"A photon is a tiny particle that comprises waves of electromagnetic radiation.
As shown by Maxwell, photons are just electric fields traveling through space.
Photons have no charge, no resting mass, and travel at the speed of light."

"The definition of a photon is a particle that has energy and movement; but,
it does not have mass or electrical charge."

"The photon is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the
electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light and
radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons
are massless, so they always move at the speed of light in vacuum,
299792458 m/s (or about 186,282 mi/s)."

I think the problem we're having is that I VISUALIZE photons while others
here just recite what what they read somewhere. I VISUALIZE how a
photon gets through or is blocked by a polarized lens. I VISUALIZE how
a photon gets through the double slit experiment. I VISUALIZE what
a photon looks like as it moves through space. I VISUALIZE how a photon
interacts with an atom.

Unfortunately, this forum doesn't have any means of showing illustrations.
Here's an illustration of what I VISUALIZE a photon as looking like as it
comes straight toward me: https://i.imgur.com/Wdo94jS.gif
Here's a side angle I saw on the internet: https://i.imgur.com/rBI12lC.jpg
Here's another way to visualize a photon: https://i.imgur.com/ohQtS4N.jpg

Ed

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 9:32:22 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> (snip repetitive crap)

That's disgraceful. I carefully correct your misconceptions and provide you with the scientifically accurate explanations of the things you are struggling (unsuccessfully) to understand, and you callously snip and ignore the explanations. What is wrong with you?

> You argue that time dilation IS reciprocal. You CLAIM there are
> experiments which show that. But the experiments you name
> (Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann) do NOT show that...

Yes they do. Your problem is that you don't know what reciprocal time dilation is, so you have no way of knowing whether some experiment demonstrates it or not. Look, consider two identically constructed clocks (A and B) moving uniformly in opposite directions far from any gravitational field variations, and when they pass each other we set them both to read 0. Thereafter we want to compare their rates of elapsed times, but how do we do this?

We obviously need to compare their readings "at the same time", but we can't just use the clocks themselves to define "at the same time", because then we would be comparing clock A's reading when it reads 10 seconds with clock B's reading when it reads 10 seconds, and hence never any time dilation. Obviously this isn't what we mean by "at the same time". But what, then, do we mean?

If we say the event at which A reads 10 seconds is "at the same time" as the event at which B reads 9 seconds, then we would say B is running slow... but conversely if we say the event at which B reads 10 seconds is "at the same time" as the event at which A reads 9 seconds, then we would say A is running slow. Which (if either) of these definitions of "at the same time" is correct? This question is essentially asking how we define our coordinate time, as distinct from the proper time showing on the clocks. Clearly these are different concepts, because we have unequal proper times at equal coordinate times (e.g., we say the proper time of 10 sec on clock A is "at the same time" as the proper time of 9 on clock B).

Now, we can define coordinates in any way we like, but there is a distinguished class of coordinate systems, call inertia-based coordinates, that are special because the descriptions of physical laws take their simplest homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of these coordinates. The relationship between these coordinates, and the meaning of "at the same time", depends on the outcome of the Kaufmann type experiments, which show the inertia of energy. Since these experiments show that the inertia of a particle depends on its kinetic energy, the inertia-based coordinates have mutually skewed time coordinates. This signifies that, in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which A is at rest, the events A=10 and B=9 occur "at the same time", whereas in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which B is at rest, the events A=9 and B=10 occur "at the same time". That's why those experiments substantiate the correctness of reciprocal time dilation.

> you IGNORE all the experiments which show that time dilation is NOT reciprocal.

Once again, none of the experiments you cite are valid counter-examples to reciprocal time dilation between uniformly moving clocks in the absence of significant differences in gravitational potential. All the experiments you cite either involve differences in gravitational potential, or non-inertial motions, or else they do indeed involve reciprocal time dilation.

Remember, you tried to describe a thought experiment (involving pulsars) that you believed would disprove reciprocal time dilation, but you learned that in fact it was perfectly consistent with reciprocal time dilation. You have no excuse for continuing to post claims that you now know are false.

> Experiments show that if you fire one photon at a time through the double-slit
> experiment, you eventually get the same pattern on the wall. That indicates
> that the oscillations of the photon determine what path it will take through the slits.

No, an oscillating particle would go through one slit or the other, and the point of reception after going through one slit would be the same, regardless of whether the other slit was open or not. You can't get interference effects from a single particle, whether it is oscillating or not. I gave you the actual explanation, and you ignored it.

> The FACT that a photon oscillates is what CAUSES it to take
> different paths though the 2 slits, all depending upon what is
> happening with the photon when it hits the experiment.

Are you claiming that your oscillating particle passes through both slits? How does it do that? Are you saying the interaction is a superposition of the particle following two different paths? If so, then you are describing quantum electrodynamics, and your "oscillation" is superfluous.

> > > The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE.
> >
> > That's senseless, because the electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so you can't say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields! Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.
>
> OR your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.

No, quantum theory is perfectly rational and logical. Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical (and your behavior is shameful).

> You write BELIEFS.

Well, anything that is in the mind of anyone is a belief, but there are rational and logical beliefs (such as in modern scientific theories), and then there are irrational and illogical beliefs, such as yours. What's bad about irrational beliefs is not that they are beliefs, but that they are irrational.

> "The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons." WHAT electromagnetic field?

The electromagnetic field of charged particles (electrons, protons, etc). Photons are massless and chargeless bosons that mediate the electromagnetic forces between charged particles.

> The only electric and magnetic fields a photon has as it moves through space
> are the oscillating fields it CONSISTS of. Without those oscillating fields, THERE IS NO PHOTON.

No, your fantasies have no relation to the facts of electrodynamics. A photon doesn't "have" electromagnetic fields, a photon mediates the electromagnetic force between charged particles, so in essense the electromagnetic fields are the result of the actions of photons.

> I think the problem we're having is that I VISUALIZE photons...

Your attempts to visualize things are all failures. For example, you completely failed to account for simple interference, e.g., are you claiming your particle goes through both slits in a two-slit experiment? Which one does it go through first? Or does it split in half and then re-combine? You see, your beliefs are completely incapable of accounting for even the most elementary phenomena of light.

