushrooms with Le Sage and marjoram. Hmmm...
> that's making me hungry.

It is quite possible though that the photon wave duality that we teach
at university now is just a weak field limiting version of a more
complete and complicated theory that we just haven't found yet.

That is a theory as far beyond what we have now as present quantum
theory is above the original Rutherford-Bohr quantisation model and the
empirical Rydberg formulae that their model was first able to explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

Breakthroughs in theoretical physics tend to occur with novel
mathematics - string theory held promise for a while but I suspect
Clifford algebras and Conway's spinors may eventually win the day.

Only time will tell - it will be obvious once someone makes the next
breakthrough that it will all make more sense (at least to physicists).

> The irony is that while Jan Man is negging on Einstein for his paper
> on the photo-electric effect, that is actually what earned a Nobel
> prize for, in spite of his work on relativity. It's especially
> ironic that Jan Man is complaining that Einstein didn't need to
> conjure up an artificial mechanism, such as the æther or Le Sage
> spices.

Quantisation of energy vs time is a bit funny though.

They are a conjugate pair in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle just
like with position and momentum.

I always found it a bit odd thinking about photons (dish to dish
correlations) at radio frequencies. The mathematics is identical to
visible light but to have a well defined frequency you *must* have a
certain number of wavelengths in your photon wave packet. The lengths of
narrowband photons do get a bit silly at 1m (30MHz) wavelength.

After all we could choose the receiver bandwidth at reception time but
each photon was emitted from the source billions of years ago. I came to
the conclusion that thinking about photons in the RF band was unhelpful.

The tension between a specific defined frequency of photon and the
extent of the wavetrain in spacetime to support it remains though.

Ultra-short laser pulses now have FWHM of around 0.5THz.

https://www.rp-photonics.com/ultrashort_pulses.html

And they are getting ever shorter with cunning mode-locked laser
designs. I presume one of the thing JL's company facilitate.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 2022-10-06 11:33, Martin Brown wrote:
[Snip!]
> I always found it a bit odd thinking about photons (dish to dish
> correlations) at radio frequencies. The mathematics is identical to
> visible light but to have a well defined frequency you *must* have a
> certain number of wavelengths in your photon wave packet. The lengths
> of narrowband photons do get a bit silly at 1m (30MHz) wavelength.
>
> After all we could choose the receiver bandwidth at reception time
> but each photon was emitted from the source billions of years ago. I
> came to the conclusion that thinking about photons in the RF band was
> unhelpful.
>
> The tension between a specific defined frequency of photon and the
> extent of the wavetrain in spacetime to support it remains though.
>
> [...]

The problem stems from the idea of a photon as a particle that
travels from a source to a detector. That leads to all sorts of
weird ideas and paradoxes. All these problems vanish if you
think of a photon as an interaction between matter and waves.
Such interactions are naturally quantized because *matter* is
quantized. Waves, or more generally fields, need not be.

Of course, we have no way to directly observe the continuity
of waves, because all our detectors rely on interactions with
matter.

Jeroen Belleman

P.S. At 30MHz, the wavelength is 10m.

On 06/10/2022 12:37, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>
> P.S. At 30MHz, the wavelength is 10m.

Fence post error in my mental arithmetic - I usually observed in the
radar bands between 2.7GHz and 31GHz.

Most impressive image I ever made was VLA Cass A epoch 1984 at 5GHz
(6cm). It was the longest observing time spent on a single object.
(there is now a movie of it expanding of which that is the first frame)

https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/332250/view/radio-photo-of-supernova-remnant-cassiopeia-a

I don't like the official stock image though - too soot and whitewash
for my taste it has lost all the intricate nebulosity inside. The raw
image was originally made at 2048 square which was right at the limits
of what was possible on the AIPS hardware at the time.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Fri, 7 Oct 2022 11:02:32 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <thotfq$lku$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On 06/10/2022 12:37, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>
>> P.S. At 30MHz, the wavelength is 10m.
>
>Fence post error in my mental arithmetic - I usually observed in the
>radar bands between 2.7GHz and 31GHz.
>
>Most impressive image I ever made was VLA Cass A epoch 1984 at 5GHz
>(6cm). It was the longest observing time spent on a single object.
>(there is now a movie of it expanding of which that is the first frame)
>
>https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/332250/view/radio-photo-of-supernova-remnant-cassiopeia-a
>
>I don't like the official stock image though - too soot and whitewash
>for my taste it has lost all the intricate nebulosity inside. The raw
>image was originally made at 2048 square which was right at the limits
>of what was possible on the AIPS hardware at the time.

I found this today o nspace.com:
https://www.space.com/high-velocity-clouds-supernova-ursae-majoris

On 2022-10-07 12:02, Martin Brown wrote:
[...]
>
> Most impressive image I ever made was VLA Cass A epoch 1984 at 5GHz
> (6cm). It was the longest observing time spent on a single object.
> (there is now a movie of it expanding of which that is the first
> frame)
>
> https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/332250/view/radio-photo-of-supernova-remnant-cassiopeia-a
>
> I don't like the official stock image though - too soot and
> whitewash for my taste it has lost all the intricate nebulosity
> inside. The raw image was originally made at 2048 square which was
> right at the limits of what was possible on the AIPS hardware at the
> time.
>

Nice work! Congrats. Do you have a link to that movie? The one I
found seems to be in the X-ray domain.

