On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 7:12:47 PM UTC-5, 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 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

Thanks, but there are a lot of better descriptions and diagrams of cesium atomic
clocks on the Internet. Some samples:
https://nrc.canada.ca/en/certifications-evaluations-standards/canadas-official-time/what-cesium-atomic-clock
https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/sites/default/files/multimedia-assets/500-si_hiw_atomic_clock_fa_flat_revised_7-17_copy.jpg
https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia-asset/how-does-the-nist-7-atomic-clock-work
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/how-do-atomic-clocks-work.html
https://www.explainthatstuff.com/howradiocontrolledclockswork.html
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Block-diagram-of-a-cesium-atomic-clock_fig1_329845646

And here's a site that uses the same diagram you used, but has a much
better description of what happens:
http://www.4physics.com/phy_demo/at_clock/at_clock.htm

Ed

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, 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 say it is false because it is false. And therefore it is NOT confirmed
by experiment. Time dilation experiments do NOT show any reciprocal
time dilation. You use experiments that are NOT time dilation experiments
and twist things to claim the ARE time dilation experiments. Any you
falsely claim they show reciprocal time dilation. They only show such a
thing in mathematical models that DO NOT REPRESENT REALITY.

> > 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.

A photon cannot interfere with itself. If you can create some mathematical
model where this happens, then your mathematical model is just plain silly.

> > 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.

I said it was a "striped" pattern. YOU call it a "interference pattern."

Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
the "striped pattern."

>
> > ..."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.

"VIRTUAL photon exchanges"?? Why can't you describe what is ACTUALLY
happening? I know that there is some recoil when an atom emits a photon,
but that has nothing to do with anything. You are just adding in complications
instead of explaining things simply.

> > 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.

You are talking mathematics. I am talking about what ACTUALLY happens.
An oscillating photon is something like the South American bola. The
bola has two or three balls connected together by a rope. When you
throw it, the balls spin around like binary planets held together by the rope.
When the bola hits something, it wraps around that object.

A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side. If
the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
re-emitted in some other direction.

You need to stop using experiments that are TWO CENTURIES OLD and
study experiments that are done TODAY. Experiments that are done TODAY
show that if you send one photon at a time through the double slit device
those photons will eventually form that same striped pattern on the wall.
That is NOT because of any MAGIC where one photon goes through both
slits, it is because MOST photons hit some part of the device before they
go through ONE of the slits. And hitting the device changes the trajectory
of the photon.

Ed

On 8/30/2021 10:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, 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 say it is false because it is false.

No, it is your (uninformed) belief that it is false. You are not God
and you don't get to say what is and is not false.

> And therefore it is NOT confirmed
> by experiment.

No "therefore", that does not follow at all. It is not 'not confirmed'
because of your belief that it is false. Confirmation or refutation by
experiment depends only on the experiment and nature itself, not on your
beliefs.

> Time dilation experiments do NOT show any reciprocal
> time dilation. You use experiments that are NOT time dilation experiments
> and twist things to claim the ARE time dilation experiments.

Except that they do confirm time dilation experiments.
Remember, when your beliefs state one thing and experimental results
state something else, it is your beliefs which are wrong, not the
experimental results.

> falsely claim they show reciprocal time dilation. They only show such a
> thing in mathematical models that DO NOT REPRESENT REALITY.

Experimental results ALWAYS represent reality.

>>> 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.
>
> I said it was a "striped" pattern. YOU call it a "interference pattern."

You call it a striped pattern. Scientists call it an interference
pattern because it matches interference patterns of waves.
>
> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
> the "striped pattern."

That is an unproved assertion, actually just handwaving. Why do we get
an interference pattern and not just any "striped pattern"?

> "VIRTUAL photon exchanges"?? Why can't you describe what is ACTUALLY
> happening?

Because what is actually happening is not known, but virtual photon
exchange is a model which very accurately predicts the outcome. That is
how science modeling works.

>>> 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.
>
> You are talking mathematics. I am talking about what ACTUALLY happens.

He IS talking about what actually happens! No mathematics involved, either.

> An oscillating photon is something like the South American bola. The
> bola has two or three balls connected together by a rope. When you
> throw it, the balls spin around like binary planets held together by the rope.
> When the bola hits something, it wraps around that object.

That is a piss-poor comparison, plus trying to compare photons to
macroscopic objects like that is doomed to fail.

> A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side. If
> the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
> photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
> instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
> re-emitted in some other direction.

None of your handwaving can explain the two slit outcome by having an
"oscillating" photon go through one slit like that.

Plus what frequency would a photon "oscillate" at, if it did? Don't
forget the measured frequency depends on the Doppler effect if the
source and observer are relatively moving....
>
> You need to stop using experiments that are TWO CENTURIES OLD and
> study experiments that are done TODAY.

Which agree with relative time dilation and disagree with "oscillating"
photons, big time.

> Experiments that are done TODAY
> show that if you send one photon at a time through the double slit device
> those photons will eventually form that same striped pattern on the wall.