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 10:41:45 AM UTC-7, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 9:32:22 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > (snip repetitive crap)
>
> That's disgraceful. I carefully correct your misconceptions and provide you with the scientifically accurate explanations of the things you are struggling (unsuccessfully) to understand, and you callously snip and ignore the explanations. What is wrong with you?
> > You argue that time dilation IS reciprocal. You CLAIM there are
> > experiments which show that. But the experiments you name
> > (Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann) do NOT show that...
>
> Yes they do. Your problem is that you don't know what reciprocal time dilation is, so you have no way of knowing whether some experiment demonstrates it or not. Look, consider two identically constructed clocks (A and B) moving uniformly in opposite directions far from any gravitational field variations, and when they pass each other we set them both to read 0. Thereafter we want to compare their rates of elapsed times, but how do we do this?
>
> We obviously need to compare their readings "at the same time", but we can't just use the clocks themselves to define "at the same time", because then we would be comparing clock A's reading when it reads 10 seconds with clock B's reading when it reads 10 seconds, and hence never any time dilation.. Obviously this isn't what we mean by "at the same time". But what, then, do we mean?
>
> If we say the event at which A reads 10 seconds is "at the same time" as the event at which B reads 9 seconds, then we would say B is running slow.... but conversely if we say the event at which B reads 10 seconds is "at the same time" as the event at which A reads 9 seconds, then we would say A is running slow. Which (if either) of these definitions of "at the same time" is correct? This question is essentially asking how we define our coordinate time, as distinct from the proper time showing on the clocks. Clearly these are different concepts, because we have unequal proper times at equal coordinate times (e.g., we say the proper time of 10 sec on clock A is "at the same time" as the proper time of 9 on clock B).
>
> Now, we can define coordinates in any way we like, but there is a distinguished class of coordinate systems, call inertia-based coordinates, that are special because the descriptions of physical laws take their simplest homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of these coordinates. The relationship between these coordinates, and the meaning of "at the same time", depends on the outcome of the Kaufmann type experiments, which show the inertia of energy. Since these experiments show that the inertia of a particle depends on its kinetic energy, the inertia-based coordinates have mutually skewed time coordinates. This signifies that, in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which A is at rest, the events A=10 and B=9 occur "at the same time", whereas in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which B is at rest, the events A=9 and B=10 occur "at the same time". That's why those experiments substantiate the correctness of reciprocal time dilation.
> > you IGNORE all the experiments which show that time dilation is NOT reciprocal.
> Once again, none of the experiments you cite are valid counter-examples to reciprocal time dilation between uniformly moving clocks in the absence of significant differences in gravitational potential. All the experiments you cite either involve differences in gravitational potential, or non-inertial motions, or else they do indeed involve reciprocal time dilation.
>
> Remember, you tried to describe a thought experiment (involving pulsars) that you believed would disprove reciprocal time dilation, but you learned that in fact it was perfectly consistent with reciprocal time dilation. You have no excuse for continuing to post claims that you now know are false.
> > Experiments show that if you fire one photon at a time through the double-slit
> > experiment, you eventually get the same pattern on the wall. That indicates
> > that the oscillations of the photon determine what path it will take through the slits.
> No, an oscillating particle would go through one slit or the other, and the point of reception after going through one slit would be the same, regardless of whether the other slit was open or not. You can't get interference effects from a single particle, whether it is oscillating or not. I gave you the actual explanation, and you ignored it.
> > The FACT that a photon oscillates is what CAUSES it to take
> > different paths though the 2 slits, all depending upon what is
> > happening with the photon when it hits the experiment.
> Are you claiming that your oscillating particle passes through both slits? How does it do that? Are you saying the interaction is a superposition of the particle following two different paths? If so, then you are describing quantum electrodynamics, and your "oscillation" is superfluous.
> > > > The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE.
> > >
> > > That's senseless, because the electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so you can't say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields! Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.
> >
> > OR your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.
> No, quantum theory is perfectly rational and logical. Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical (and your behavior is shameful).
>
> > You write BELIEFS.
>
> Well, anything that is in the mind of anyone is a belief, but there are rational and logical beliefs (such as in modern scientific theories), and then there are irrational and illogical beliefs, such as yours. What's bad about irrational beliefs is not that they are beliefs, but that they are irrational.
> > "The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons." WHAT electromagnetic field?
> The electromagnetic field of charged particles (electrons, protons, etc). Photons are massless and chargeless bosons that mediate the electromagnetic forces between charged particles.
> > The only electric and magnetic fields a photon has as it moves through space
> > are the oscillating fields it CONSISTS of. Without those oscillating fields, THERE IS NO PHOTON.
> No, your fantasies have no relation to the facts of electrodynamics. A photon doesn't "have" electromagnetic fields, a photon mediates the electromagnetic force between charged particles, so in essense the electromagnetic fields are the result of the actions of photons.
>
> > I think the problem we're having is that I VISUALIZE photons...
>
> Your attempts to visualize things are all failures. For example, you completely failed to account for simple interference, e.g., are you claiming your particle goes through both slits in a two-slit experiment? Which one does it go through first? Or does it split in half and then re-combine? You see, your beliefs are completely incapable of accounting for even the most elementary phenomena of light.

If time dilation is reciprocal then would not clocks be the same instead?

Mitchell Raemsch

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 6:38:54 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> How many Cs atoms are in a clock?
>
> Probably millions.
>
>> How do they watch one of them?
>
> They don't. They watch all of them.
>
>> How could any machine count a nano difference?
>
> They don't count or measure size. They measure its energy.
>
>> How is the one Cs atom changing in size?
>
> Its size isn't measured. It loses an electron, which causes it to
> lose energy.

Mangled. Try again.

> They can separate low energy photons from high
> energy photons, and they can measure what percentage of the
> total photons are low energy.

Mangled. Try again.

> When most of the photons have
> been changed to low energy,

Mangled. Try again.

> then they know they are using
> photons that oscillate 9,192,631,770 times per second to cause
> the changes.

Mangled. Try again.