Jeroen Belleman

On 07/10/2022 14:13, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2022-10-07 12:02, Martin Brown wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Most impressive image I ever made was VLA Cass A epoch 1984 at 5GHz
>> (6cm). It was the longest observing time spent on a single object.
>> (there is now a movie of it expanding of which that is the first
>> frame)
>>
>> https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/332250/view/radio-photo-of-supernova-remnant-cassiopeia-a
>>
>>  I don't like the official stock image though - too soot and
>> whitewash for my taste it has lost all the intricate nebulosity
>> inside. The raw image was originally made at 2048 square which was
>> right at the limits of what was possible on the AIPS hardware at the
>> time.
>>
>
> Nice work! Congrats. Do you have a link to that movie? The one I
> found seems to be in the X-ray domain.

The trick we used was to operate the VLA slightly out of band to observe
at 4 frequencies with an average of 5GHz but scaled so that we pushed
the imaging field to be 4x bigger than the instrument was designed for.
Oversampling 4x moves the diffraction rings out by the same factor. The
correlator gain settings were interesting too it is rather bright.

The movie seems to have gone. I suspect the person who maintained it may
have moved into Xrays and I can't see it anywhere online now. They were
also involved in the Chandra 3D modelling of Cass A. I'm surprised that
it is no longer online - I expected them to add another frame every ~5
years for as long as the VLA was still operational at that frequency.

My ancient page about my part in those observations is online here:
https://www.nezumidemon.co.uk/astro/radio/cassa.html

But the link to the movie link now points at thin air.
The wayback machine has only one snapshot which failed "Not found" :(

I might have a personal copy of it in my old archives but it will take
some finding as I can't remember what the filename is called. I will ask
the person who used to maintain it and cross fingers for a reply.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

> The movie seems to have gone. I suspect the person who maintained it may
> have moved into Xrays and I can't see it anywhere online now.

Internet Archive Wayback Machine?
https://archive.org/

--
MRM

On 12/10/2022 18:27, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The movie seems to have gone. I suspect the person who maintained it may
>> have moved into Xrays and I can't see it anywhere online now.
>
> Internet Archive Wayback Machine?
> https://archive.org/

Sadly it only has one copy of a 404 not found response.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

> On 12/10/2022 18:27, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
>> Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> The movie seems to have gone. I suspect the person who maintained it may
>>> have moved into Xrays and I can't see it anywhere online now.
>>
>> Internet Archive Wayback Machine?
>> https://archive.org/
>
> Sadly it only has one copy of a 404 not found response.

It may not have been online long enough. I guess it takes a while to scan
though the internet, especially if you don't have the number of servers that
google has.

--
MRM

On 13/10/2022 00:33, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/2022 18:27, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
>>> Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The movie seems to have gone. I suspect the person who maintained it may
>>>> have moved into Xrays and I can't see it anywhere online now.
>>>
>>> Internet Archive Wayback Machine?
>>> https://archive.org/
>>
>> Sadly it only has one copy of a 404 not found response.
>
> It may not have been online long enough. I guess it takes a while to scan
> though the internet, especially if you don't have the number of servers that
> google has.

It was there for decades but the researcher hosting the MPEG has moved
on and the movie hasn't :( I didn't imagine it. I found the paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234201111_Cas_A_-_the_movie

Unfortunately the data products link on Simbad also leads nowhere :(
I suspect most of them have retired by now and X-rays are sexier.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>> It may not have been online long enough. I guess it takes a while to
>> scan though the internet, especially if you don't have the number of
>> servers that google has.
>
> It was there for decades but the researcher hosting the MPEG has moved
> on and the movie hasn't :( I didn't imagine it. I found the paper:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234201111_Cas_A_-_the_movie
>
> Unfortunately the data products link on Simbad also leads nowhere :(
> I suspect most of them have retired by now and X-rays are sexier.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Martin Brown

The wayback machine was launched in 2001.

Cas A - the movie is dated April 1996, so it was not captured in the archive.

--
MRM

On 13/10/2022 12:32, Mike Monett VE3BTI wrote:
> Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> It may not have been online long enough. I guess it takes a while to
>>> scan though the internet, especially if you don't have the number of
>>> servers that google has.
>>
>> It was there for decades but the researcher hosting the MPEG has moved
>> on and the movie hasn't :( I didn't imagine it. I found the paper:
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234201111_Cas_A_-_the_movie
>>
>> Unfortunately the data products link on Simbad also leads nowhere :(
>> I suspect most of them have retired by now and X-rays are sexier.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
> The wayback machine was launched in 2001.
>
> Cas A - the movie is dated April 1996, so it was not captured in the archive.

But it was still around until at least 2012.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>> The wayback machine was launched in 2001.
>>
>> Cas A - the movie is dated April 1996, so it was not captured in the
>> archive.
>
> But it was still around until at least 2012.

Then why was it not captured in the archives?

--
MRM