Yet "oscillating" photons cannot explain that since the outcome is
different when there is two slits with the "oscillating" photon going
through one and one slit (the second slit blocked).

> That is NOT because of any MAGIC where one photon goes through both
> slits, it is because MOST photons hit some part of the device before they
> go through ONE of the slits. And hitting the device changes the trajectory
> of the photon.

Photons which hit the device are blocked, and don't contribute to the
pattern.

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 7:59:24 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Why don't you DESCRIBE some of these "simple ways to compare two clocks
> that are separated"?

This was explained previously, but you ignored the explanation. If you are really interested, to compare the rates of separate clocks we need to determine what those clocks read "at the same time", so we must first decide what we mean by "at the same time", and it obviously can't be based on the readings of the clocks whose rates we are trying to compare.

Now, establishing simultaneity at separate locations can be (and is) done in a variety of ways, notably with the ECI system used in your GPS devices. However, statements about "reciprocal time dilation" don't refer to ECI time, they refer to one particular meaning of simultaneity, namely, inertial simultaneity. This means that "at the same time" is defined such that the laws of physics take their standard form. So, we can (for example) tap the midpoint of a solid rod, and we say the acoustic pulses in the rod reach the ends of the rod "at the same time". There are many other ways (e.g., shooting identical bullets from identical guns resting at the midpoint of the rod), and they all give the same inertial simultaneity.

The key point is that, using any of these methods of establishing inertial simultaneity, the results depend on the state of motion of the rod. That's called the relativity of simultaneity. Two events that are simultaneous using sound waves in a rod in one state of motion are not simultaneous using sound waves in a rod in another state of motion. So, using those two different meanings of "at the same time", we get two different comparisons of the rates of separate clocks. Using a rod co-moving with clock A, the event at which A reads 10 sec is at the same time as the event at which B reads 9 sec, so clock B is running slower. However, using a rod co-moving with clock B, the event of B reading 10 sec is "at the same time" as the event of A reading 9 sec, so clock A is running slower. (The underlying reason for this is that energy has inertia.)

> Time dilation experiments do NOT show any reciprocal time dilation.

We've covered this before: The net effects of gravitational potential differences and non-inertial motions are generally not reciprocal. Those are not counter-examples to reciprocity of time dilation in special relativity, which refers to the relativity of inertial simultaneity as explained above.

> You use experiments that are NOT time dilation experiments and twist things to
> claim the ARE time dilation experiments.

As explained above, the key to reciprocal time dilation is understanding the relativity of inertial simultaneity, which depends on whether or not every quantity E of energy has inertia E/c^2. The experiments show that it does, which signifies that inertial simultaneity is skewed, resulting in reciprocal time dilation as explained above.

> A photon cannot interfere with itself.

Be careful... your concept of a photon, which is an oscillating particle following a definite path, can't interfere with itself, which is why your concept of a photon can't give the observed "striped pattern" in a two-slit experiment, but the photon in quantum electrodynamics does interfere with itself, which is how it results in the "striped pattern".

> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
> the "striped pattern."

No, your beliefs don't work, for the following reason: When both slits are open, a sequence of individual photons (possibly hours apart) reach the screen, and each one lands in a specific place (not smeared out), but if we keep track of where each one lands, and make a histogram plot, we find the "striped pattern", and there are dark spots on the screen where no photons ever land.

Now, close one of the slits. We find that the striped pattern disappears, and photons can land at all the locations, including the spots where no photons ever land when both slits are open. This means that when a photon passes through one of the slits, it is affected by whether the other slit is open.

> "VIRTUAL photon exchanges"?? Why can't you describe what is ACTUALLY
> happening? I know that there is some recoil when an atom emits a photon,
> but that has nothing to do with anything. You are just adding in complications
> instead of explaining things simply.

Quantum electrodynamics is not entirely simple, and although I'm trying to focus on aspects that can be explained in simple terms, you keep adding complications by asking about things like how electromagnetic interactions are mediated by photons, which necessarily involves virtual photons, which is obviously not something that you are equipped to understand. We got off on this tangent only because you expressed the mistaken belief that photons are made of electromagnetic fields, and I corrected you by pointing out that, to the contrary, electromagnetic fields are made of photons (crudely speaking). If you really wanted to understand this in depth, you would need to actually learn quantum electrodynamics (which you obviously have no intention of doing). It is not simple, but fortunately you don't need to understand that to understand the simple things you are talking about.

> A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side.

You're confusing the classical electromagnetic field description with the photon description. A photon does not oscillate, for the reason explained several times.

> If the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
> photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
> instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
> re-emitted in some other direction.

None of that explains the fact that when you "photon" goes through the Left slit, the possible landing places depends on whether the Right slit is open. I ask again: How do you explain this?

> Experiments that are done TODAY show that if you send one photon at a time
> through the double slit device those photons will eventually form that same striped
> pattern on the wall.

Right, but your beliefs cannot account for the fact that the striped pattern goes away when one of the slits is closed. We get the stripes only when both slits are open. According to your beliefs, each "photon" goes through just one slit, and its path shouldn't depend on whether the other slit is open. But it does. You cannot explain this fact, so your beliefs are wrong. Right?