> And they can use that to set the clock so that it
> "ticks" 9,192,631,770 times per second.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:41:45 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 9:32:22 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > (snip repetitive crap)
>
> That's disgraceful. I carefully correct your misconceptions and provide you with the scientifically accurate explanations of the things you are struggling (unsuccessfully) to understand, and you callously snip and ignore the explanations. What is wrong with you?
> > You argue that time dilation IS reciprocal. You CLAIM there are
> > experiments which show that. But the experiments you name
> > (Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann) do NOT show that...
>
> Yes they do. Your problem is that you don't know what reciprocal time dilation is, so you have no way of knowing whether some experiment demonstrates it or not. Look, consider two identically constructed clocks (A and B) moving uniformly in opposite directions far from any gravitational field variations, and when they pass each other we set them both to read 0. Thereafter we want to compare their rates of elapsed times, but how do we do this?
>
> We obviously need to compare their readings "at the same time", but we can't just use the clocks themselves to define "at the same time", because then we would be comparing clock A's reading when it reads 10 seconds with clock B's reading when it reads 10 seconds, and hence never any time dilation.. Obviously this isn't what we mean by "at the same time". But what, then, do we mean?

You do NOT need to compare readings "at the same time."
You CANNOT compare readings at the same time unless both
clocks are in the same location. CLOCKS MEASURE TIME, so
they also measure DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF TIME when one
clock is moving faster than the other.

You are creating a FICTITIOUS situation in order to validate your
screwball mathematics.

(snip more repetitious crap)

> > Experiments show that if you fire one photon at a time through the double-slit
> > experiment, you eventually get the same pattern on the wall. That indicates
> > that the oscillations of the photon determine what path it will take through the slits.
> No, an oscillating particle would go through one slit or the other, and the point of reception after going through one slit would be the same, regardless of whether the other slit was open or not. You can't get interference effects from a single particle, whether it is oscillating or not. I gave you the actual explanation, and you ignored it.

No, an oscillating particle will be affected by the slits in MANY
DIFFERENT ways. How can you possibly believe that every photon
is going to go through a slit without any problem? Why don't some
photons hit the bar between the slits? Why don't some hit the area
outside of the slits? Why don't some graze the slits as they pass
through?

> > The FACT that a photon oscillates is what CAUSES it to take
> > different paths though the 2 slits, all depending upon what is
> > happening with the photon when it hits the experiment.
> Are you claiming that your oscillating particle passes through both slits? How does it do that? Are you saying the interaction is a superposition of the particle following two different paths? If so, then you are describing quantum electrodynamics, and your "oscillation" is superfluous.

NO! I am NOT saying that a single photon passes through both
slits. I'm saying that MOST photons don't even go through either
slit on the first try. They hit some part of the device, get absorbed
and then re-emitted. That might happen a hundred times before
the photon finally gets through ONE of the slits.

> > > > The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE.
> > >
> > > That's senseless, because the electromagnetic field is mediated by photons, so you can't say that photons consist of electromagnetic fields! Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.
> >
> > OR your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical.
> No, quantum theory is perfectly rational and logical. Your beliefs are completely irrational and illogical (and your behavior is shameful).
>
> > You write BELIEFS.
>
> Well, anything that is in the mind of anyone is a belief, but there are rational and logical beliefs (such as in modern scientific theories), and then there are irrational and illogical beliefs, such as yours. What's bad about irrational beliefs is not that they are beliefs, but that they are irrational.
> > "The electromagnetic field is mediated by photons." WHAT electromagnetic field?
> The electromagnetic field of charged particles (electrons, protons, etc). Photons are massless and chargeless bosons that mediate the electromagnetic forces between charged particles.

But those "charged particles" could be a trillion miles away from each other.
And there is no "mediation." There is just absorption and re-emission or
absorption without re-emission, depending upon the type of atom it hits.

(snip more repetitious crap)

> > I think the problem we're having is that I VISUALIZE photons...
>
> Your attempts to visualize things are all failures. For example, you completely failed to account for simple interference, e.g., are you claiming your particle goes through both slits in a two-slit experiment? Which one does it go through first? Or does it split in half and then re-combine? You see, your beliefs are completely incapable of accounting for even the most elementary phenomena of light.

My understanding FULLY accounts for all actions by photons. It
just doesn't agree with your BELIEFS. How can you possibly believe
that every photon will get through one of the two slits on the first try?

Ed

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 6:38:54 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> How many Cs atoms are in a clock?
> >
> > Probably millions.
> >
> >> How do they watch one of them?
> >
> > They don't. They watch all of them.
> >
> >> How could any machine count a nano difference?
> >
> > They don't count or measure size. They measure its energy.
> >
> >> How is the one Cs atom changing in size?
> >
> > Its size isn't measured. It loses an electron, which causes it to
> > lose energy.

Where does the electron go to?
where do we measure that order
of the separate electron?

Mitchell Raemsch

> Mangled. Try again.
> > They can separate low energy photons from high
> > energy photons, and they can measure what percentage of the
> > total photons are low energy.
> Mangled. Try again.
> > When most of the photons have
> > been changed to low energy,
> Mangled. Try again.
> > then they know they are using
> > photons that oscillate 9,192,631,770 times per second to cause
> > the changes.
> Mangled. Try again.
> > And they can use that to set the clock so that it
> > "ticks" 9,192,631,770 times per second.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 8/29/21 10:45 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
>> [...]
>
> You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.
>
> You are also learning

Well, given that Townes is just a recent re-nym and this fella’s been
interacting with Ed a long time, there’s nothing for him to learn about Ed.
That’s ok though because Townes is clearly not trying to explain anything
to Ed with any language or presentation that would help Ed to understand
anything. Then one might reasonably ask Townes, for whose benefit does he
think his post serves? About this he doesn’t seem to have an honest answer
to offer, though he might scrounge around for a deflection or two.

Ed’s motivations for posting here are straightforward. Townes Olson has
trouble being straightforward with his.

> that Ed Lake is completely unable to read what you
> write, primarily because he simply does not know what the words you use
> actually mean -- he makes up his own meanings and ascribes them to your
> words. His own opinions sound too loudly in his ear that he cannot hear
> what you actually say. Hopeless.
>
> It is futile to try to teach a pig to sing....
>
> Tom Roberts
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 1:58:52 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ed Lake wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 6:38:54 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> How many Cs atoms are in a clock?
> > >
> > > Probably millions.
> > >
> > >> How do they watch one of them?
> > >
> > > They don't. They watch all of them.
> > >
> > >> How could any machine count a nano difference?
> > >
> > > They don't count or measure size. They measure its energy.
> > >
> > >> How is the one Cs atom changing in size?
> > >
> > > Its size isn't measured. It loses an electron, which causes it to
> > > lose energy.
> Where does the electron go to?
> where do we measure that order
> of the separate electron?

Okay. My mistake. The electron isn't "lost." It just changes its
orbit around the nucleus of the atom. It moves into an unstable
orbit. The clock has the ability to detect which atoms are "stable"
and which are NOT "stable." It separates them, and if all or nearly
all of the atoms are UNstable, then the clock is emitting photons
with the correct frequency and is operating correctly.

Cesium is almost a liquid. Inside the clock the cesium atoms are
heated in an "oven" to turn them into a gas. The gas is piped
into an area where the atoms can get hit by billions of photons.
If most or all of the atoms become unstable because they were
hit, then the clock is perfectly tuned. If most of the atoms do
NOT become unstable, then the clock has to adjust itself to the
right frequency.

Ed

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:45:49 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> You do NOT need to compare readings "at the same time."

If you want to understand what "reciprocal time dilation" means, you need to compare readings on separate clocks "at the same time", because that's what "reciprocal time dilation" refers to.

> You CANNOT compare readings at the same time unless both
> clocks are in the same location.

We can't directly compare them with each other, but we can compare them both with the time of a physically meaningful system of coordinates that covers the entire region. This is precisely what we do when we say, for example, that in terms of the ECI coordinates a clock runs slow when moving at high speed or when at lower elevation. These comparisons apply to spatially separate clocks, by comparing both with the ECI coordinates. Likewise we can make comparisons of the rates of separate clocks in terms of any specified system of inertia-based coordinates. This leads to the result that each clock (in flat spacetime) runs slow in terms of the inertia-based coordinates in which the other is at rest, as explained in detail in the previous post (that you snipped and ignored, as usual).

> You are creating a FICTITIOUS situation in order to validate your
> screwball mathematics.

No, the situations are not fictitious at all, and the predictions match exactly all experimental results.

> How can you possibly believe that every photon is going to go through
> a slit without any problem? Why don't some photons hit the bar between
> the slits?

When I say that your oscillating particle must have gone through one slit or the other, I mean that if it reaches the screen, it must have gone through one or the other, not both. But if each particles (that reaches the screen) goes through just one of the slits, there is no interference. Do you understand this?

> NO! I am NOT saying that a single photon passes through both slits.

Then there is no interference pattern on the screen when both slits are open. So your beliefs are false. Understand?

> > The electromagnetic field of charged particles (electrons, protons, etc). Photons are massless and chargeless bosons that mediate the electromagnetic forces between charged particles.
>
> But those "charged particles" could be a trillion miles away from each other.

Relevance?

> And there is no "mediation." There is just absorption and re-emission or
> absorption without re-emission, depending upon the type of atom it hits.

You contradict yourself. The emissions and absorptions of photons are how they mediate the electromagnetic force.

> > Your attempts to visualize things are all failures. For example, you completely failed to account for simple interference, e.g., are you claiming your particle goes through both slits in a two-slit experiment? Which one does it go through first? Or does it split in half and then re-combine? You see, your beliefs are completely incapable of accounting for even the most elementary phenomena of light.
>
> My understanding FULLY accounts for all actions by photons.

No, as explained above, it does not. If your "photon" reaching the screen has gone through just one of the slits, then why is that "photon" affected by the presence of the other slit? If you just focus on the distribution of receptions for the photons that pass through Slit#1, would that distribution depend on whether Slit#2 was open or closed?

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 2:13:58 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 8/29/21 10:45 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> [...]
> >
> > You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.
> >
> > You are also learning
> Well, given that Townes is just a recent re-nym and this fella’s been
> interacting with Ed a long time, there’s nothing for him to learn about Ed.
> That’s ok though because Townes is clearly not trying to explain anything
> to Ed with any language or presentation that would help Ed to understand
> anything. Then one might reasonably ask Townes, for whose benefit does he
> think his post serves? About this he doesn’t seem to have an honest answer
> to offer, though he might scrounge around for a deflection or two.
>
> Ed’s motivations for posting here are straightforward. Townes Olson has
> trouble being straightforward with his.

Yes. The trick seems to be to VISUALIZE what is happening. I'm an analyst..
I study a situation and try to VISUALIZE what happened. It's like watching
a marble go into the top of a box, and then drops of hot liquid come out of the
bottom of the box. You have to visualize what is going on inside the box.

It seems most people here do NOT visualize what is happening. They only
memorize what they were taught, and they recite that.

If something is taking place where you cannot actually see it happening,
I think you need to visualize what is happening before you can truly understand
the difference between what went into the box and what came out.

What goes into a double slit experiment is PHOTONS. What comes out
is a pattern of dark and light stripes on a wall. You know what the inside
of the box looks like, and you know what goes into the box. You just
need to visualize what happens to the photons inside the box in order
to get what comes out.

Ed

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 2:30:50 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:45:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > You do NOT need to compare readings "at the same time."
> If you want to understand what "reciprocal time dilation" means, you need to compare readings on separate clocks "at the same time", because that's what "reciprocal time dilation" refers to.

Which means "reciprocal time dilation" is JUST NONSENSE, because
you CANNOT compare readings on separate clocks at the same time.

> > You CANNOT compare readings at the same time unless both
> > clocks are in the same location.
> We can't directly compare them with each other, but we can compare them both with the time of a physically meaningful system of coordinates that covers the entire region.

In other words, you do it mathematically and BELIEVE the results of
your math as if it was the word of God.

(snip repetitious crap)

> > How can you possibly believe that every photon is going to go through
> > a slit without any problem? Why don't some photons hit the bar between
> > the slits?
> When I say that your oscillating particle must have gone through one slit or the other, I mean that if it reaches the screen, it must have gone through one or the other, not both. But if each particles (that reaches the screen) goes through just one of the slits, there is no interference. Do you understand this?