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 10:34:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/30/2021 10:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
> >> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:

> > Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
> > routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
> > the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
> > go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
> > that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
> > slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
> > the "striped pattern."
> That is an unproved assertion, actually just handwaving. Why do we get
> an interference pattern and not just any "striped pattern"?

Because the photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency. The pattern
on the screen shows that frequency.

> > "VIRTUAL photon exchanges"?? Why can't you describe what is ACTUALLY
> > happening?
> Because what is actually happening is not known, but virtual photon
> exchange is a model which very accurately predicts the outcome. That is
> how science modeling works.

Yes, that is what they did to argue that the earth was the center of the
universe. And when that was shown to be wrong, they used mathematical
modeling to argue that the sun was the center of the universe.

> >>> 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.

YES, IT DOES. I explains it PERFECTLY. The oscillations cause
the photon to change its trajectory when the oscillations encounter
oscillating fields that come from the atoms that comprise the
double slit experiment device.

> >
> > You are talking mathematics. I am talking about what ACTUALLY happens.
> He IS talking about what actually happens! No mathematics involved, either.
> > An oscillating photon is something like the South American bola. The
> > bola has two or three balls connected together by a rope. When you
> > throw it, the balls spin around like binary planets held together by the rope.
> > When the bola hits something, it wraps around that object.
> That is a piss-poor comparison, plus trying to compare photons to
> macroscopic objects like that is doomed to fail.

It's an okay analogy, except for the fact that the bola is spinning, not oscillating.

> > A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side. If
> > the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
> > photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
> > instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
> > re-emitted in some other direction.
> None of your handwaving can explain the two slit outcome by having an
> "oscillating" photon go through one slit like that.

You just have to realize that an oscillating photon is interacting with the
fields of the atoms that comprise the two slit device. In mathematics you
can have a photon that does not oscillate, and atoms that do not have
fields, but in REALITY photons oscillate and those oscillating fields can
encounter fields from any atoms in the vicinity.

>
> Plus what frequency would a photon "oscillate" at, if it did? Don't
> forget the measured frequency depends on the Doppler effect if the
> source and observer are relatively moving....

All photons oscillate at a specific frequency. How can you not know that???
Radar guns emit photons that oscillate in the radio range. A typical radar gun
emits photons that oscillate 35,000,000,000 times per second.

The emitter inside a cesium atomic clock emits photons that oscillate at
EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second.

We see colors because photons of different colors oscillate at different
frequencies.

> >
> > You need to stop using experiments that are TWO CENTURIES OLD and
> > study experiments that are done TODAY.
> Which agree with relative time dilation and disagree with "oscillating"
> photons, big time.
> > Experiments that are done TODAY
> > show that if you send one photon at a time through the double slit device
> > those photons will eventually form that same striped pattern on the wall.
> Yet "oscillating" photons cannot explain that since the outcome is
> different when there is two slits with the "oscillating" photon going
> through one and one slit (the second slit blocked).
> > That is NOT because of any MAGIC where one photon goes through both
> > slits, it is because MOST photons hit some part of the device before they
> > go through ONE of the slits. And hitting the device changes the trajectory
> > of the photon.
> Photons which hit the device are blocked, and don't contribute to the
> pattern.

I understand that is what you BELIEVE, but photons are not "blocked."
They are either absorbed and converted to heat, or they are absorbed
and RE-EMITTED.

And what about photons that just graze the sides of the slits?
How can you believe those photons will not have their paths altered?

Ed

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:52:01 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 2:03:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> Quantum electrodynamics ... is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate. It
>>> just cannot cope with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.
>> A photon is nothing at all like a "solid particle" in quantum
>> electrodynamics, so your complaint is specious, based entirely on
>> misinformation. Indeed, by insisting that "a photon oscillates", it is
>> you who is exhibiting an inability to cope with a "particle" that is not
>> a classical particle (nor a classical wave) at all.
>
> I'm doing just the opposite. An oscillating photon is not like
> a classical particle nor like a classical wave. It is YOU who
> cannot cope with such a thing as an oscillating photon.
>
>>> It cannot cope with an infinite universe, either.
>> Again, you are misinformed. Quantum electrodynamics is a local theory of
>> the electromagnetic interaction, and it is perfectly compatible with an infinite universe.
>
> Nonsense. Quantum electrodynamics proposes a universe that
> is like an expanding balloon,

No. Quantum electrodynamics is not cosmology based on general relativity.
They are two completely different things.

> with nothing outside of the balloon.
> Space is ONLY the space between objects INSIDE the balloon.
>
>>> Or with the variable speed of light.
>> Your complaint is specious, because quantum electrodynamics is perfectly
>> consistent with all the well-established facts of electromagnetic
>> radiation, including the propagation speed, in all circumstances.
>
> QM is incompatible with NONRECIPROCAL time dilation.

You mean like the Hafele-Keating experiment? No, it’s not incompatible with
that at all.