I understand that there is usually no interference between photons.

> > NO! I am NOT saying that a single photon passes through both slits.
> Then there is no interference pattern on the screen when both slits are open. So your beliefs are false. Understand?

I understand that YOUR beliefs are false. If you send one photon at a
time through the slits, you will still eventually get the striped pattern.

> > > The electromagnetic field of charged particles (electrons, protons, etc). Photons are massless and chargeless bosons that mediate the electromagnetic forces between charged particles.
> >
> > But those "charged particles" could be a trillion miles away from each other.
> Relevance?

It means "mediation" cannot happen for a long long time. PLUS
"mediation" implies back and forth dialog, which does NOT HAPPEN.

> > And there is no "mediation." There is just absorption and re-emission or
> > absorption without re-emission, depending upon the type of atom it hits..
> You contradict yourself. The emissions and absorptions of photons are how they mediate the electromagnetic force.

You obviously have some different definition of the word "mediate."
Can you describe what you are saying without using "mediate"?

> > > Your attempts to visualize things are all failures. For example, you completely failed to account for simple interference, e.g., are you claiming your particle goes through both slits in a two-slit experiment? Which one does it go through first? Or does it split in half and then re-combine? You see, your beliefs are completely incapable of accounting for even the most elementary phenomena of light.
> >
> > My understanding FULLY accounts for all actions by photons.
> No, as explained above, it does not. If your "photon" reaching the screen has gone through just one of the slits, then why is that "photon" affected by the presence of the other slit? If you just focus on the distribution of receptions for the photons that pass through Slit#1, would that distribution depend on whether Slit#2 was open or closed?

The photon is NOT affected by the presence of the other slit.
You get a different pattern when you have two slits versus one
slit, because IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION. There are
TWO ways for a photon to hit the wall when it can go through either
one of TWO slits, but there is only ONE way for a photon to hit the
wall if there is only a single slit.

Ed

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:13:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.
>
> Then one might reasonably ask Townes, for whose benefit does he
> think his post serves?

You can see that Tom concurs with my explanation, but when did he learn this? Here's a relevant post from earlier this year:

On Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 9:45:21 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>> The phase of a photon doesn't change as it propagates on the null
>>>> interval between the emission event and the absorption event.
>>>
>>> This is wrong... Feynman describes using "arrows" to determine the
>>> probability of something happening... On p27 he says "As long as
>>> the photon moves, the [arrow rotates] (about 36,000 times per inch
>>> for red light) ..."
>>
>> You completely misunderstand. The "arrow" he's referring to on page
>> 27 is the hand of a stopwatch measuring the different optical path
>> lengths (including paths that pass through some layers of glass) in
>> terms of coordinate time, it isn't any evolution of the state of a
>> photon propagating in vacuum along a null interval.
>
>You are right, and I was wrong. Thanks. As you say, Feynman's "arrow" is really
>tracing back to the phase at the instant of emission, not an evolution along the path.
>
>[It took me a while to sort this out....]
>
>I realize how I had this incorrect mental image --
>
>Again, thanks for teaching me something. That's rare enough around here.
>
>Tom Roberts

Crank Ed Lake wrote:
....
> Yes. The trick seems to be to VISUALIZE what is happening. I'm an analyst.

"I know nothing. I am from Barcelona."

LOL.

It's sad to read again about the eternal fight between waves and corpuscles.

Hundred of years wasted in such sterile discussion, until Maxwell (waves, 1864) and Planck
(packetized waves or photons, 1900), mathematically substantiated the basis for both theories.

Then came Dirac (creation and absorption in EM fields composed by "bubbles", 1928-1930, QFT)
whose mathematics increased the complexity of "photons and particles" appearing and disapearing
on his seas or "fields".

The absolute true is that NATURE refuses to give its secrets to the pathetic humans trying to explain
them by LAME mathematical basis, which are completely unsatisfactory and create paradoxes like:
"It's a wave or it's a particle without mass", accordingly to the branch of science, the actors involved
and the outcome of experimental values.

Try to engage in a discussion a RF scientist (there are a lot, involved in hi-tech developments) and
QM/QFT/QED scientist (the same thing apply), about wave or particle nature of light. Probably,
the discussion will end with both involved in an exchange of insults, claiming that the other is a retarded.

Put a RF scientist to explain light emission phenomena and will finish with "gaussian wave packets".

Put a QM/QFT/QED scientist to explain waveguide or fiber optics behavior of photons, and will end
with photons behaving as having wavelength and frequency, obeying 200 years classic physics.

The problem is: there is NOT a satisfactory mathematical model that can explain the dual behavior.

As with Superman motto: "It's a bird. No, it's a plane. No, it's Superman!".

A "Superman" theory is what is missing. And, ironically, it's above any men out there. Not possible for humans
to find a satisfactory explanation. So, each one choose the theory that fits their DATA (not BELIEFS).

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > We can't directly compare them with each other, but we can compare them both with the time of a physically meaningful system of coordinates that covers the entire region.
>
> In other words, you do it mathematically and BELIEVE the results of
> your math as if it was the word of God.

No, that is not an accurate paraphrase. Again, reciprocity of time dilation refers to the rates of elapsed times on each clock in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. That's what it means. If you are not interested in this fact, that's fine, just say you aren't interested, but don't say it is false. It is perfectly true, as confirmed by experiment, and it forms the basis for all the relativistic effects (including the non-reciprocal ones).

> I understand that there is usually no interference between photons.

The interference is not due to different photons interfering with each other, it is due to each photon interfering with itself. That's because the probability of a photon being received at a given event is the magnitude of the sum of the phased amplitudes corresponding to the available paths. Your attempts to "visualize" what is happening do not remotely grasp this, and you cannot account for the observed interference effects.

> I understand that YOUR beliefs are false. If you send one photon at a
> time through the slits, you will still eventually get the striped pattern..

Yes, but according to your "oscillating particle" theory we would not get any interference pattern, because each of your "photons" raching the screen has gone through only one of the slits.

> > > But those "charged particles" could be a trillion miles away from each other.
> >
> > Relevance?
>
> It means "mediation" cannot happen for a long long time.