> And
> NONRECIPROCAL time dilation means seconds can have different
> lengths. And that means that 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND
> depends upon the length of a second at the point where a photon
> is emitted.
>
>>
>>> Photons oscillate.
>>
>> That doesn't make sense, because the word "photon" is defined as the
>> quantum excitation of the electromagnetic field in quantum
>> electrodynamics, and those very definitely do not oscillate. If you are
>> using the word "photon" to refer to something else, something that you
>> think oscillates, in a "theory" of your own making, then you're just
>> confusing yourself by conflating it with what the rest of the world
>> means by the word "photon".
>>
>> You asked for an explanation of why photons don't oscillate, and I
>> provided that -- twice. Both times you simply ignored it. You'll never
>> understand if you keep ignoring the explanation.
>
> The explanation is not an explanation, it's just a repeat of your
> BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.

Well, let’s put it this way. It’s a little foolish to insist that something
is false until you are provided an explanation you understand. It would be
perhaps better for you to say that you don’t understand how it is that
photons do not oscillate.

>
> The electric and magnetic fields in a photon OSCILLATE. The
> frequency of the oscillations is the frequency of the photon.
> A photon cannot have a frequency UNLESS its electric and
> magnetic fields oscillate.
>
> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 5:12:17 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:37:33 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 10:02:30 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>>>> If the photon does not oscillate at that FREQUENCY, what does the FREQUENCY represent?
>>>> It represents the frequency of the source... and hence the
>>>> proportionality between the path length and the phase of the amplitude
>>>> for any specific available path. The phase of a source of
>>>> electromagnetic radiation advances with a certain frequency, and each
>>>> photon has a particular phase (that does not advance in transit) and an
>>>> amount of energy proportional to the frequency of the source. Bear in
>>>> mind that although a photon may be regarded as a "particle", it is
>>>> definitely not a classical particle, and likewise electromagnetic
>>>> radiation is not a classical wave, but there are wavelike and
>>>> particle-like attributes. The probability of the discrete energy of a
>>>> photon being received from a given source at a certain time and place is
>>>> the norm of the sum of amplitudes for the available paths (this is
>>>> Feynman's "sum over paths" approach). If the paths have different
>>>> lengths, the amplitudes have different phases (corresponding to
>>>> different phases of the source), and the proportionality between path
>>>> length and phase is the frequency of the source, proportional to the
>>>> energy of each photon. So, in this sense, a photon is associated with a
>>>> frequency, but a photon does not oscillate. The phase along a given
>>>> light-like path does not advance.
>>>>
>>>>> Source: https://www.zmescience.com/science/what-is-photon-definition-04322/
>>>>> " ...photons have energy equal to their oscillation frequency times
>>>>> Planck’s constant."
>>>>
>>>> To be accurate, that quote should be "photons have energy equal to the
>>>> oscillation frequency of the source times Planck’s constant." This is
>>>> why I suggested you consult a text book on quantum electrodynamics, not
>>>> a web page. Web articles are not intended to be substitutes for texts,
>>>> for those who want in-depth understanding of a subject.
>>>
>>> Like I wrote before, Quantum electrodynamics is the PROBLEM, not a solution.
>>> That is clearly why you cannot answer the question. How can a photon
>>> represent the frequency of the source if the photon does not oscillate?
>> The photon doesn’t oscillate. It carries a certain amount of energy. That
>> energy is a constant times the frequency of the source. The photon also has
>> a phase. A phase is a physics term you’ll have to learn. That phase goes
>> through 2pi at a rate equal to the frequency.
>>>
>>> Like you say, a photon is not a classic particle, like a grain of sand, nor is it
>>> a classical wave, like sound waves. You claim it does not oscillate, so how
>>> can it have a FREQUENCY?
>>>
>>> Ignoring sources which say the photons DO oscillate just indicates that you
>>> have a closed mind to anything that is not Quantum electrodynamics.
>> That depends on the quality of the source material, doesn’t it? Textbooks
>> don’t say the photons oscillate. There are lots of crappy web resources
>> that do say they oscillate, but they’re crappy web pages.
>
> OR the textbooks are crap and the web pages are correct.

Come on, Ed. You know that’s not sensible.

It just doesn’t make sense to say that textbooks written by experts in the
field are wrong, but that short and simple explanations written for the lay
public, usually by non-expert writers, are right.

I can fully understand why you might WANT textbooks to be crap and web
pages to be correct. The latter is easier for you to understand than the
former. But that has nothing to do with the quality of the information.

Do you feel a little foolish for making that suggestion, or do you
seriously believe carefully reviewed textbooks are much less reliable than
unreviewed web pages?

>
> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 5:15:49 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 3:11:57 PM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, August 28, 2021 at 12:25:14 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> Quantum electrodynamics is very good at analyzing the functions of
>>> particles in the sub-atomic world. It is when it tries to FORCE the
>>> universe and the world around us to fit into its equations that it turns
>>> into PURE CRAP.
>> Well, the only way you could show that they are pure crap is by showing
>> where they say something should happen that is not observed to happen, or
>> say something else should never happen that is observed to happen. Did you
>> have something in mind here? That’s how science works.
>
> Time dilation is NONreciprocal. Experiments show that.

Some do, some do not. That’s why it’s important to make note of the
qualifications about the claim. The correct and precise statement is that
time dilation is reciprocal for sets of synchronized clocks at rest in two
different inertial reference frames that are moving relative to each other.
For cases where these conditions do not apply, there is no implication that
the time dilation will be reciprocal.

So when you look at cited experiments, it’s important for you to ask
whether those qualifying conditions apply.

To take a simple example, look at GPS satellites vs. ground satellites.
Should this be a case where the claim of reciprocal time dilation should
apply? Well, are the GPS satellites at rest in some inertial reference
frame? No, they are not. Therefore, the claim of reciprocal time dilation
would not apply in this application.

In a first-year physics example to illustrate, the law of conservation of
momentum says that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, the total momentum of the system
will be invariant, no matter what happens inside the system. Now, pointing
to an example system that is not closed and complaining that conservation
of momentum is not conserved there proves nothing about the law, because
the law only applies to closed systems. Forgetting to ask whether the
system is closed or not will mistakenly lead you to believe that momentum
conservation is violated all the time, when it in fact never is.

> There was
> nothing reciprocal in the time dilation measured by the Hafele-Keating
> experiment --- or by any other time dilation experiment.
>
>>>
>>> It is WRONG in saying that photons do not oscillate.
>> And what makes you think they do? Why do you think that’s a FACT?
>
> Because radar guns measure the oscillation rates of photons when
> they measure the speed of targets. They compare the oscillation
> rate of the photons the gun emits to the oscillation rates of the
> photons that return from the target.

No, they measure the oscillation rate of the electromagnetic waves that are
COMPRISED of photons. The photons do not oscillate.

I’ll give you an example where you can see the distinction between what the
aggregate does and what the constituents do. Stretch a toy Slinky between
two hands. Now with your right hand, do a short jerk. You will see the
pulse move all the way from your right hand to the left hand. But there was
no piece of steel in the Slinky that moved all the way from the right hand
to the left hand.

>
>>> It just cannot cope
>>> with a "particle" that isn't just a solid particle.
>> Why do you think that?
>
> Because a photon is a particle that oscillates, and QM cannot
> cope with that.

Well, first of all, being solid or not has nothing to do with whether it
oscillates or not.

Secondly, you insisting that it oscillates does not make that claim true.
You said you believe that photons oscillate because you think this is what
radar guns measure — the oscillation of photons — when that is not true.
You also said you believe it because a crappy website gave you that
impression. But aside from those errors, why do you think QM cannot handle
a particle that isn’t solid or one that oscillates?

>
>>> It cannot cope with an
>>> infinite universe, either.
>> And why do you think that?
>
> Because QM uses a universe that is like a balloon.

No, you’ve gotten confused between quantum mechanics and Big Bang
cosmology. Two completely different things.

So is it fair to say that it’s not true that QM cannot cope with an
infinite universe?

> It's size
> is its diameter, and space is only the space between objects
> in or on the balloon. When asked "What is outside of the balloon?",
> QM believers say that is not a valid question, because there is
> NOTHING outside of the balloon. They cannot cope with a
> balloon that is expanding into infinite space.
>
>>> Or with the variable speed of light.
>> And why do you think that?
>
> Because they cannot cope with NONreciprocal time dilation,

There is nothing in quantum mechanics that conflicts with the
Hafele-Keating experiment or with GPS. Why do you think it does?

> and
> NONreciprocal time dilation results in the speed of light being
> different whenever the length of a second is different for the emitter.
>
> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 10:45:28 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 7:51:31 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> (snip repetitive crap)
>>> QM is incompatible with NONRECIPROCAL time dilation.
>> Again, your statement is utterly false, and even senseless. Quantum
>> electrodynamics (and, more generally, quantum field theory), is
>> perfectly compatible with local Lorentz invariance, which has been more
>> conclusively established than any other physical fact, and yes, given
>> any two relatively moving objects, the proper time of each object runs
>> slow in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the other object is
>> at rest. (In other words, the relationship between local inertial
>> coordinate systems is reciprocal.) Again, this is firmly established by
>> experimental results for over a century.
>
> 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, it does. Can you describe that experiment and how it measured what it
did? If you can’t, you have no basis for saying it did not. Why would you
say such a thing?

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

Yes, those are experiments performed in conditions where reciprocal time
dilation is not expected to apply. Reciprocal time dilation is only
expected to apply under the conditions specified in the claim.

> Examples:

I just want to mention to you that none of the following are sensible
references to experiments, other than Hafele Keating. I’m sure that there
are real experiments involved in several of these cases, but you’ve
specified them so ambiguously it’s just hard to tell. I mean, “University
of Maryland”? Really? UM has only ever performed one physics experiment?