Relevance?

> PLUS "mediation" implies back and forth dialog...

No, it does not, and in any case virtual photon exchanges are bi-directional.

> Can you describe what you are saying without using "mediate"?

The electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles. It's like if you throw a baseball to someone, and the recoil pushes you back, and when they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This is standard usage for particles mediating forces.

> The photon is NOT affected by the presence of the other slit.

Then how does the interference pattern arise? When one of your "photons" goes through the Left slit while the Right slit is closed, it can land in a particular spot on the screen, but when it goes through the Left slit while the Right slit is open, it can't land in that spot. So, the experimental results (two centuries old) show that the photon is affected by the presence of the other slit. Your task is to explain how it has that effect. Your idea of an oscillating particle can't explain it.

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:13:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.
>>
>> Then one might reasonably ask Townes, for whose benefit does he
>> think his post serves?
>
> You can see that Tom concurs with my explanation, but when did he learn
> this? Here's a relevant post from earlier this year:

And so let’s see. You view yourself, and find it important to show
yourself, as the most knowledgeable person here? Is that the motivation?

>
> On Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 9:45:21 PM UTC-8, tjrob137 wrote:
>>>>> The phase of a photon doesn't change as it propagates on the null
>>>>> interval between the emission event and the absorption event.
>>>>
>>>> This is wrong... Feynman describes using "arrows" to determine the
>>>> probability of something happening... On p27 he says "As long as
>>>> the photon moves, the [arrow rotates] (about 36,000 times per inch
>>>> for red light) ..."
>>>
>>> You completely misunderstand. The "arrow" he's referring to on page
>>> 27 is the hand of a stopwatch measuring the different optical path
>>> lengths (including paths that pass through some layers of glass) in
>>> terms of coordinate time, it isn't any evolution of the state of a
>>> photon propagating in vacuum along a null interval.
>>
>> You are right, and I was wrong. Thanks. As you say, Feynman's "arrow" is really
>> tracing back to the phase at the instant of emission, not an evolution along the path.
>>
>> [It took me a while to sort this out....]
>>
>> I realize how I had this incorrect mental image --
>>
>> Again, thanks for teaching me something. That's rare enough around here.
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 8/29/2021 12:39 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/29/21 10:45 AM, Townes Olson wrote:
>> [...]
>
> You have given an appropriately accurate description of this.
>
> You are also learning that Ed Lake is completely unable to read what you
> write, primarily because he simply does not know what the words you use
> actually mean -- he makes up his own meanings and ascribes them to your
> words. His own opinions sound too loudly in his ear that he cannot hear
> what you actually say. Hopeless.
>
> It is futile to try to teach a pig to sing....

The real problem is that Ed considers his beliefs to be the Word of God,
without ever coming out and saying that. If you read his posts closely,
you'll see him using words such as "FACT" to refer to his own beliefs
while dismissing the statements of others as worthless "beliefs". As in
Ed considers it to be a "fact" that photons oscillate but claims by
others that they don't are valueless "beliefs". Meanwhile, the "beliefs"
of those who argue with Ed are usually based on the actual physics used
by actual physicists, while Ed's beliefs are just that, Ed's beliefs,
not "Facts" or The Word of God, but almost always based on some
misinterpretation of something or other.

(and pointing out his misinterpretation as a misinterpretation almost
always gets dismissed as a "belief" while Ed's actual (mis)belief is a
"FACT" in his mind.

How many Cs atoms are in a clock if you only need one?
and how do we watch it to measure what change?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 2:09:38 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Then one might reasonably ask Townes, for whose benefit does he
> >> think his post serves?
> >
> > Here's a relevant post from earlier this year:
>
> And so let’s see. You view yourself, and find it important to show
> yourself, as the most knowledgeable person here?

You asked who I think my posts might benefit, and in reply I posted a message from someone (a participant in this very thread) who said that he had benefited (on this very subject) from my posts.

In summary, when you thought my posts were not beneficial to anyone, I was to be despised for my uselessness, and after being shown that my posts are actually of benefit to some people, I am to be despised for "trying to make myself look knowledgeable".

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 1:58:52 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:35:25 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 6:38:54 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> How many Cs atoms are in a clock?
>>>>
>>>> Probably millions.
>>>>
>>>>> How do they watch one of them?
>>>>
>>>> They don't. They watch all of them.
>>>>
>>>>> How could any machine count a nano difference?
>>>>
>>>> They don't count or measure size. They measure its energy.
>>>>
>>>>> How is the one Cs atom changing in size?
>>>>
>>>> Its size isn't measured. It loses an electron, which causes it to
>>>> lose energy.
>> Where does the electron go to?
>> where do we measure that order
>> of the separate electron?
>
> Okay. My mistake. The electron isn't "lost." It just changes its
> orbit around the nucleus of the atom.

That’s better.

> It moves into an unstable
> orbit.

Ok that’s also better.

> The clock has the ability to detect which atoms are "stable"
> and which are NOT "stable."

Whoops, mangled. Try again.

> It separates them, and if all or nearly
> all of the atoms are UNstable, then the clock is emitting photons
> with the correct frequency and is operating correctly.

Mangled. Try again.

>
> Cesium is almost a liquid. Inside the clock the cesium atoms are
> heated in an "oven" to turn them into a gas. The gas is piped
> into an area where the atoms can get hit by billions of photons.

That’s better.

> If most or all of the atoms become unstable because they were
> hit, then the clock is perfectly tuned.

Mangled. Try again.

> If most of the atoms do
> NOT become unstable, then the clock has to adjust itself to the
> right frequency.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 2:30:50 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:45:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> You do NOT need to compare readings "at the same time."
>> If you want to understand what "reciprocal time dilation" means, you
>> need to compare readings on separate clocks "at the same time", because
>> that's what "reciprocal time dilation" refers to.
>
> Which means "reciprocal time dilation" is JUST NONSENSE, because
> you CANNOT compare readings on separate clocks at the same time.

Well of course you can. Comparing the two clocks does not necessitate one
person putting them side by side and eyeballing them both. There are lots
of simple ways to compare two clocks that are separated.

Try harder, Ed, this isn’t that difficult.