>
> 1. Hafele-Keating
> 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> 4. Muon experiments
> 5. University of Maryland
> 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> 9. Van Baak - 2005
> 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> 11. Van Baak - 2016
> 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
>
>>> The explanation is not an explanation, it's just a repeat of your
>>> BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.
>> Excuse me, but that is flatly false. I gave you a careful and detailed
>> explanation. It is you who simply repeats your senseless mantra that
>> "photons oscillate", whereas I have written detailed explanations of
>> actual photons. It is simply dishonest for you to claim that I have not
>> provided you with the explanation. True, you have repeatedly ignored the
>> explanation, but that doesn't mean I haven't provided it to you.
>
> Again, your explanation is NOT an explanation. It is just a repeat
> of your BELIEF that photons do not oscillate.
>
>> As explained in the previous message, a photon is characterized by the
>> frequency of the source.
>
> That is just memorized words with no meaning.

No, there IS meaning there. Whether Townes has taken the trouble to try to
meet you where you are and explain things in a manner that you can digest
is a whole different issue. But it’s silly to claim that it’s false until
you understand it.

>
>> Each photon arriving at a particular reception event had a variety of
>> possible classical paths by which it could have traveled from the
>> source. For example, in a two-slit experiment the photon could have gone
>> through the left slit or the right slit. For a typical reception event
>> the paths to that event are of different lengths, and since the photon
>> always propagates at c, the time required for the various paths is
>> different, meaning they would have departed the source at different
>> times, and hence the phase of the photon (which does not change along
>> any path) would be different, depending on which path it followed.
>
> 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, it doesn’t. It may suggest that to you, but there is a real theory here
that does not involve your explanation that gets things right you have no
chance of accounting for: the spacing of the spots in the pattern, the
fall-off of intensity with angle, what happens when you cover one of the
slits.

There is a good book written for laypeople written by Feynman called “The
Character of Physical Law”. You would need to read THE WHOLE BOOK to
understand the double slit experiment, as he spends a lot of time on it.
Please don’t tell me you don’t have the time to read a book written for
laypeople and that you’ll only read web pages that are short and concise.

>
>>
>> The probability of a photon arriving at a given event is the magnitude
>> of the sum of the amplitudes for the available paths. In effect, the
>> possible paths interfere with each other, because the paths have
>> different phases, like little arrows that may point in the same
>> direction (constructive interference) or in opposite directions
>> (destructive interference). The proportionality between path length and
>> phase is the frequency of the source, so, in this sense, one can say
>> each photon is characterized by that frequency, but it really exhibits
>> an energy proportional to that frequency, and the phase effect only
>> manifests itself by the interference. Again, the individual paths are
>> light-like, with zero elapsed proper time, and no oscillations along
>> those path, which is why it's incorrect to say that a photon oscillates.
>
> 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.
>
>>> 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.
>
> You write BELIEFS. "The electromagnetic field is mediated
> by photons." WHAT electromagnetic field? 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.

You’re about to quote a web article what says that electric and magnetic
fields are COMPRISED of photons, not the other way around. Electromagnetic
field disturbances are (loosely) made of photons, and it is not true that
photons are made of electromagnetic fields. Only a really crappy web page
would say that.

>
> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:

If your going to quote something, please give the source.

> "A photon is a tiny particle that comprises waves of electromagnetic radiation.
> As shown by Maxwell, photons are just electric fields traveling through space.

That is a terrible web site.

> 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."

That’s also a terrible definition.

>
> "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)."

That one’s not so bad.

>
> I think the problem we're having is that I VISUALIZE photons while others
> here just recite what what they read somewhere.

That’s not really what’s going on here. People are using words to describe
what they UNDERSTAND, not what they have memorized. You have absolutely no
business asserting that they’ve just memorized it and don’t understand it.

I fully get that you are frustrated by THEM claiming to understand
something that you do not understand. But there’s a reason for that.
There’s a lot of basic concepts that you’ve just tried to skip, because
they’re not interesting to you.

It’s a little like someone saying that you need to play a C# 3-chord
progression, and you complaining that they haven’t explained at all how to
do what you want to do, which is play a certain song. Then you’d complain
that they’ve just spouted something they’ve memorized, when in fact it’s
you that doesn’t know what a C# is, or what a 3-chord progression means.

> 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
>
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, but visualizing is not really what an analyst does as a rule. You
know that. There are lots of analysts that do their work by crunching
numbers, something you don’t do.

What you’re trying to justify is how you’d LIKE to think, given that you do
not have any math skills to support your thinking in a quantitative
science. (I’d like to point out that just because your’e interested in it
does not mean that you have the tool set to understand it. Even if you were
intensely interested in being an orchestral conductor, you would not be
able to do that unless you could read music, for example.)

> 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.

That’s what YOU do, because that’s something you feel you CAN do. In
physics that’s not really the best approach to things.

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

No, that’s completely off base and unfair. There are lots of people here
that do UNDERSTAND it, and they UNDERSTAND it using tools you do not have.
It does no good to try to demean or discount their understanding just
because you can’t follow it, or because it doesn’t match the approach you
take.

What you are doing is TRYING to visualize something. The problem is this:
your mental picture is one of hundreds of possible mental pictures. Only
one of them is right and the rest are wrong. So how can you VALIDATE that
what you have is the right visualization? The fact that it makes sense to
you is not a good figure of merit. There are lots of plausible and logical
ideas that are flat wrong. You can’t just say, “It seems logical and
plausible, so it must be the right one!”

>
> 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
>

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

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

But there is. It’s called QFT. The problem is trying to shoehorn photons
into classical wave or classical particle, when a photon is a THIRD kind
of thing, something different than the other two.

If I described a US quarter to you as having attributes of an eagle and a
US president, I’m sure you’d loft silly questions like, “Wait, so a bird
got elected president?” “Wait, so George Washington had talons?”

>
> 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).
>
>
>

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

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> 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.

Well, I don’t think it’s quite THAT crazy.

> 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".

Yes, this is just spin for propaganda’s sake. He’s taking the default state
of assuming that anything that makes sense to him is (for him) “fact” and
anything that anybody else says but can’t convince Ed of is a “belief”.
That’s just a baiting tactic to try to push people to re-explain their
cases in a way that Ed will both understand and believe.

There are also non-manipulative self-delusions like his insisting that
visualization is the only proper way to understand something just because
that’s the one way that works for him; that web sites are correct and
physics textbooks are wrong, just because he can read and digest web pages
but can’t read or digest textbooks; and that any explanation that is over
Ed’s head is simply regurgitated rote material. He REALLY doesn’t want to
accept that physics is not acceptable to him because of math or studying
textbooks or jargon — that seems unfair to him — and so he simply denies
that they’re important.

> 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.
>

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

Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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".
>

Wait a second. I never told you I thought your posts were not beneficial to
anyone. I ASKED you who YOU thought would benefit from your posts, and I
asked you that when you were responding to Ed weeks ago. That was a
question, not a judgement. You can tell a question because it often has a
particular mark at the end of it that looks like this: ?

And notice further that I did not say or even imply that I DESPISE you for
trying to look like the most knowledgeable person here. I asked you a
QUESTION about what you feel is important when you post.

I do make the observation that you have SAVED the content of an interaction
between Tom and yourself that happened months ago. This does indeed
indicate to me that that interaction with him was important to you,
otherwise why SAVE it?

I do also make the observation that when I ask some questions, you perceive
them as judgements and get defensive rather than answering honestly. In a
related vein, it’s also interesting to me that you rarely ask questions of
others and instead feel more free to make pronouncements about what others
are thinking rather than simply asking them.

It’s also interesting that in my comment to Tom, I suggested the QUESTION
to you might be whom you thought might benefit from your post TO ED, and
your retort was to pull an unrelated post in a comment made TO TOM.

So again, a simple question: You view yourself, and find it important to
show yourself, as the most knowledgeable person here?

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

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> 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"?

Well, sure, I’ll list a couple, though there are lots of possibilities. But
before I do, let me just reiterate that it’s silly of you to claim
something CANNOT be done, just because you’re unfamiliar with how to do it.
I’ll bet if I asked you to show me a simple way to make sure a carpenter
square is square, without another square, you’d tell me it can’t be done —
until I show you how. And just to make it painfully clear, that would not
be an unsupported claim, it’s just one that you’re not familiar with yet.

So please, Ed, do not be so hasty to insist that something is IMPOSSIBLE
just because you can’t see how it is possible.

One simple way to compare two clocks that are spatially separated is to
have them both send a signal with the encoded time to a central location.
Both signals are then received at one place, with the time information in
the signal message.

Another way is to line up a bank of cameras, whose shutters are all going
to be fired by sending an electrical pulse through equal length cables from
a common pulse generator. Because the cables are all equal length, the time
of propagation of the shutter signals will be the same for all cameras, so
you can be quite sure the cameras all take a picture at the same time. Most
of the cameras will not be next to either of the clocks, but there will be
one camera near one clock and another camera near the other clock. Now you
can collect all the images from all the cameras and two of them will have
images of the clocks being compared, taken at the same time.

Now as an exercise to you, try to think of one more clever way to do
compare two clocks at different locations at the same time. This shouldn’t
be hard.

>
> Ed
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, 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 say it is false because it is false.

How do you VALIDATE that it is false. You can point to experiments where
reciprocal time dilation doesn’t hold, but so far you’ve just cited
experiments where it’s not expected that time dilation will be reciprocal.
What you need is an experiment where reciprocal time dilation IS expected
to hold, but it does not. Do you have any such case?

> And therefore it is NOT confirmed
> by experiment. Time dilation experiments do NOT show any reciprocal
> time dilation. You use experiments that are NOT time dilation experiments
> and twist things to claim the ARE time dilation experiments. Any you
> falsely claim they show reciprocal time dilation. They only show such a
> thing in mathematical models that DO NOT REPRESENT REALITY.
>
>>> 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.
>
> A photon cannot interfere with itself.

Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is possible
does not make it impossible.

> If you can create some mathematical
> model where this happens, then your mathematical model is just plain silly.
>
>>> 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.
>
> I said it was a "striped" pattern. YOU call it a "interference pattern."
>
> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
> the "striped pattern."

I suggest you read Feynman’s book for laypeople: The Character of Physical
Law. He describes this in very simple terms, though it takes several
chapters to make the point.