>
>>> You CANNOT compare readings at the same time unless both
>>> clocks are in the same location.
>> We can't directly compare them with each other, but we can compare them
>> both with the time of a physically meaningful system of coordinates that
>> covers the entire region.
>
> In other words, you do it mathematically and BELIEVE the results of
> your math as if it was the word of God.
>
> (snip repetitious crap)
>
>>> How can you possibly believe that every photon is going to go through
>>> a slit without any problem? Why don't some photons hit the bar between
>>> the slits?
>> When I say that your oscillating particle must have gone through one
>> slit or the other, I mean that if it reaches the screen, it must have
>> gone through one or the other, not both. But if each particles (that
>> reaches the screen) goes through just one of the slits, there is no
>> interference. Do you understand this?
>
> I understand that there is usually no interference between photons.
>
>>> NO! I am NOT saying that a single photon passes through both slits.
>> Then there is no interference pattern on the screen when both slits are
>> open. So your beliefs are false. Understand?
>
> I understand that YOUR beliefs are false. If you send one photon at a
> time through the slits, you will still eventually get the striped pattern.
>
>>>> The electromagnetic field of charged particles (electrons, protons,
>>>> etc). Photons are massless and chargeless bosons that mediate the
>>>> electromagnetic forces between charged particles.
>>>
>>> But those "charged particles" could be a trillion miles away from each other.
>> Relevance?
>
> It means "mediation" cannot happen for a long long time. PLUS
> "mediation" implies back and forth dialog, which does NOT HAPPEN.
>
>>> And there is no "mediation." There is just absorption and re-emission or
>>> absorption without re-emission, depending upon the type of atom it hits.
>> You contradict yourself. The emissions and absorptions of photons are
>> how they mediate the electromagnetic force.
>
> You obviously have some different definition of the word "mediate."
> Can you describe what you are saying without using "mediate"?
>
>>>> Your attempts to visualize things are all failures. For example, you
>>>> completely failed to account for simple interference, e.g., are you
>>>> claiming your particle goes through both slits in a two-slit
>>>> experiment? Which one does it go through first? Or does it split in
>>>> half and then re-combine? You see, your beliefs are completely
>>>> incapable of accounting for even the most elementary phenomena of light.
>>>
>>> My understanding FULLY accounts for all actions by photons.
>> No, as explained above, it does not. If your "photon" reaching the
>> screen has gone through just one of the slits, then why is that "photon"
>> affected by the presence of the other slit? If you just focus on the
>> distribution of receptions for the photons that pass through Slit#1,
>> would that distribution depend on whether Slit#2 was open or closed?
>
> The photon is NOT affected by the presence of the other slit.
> You get a different pattern when you have two slits versus one
> slit, because IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION. There are
> TWO ways for a photon to hit the wall when it can go through either
> one of TWO slits, but there is only ONE way for a photon to hit the
> wall if there is only a single slit.
>
> Ed
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ed: I don't know if you are an engineer or technician, but I think this may help you.

It's a rustic diagram of an atomic clock (cesium in this case, but it applies to rubidium also).

As I can't draw a pic here, I reduced the diagram to one line, using acronyms. which I define below it.

HCGS--->MFA--->MRC---->MFB--->PHD--->SMCH--->VTCXO--->UFCE (this output is INJECTED into the MRC, closing the feedback loop)

HCGS: Heated Cesium Gas Source, at states F=3 and F=4
MFA: Magnetic Filter A, which filter most of atoms at F=3
MRC: Microwave Resonant Cavity, tuned at 9.19 Ghz, which over-excite cesium atoms. Most at F=4
MFB: Magnetic Filter B, where remains of excited cesium atoms at F=3 are deviated.
After this filter B, most of atoms at F=4 ejects photons at f= 9,192,631,770 Hz. Then return to F=3.
PHD: Photo Detector (Photons to electric current). It converts photons with f= 9,192,631,770 Hz into electrons,
which causes a low frequency current (mostly below 1,000 Hz).
SMCH: Servo Mechanism (System box which turns current into voltage signal, amplifies, filter and inject
the control voltage to a VTXCO, to fine tune the cesium atomic clock.
VTCXO: Voltage Tuned Crystal Oscillator, at 10.2300 Mhz, which is adjusted with the control signal to produce
maximum voltage INPUF in the SMCH.
A sample of this signal is extracted from the system, amplified and used as master reference in GPS satellites.
UFCE: Up Frequency Converter and Exciter (to the MRC, from 10 Mhz up to 9.1926 Ghz, by different techniques)

I think that a key part here is the photodetector PHD, which converts photons at 9 Ghz to a low frequency flow of electrons (current).

Also, it's vital the role of the SMCH, which processes the output current at the PHD, specially low-pass filtering it (maybe 1 Hz bandwidth),
so adjustments to the VTCXO are done slowly. Also, the filtering reduces the PHASE NOISE around any frequency produced.

As the output of the VTCXO has to be multiplied about 919 times to reach 9.1296 Ghz, so is multiplied the phase noise at 10 Mhz.

One final observation: The atomic clock is a system, not a single part of the diagram. It's the entire diagram plus additional boxes.

Hope this can help you. I put some useful links:

For atomic clock's diagrams: https://sites.google.com/site/pc4110applicationsofshm/products-services

For the history of atomic clock's development (focused on rubidium), this 35 pages doc.:

http://www.wriley.com/A%20History%20of%20the%20Rubidium%20Frequency%20Standard.pdf

A History of the Rubidium Frequency Standard
William J. Riley, Jr., Life Fellow, IEEE
Rev. A Dec. 4, 2019

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 9:12:47 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Ed: I don't know if you are an engineer or technician, but I think this may help you.
>
> It's a rustic diagram of an atomic clock (cesium in this case, but it applies to rubidium also).
> As I can't draw a pic here, I reduced the diagram to one line, using acronyms. which I define below it.
>
>
> HCGS--->MFA--->MRC---->MFB--->PHD--->SMCH--->VTCXO--->UFCE (this output is INJECTED into the MRC, closing the feedback loop)
>
>
> HCGS: Heated Cesium Gas Source, at states F=3 and F=4
> MFA: Magnetic Filter A, which filter most of atoms at F=3
> MRC: Microwave Resonant Cavity, tuned at 9.19 Ghz, which over-excite cesium atoms. Most at F=4
> MFB: Magnetic Filter B, where remains of excited cesium atoms at F=3 are deviated.
> After this filter B, most of atoms at F=4 ejects photons at f= 9,192,631,770 Hz. Then return to F=3.
> PHD: Photo Detector (Photons to electric current). It converts photons with f= 9,192,631,770 Hz into electrons,
> which causes a low frequency current (mostly below 1,000 Hz).
> SMCH: Servo Mechanism (System box which turns current into voltage signal, amplifies, filter and inject
> the control voltage to a VTXCO, to fine tune the cesium atomic clock.
> VTCXO: Voltage Tuned Crystal Oscillator, at 10.2300 Mhz, which is adjusted with the control signal to produce
> maximum voltage INPUF in the SMCH.
> A sample of this signal is extracted from the system, amplified and used as master reference in GPS satellites.
> UFCE: Up Frequency Converter and Exciter (to the MRC, from 10 Mhz up to 9..1926 Ghz, by different techniques)

I forgot to add some things:

1) If you measure with a high-tech oscilloscope (10's of Ghz bandwidth and very high impedance) the signal captured
by a small dipole at the microwave cavity, you'll observe electric waves on the screen, perfectly sinusoidal, and without
any need for locking oscilloscope capture to the beginning of a cycle. The signal at the screen appears as frozen, without
any phase shift for whatever the time you keep observing. (Voltage vs. time)

2) If you use a high-tech spectrum analyzer (10's of Ghz bandwidth and very high impedance) with the same technique, you'll
observe an almost gaussian-shaped waveform (Amplitude setting in dBm, dBμV, dBμV/m, etc.). The choice of dBμV/m
would be the best, because you would be reading the intensity of the electric field of the microwave signal.

3) The MRC (Microwave Resonant Cavity) is filled with EM WAVES, and cesium atoms are excited by the intensity of the
microwaves that fill the cavity. So, there is a transfer of energy from EM waves to atoms directly.
No EM photon exist. This particular vision of EM waves is needed (used) by some new physicists to reinforce their
credence on QFT/QED and their reject of the classic physics (Planck) who allowed these fields to be developed.

If anyone is in such dispair, then they can use this gross translation (thanks to Planck, not Dirac et. all).

It seems, by trial and error and years of experience, that injecting 5 Watts at 9 Ghz is enough.

Given that a photon has the energy E=h.f = 6,09110E-24 Joules at the frequency 9192631770 Hz, then a flux of
1,64174E+23 photons/sec is injected.

If a current Io is measured at the output of the photodetector, assuming a quantum efficiency of 100%, an amount of
6,3891E+15 electrons/mA would be counted in Io.

So, having the value of Io, you can calculate how many "EM photons" were converted into quantum transition photons
from the energy state F=4 to F=3. With some aditional numbers, you can calculate the quantum factor of conversion
of cesium atoms into excited F=4 atoms ejecting a photon detected in the PHD.

4) Not all excited cesium atoms eject photons at the fundamental fo. There is a dispersion of values, which constitutes
the quantum phase noise. Other factors contribute to increase the phase noise, as detailed in the 2nd. article I posted.

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > We can't directly compare them with each other, but we can compare them both
> > with the time of a physically meaningful system of coordinates that covers the
> > entire region.
>
> In other words, you do it mathematically and BELIEVE the results of
> your math as if it was the word of God.

That's not an accurate paraphrase. Reciprocity of time dilation refers to the rates of elapsed times on each clock in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. That's what "reciprocal time dilation" means. If you are not interested in this fact, that's fine, just say you aren't interested, but don't say it is false. It is perfectly true, as confirmed by experiment, and it forms the basis for all the relativistic effects (including the non-reciprocal ones).

> I understand that there is usually no interference between photons.

The interference is not due to different photons interfering with each other, it is due to each photon interfering with itself. That's because the probability of a photon being received at a given event is the magnitude of the sum of the phased amplitudes corresponding to the available paths. Your attempts to "visualize" what is happening do not remotely grasp this, and you can't account for the observed interference effects.

> If you send one photon at a time through the slits, you will still eventually get
> the striped pattern.

Yes, but according to your "oscillating particle" theory we would not get any interference pattern, because each of your "photons" reaching the screen has gone through only one of the slits.

> ..."mediation" implies back and forth dialog...

No, it doesn't, and virtual photon exchanges are bi-directional anyway.

> Can you describe what you are saying without using "mediate"?

The electromagnetic forces between charged particles are conveyed by virtual photons (quantized excitations of the field), by which energy and momentum is exchanged between those charged particles. It's like if you throw a baseball to someone, and the recoil pushes you back, and when they catch it, the momentum pushes them back, so the mutual force and exchange of momentum between you two was mediated by the baseball. This is standard usage for particles mediating forces. Of course a baseball is a classical entity, so this is only a crude analogy to help you understand what the word "mediate" means.

> The photon is NOT affected by the presence of the other slit.

Then no interference pattern will arise. When one of your "photons" goes through the Left slit while the Right slit is open, it cannot land at a spot where the destructive interference yields zero probability, but when it goes through the Left slit while the Right slit is closed, it can land in that spot. So, the experimental results (two centuries old) show that the photon is affected by the presence of the other slit. Your task is to explain how it has that effect. Your idea of an oscillating particle can't explain it.

On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 6:07:52 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 2:30:50 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 11:45:49 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >>> You do NOT need to compare readings "at the same time."
> >> If you want to understand what "reciprocal time dilation" means, you
> >> need to compare readings on separate clocks "at the same time", because
> >> that's what "reciprocal time dilation" refers to.
> >
> > Which means "reciprocal time dilation" is JUST NONSENSE, because
> > you CANNOT compare readings on separate clocks at the same time.
> Well of course you can. Comparing the two clocks does not necessitate one
> person putting them side by side and eyeballing them both. There are lots
> of simple ways to compare two clocks that are separated.

Instead of just making UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS, why don't you DESCRIBE
some of these "simple ways to compare two clocks that are separated"?

Ed