>
>>
>>> ..."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.
>
> "VIRTUAL photon exchanges"?? Why can't you describe what is ACTUALLY
> happening? I know that there is some recoil when an atom emits a photon,
> but that has nothing to do with anything. You are just adding in complications
> instead of explaining things simply.
>
>>> 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.
>
> You are talking mathematics. I am talking about what ACTUALLY happens.
> An oscillating photon is something like the South American bola. The
> bola has two or three balls connected together by a rope. When you
> throw it, the balls spin around like binary planets held together by the rope.
> When the bola hits something, it wraps around that object.
>
> A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side. If
> the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
> photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
> instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
> re-emitted in some other direction.
>
> You need to stop using experiments that are TWO CENTURIES OLD and
> study experiments that are done TODAY. Experiments that are done TODAY
> show that if you send one photon at a time through the double slit device
> those photons will eventually form that same striped pattern on the wall.
> That is NOT because of any MAGIC where one photon goes through both
> slits, it is because MOST photons hit some part of the device before they
> go through ONE of the slits. And hitting the device changes the trajectory
> of the photon.
>
> Ed
>

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

On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake wrote:

> > A photon cannot interfere with itself.
> Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
> Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is possible
> does not make it impossible.

You cannot prove the negative, so there is no way to prove that
a photon CANNOT interfere with itself. But there is simply no REASON
to believe a photon somehow interferes with itself. The photon is going
through a barrier that consists of ATOMS. And photons routinely
interact with ATOMS. A photon can be DEFINED as energy being
TRANSFERRED from one atom to another.

> > Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
> > routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
> > the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
> > go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
> > that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
> > slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
> > the "striped pattern."
> I suggest you read Feynman’s book for laypeople: The Character of Physical
> Law. He describes this in very simple terms, though it takes several
> chapters to make the point.

I've read "The Character of Physical Law." I have a hardback copy and I have
it in digital form. Feynman just describes the double slit experiment as a
"mystery." He also says the two holes are in a plate made of TUNGSTEN.
That poses the question: What happens to a photon when it hits tungsten?

I think we'd all be better off if we could pick just one subject to argue about.
Arguing a dozen topics at once just leads to confusion and misunderstandings.

Ed

Ed Lake wrote:

>> Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
>> Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is
>> possible does not make it impossible.
>
> You cannot prove the negative, so there is no way to prove that a photon
> CANNOT interfere with itself. But there is simply no REASON to believe
> a photon somehow interferes with itself. The photon is going through a
> barrier that consists of ATOMS. And photons routinely interact with
> ATOMS. A photon can be DEFINED as energy being TRANSFERRED from one
> atom to another.

you use terminology you know nothing about what it is. _interfere_ in
this configuration stands for *exchange_of_energy*, thus rise or fall of
energy level. Why should photons exchange energy, when such that will
annihilate itself out of existence. Just think.

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ed Lake wrote:
>
>>> A photon cannot interfere with itself.
>> Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
>> Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is possible
>> does not make it impossible.
>
> You cannot prove the negative, so there is no way to prove that
> a photon CANNOT interfere with itself. But there is simply no REASON
> to believe a photon somehow interferes with itself.

Actually, there is good reason, see the book already mentioned below, which
you’ve tried to read.

> The photon is going
> through a barrier that consists of ATOMS. And photons routinely
> interact with ATOMS. A photon can be DEFINED as energy being
> TRANSFERRED from one atom to another.

Well, really the issue is not about the photons that get stopped by the
barrier. It’s only about the photons that pass through the slits. What’s in
fact interesting is that the interference pattern does not change if you
change the width of each slit, and this is how you know that grazing is not
the driver for the behavior. What’s also interesting is that you can tune
down the intensity of the source so that you know there is ONLY one photon
being sent toward the slits at a time — say, one photon every 3 seconds, so
that the likelihood of them being sent in pairs is essentially nil. The
interference pattern remains. This is one of the good reasons to start
considering that the photons must be interfering with themselves — it
doesn’t count on grazing, and it still happens when it’s one photon at a
time.

>
>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
>>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
>>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
>>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
>>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
>>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
>>> the "striped pattern."
>> I suggest you read Feynman’s book for laypeople: The Character of Physical
>> Law. He describes this in very simple terms, though it takes several
>> chapters to make the point.
>
> I've read "The Character of Physical Law." I have a hardback copy and I have
> it in digital form. Feynman just describes the double slit experiment as a
> "mystery."

No, he doesn’t just say that. He spends several chapters talking about the
experiment in detail.

> He also says the two holes are in a plate made of TUNGSTEN.
> That poses the question: What happens to a photon when it hits tungsten?

It stops. But the interference pattern is all about those photons that do
not touch or graze any tungsten at all.

>
> I think we'd all be better off if we could pick just one subject to argue about.
> Arguing a dozen topics at once just leads to confusion and misunderstandings.
>
> Ed
>

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

On 8/30/2021 12:57 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 10:34:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/30/2021 10:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
>>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
>>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
>>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
>>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
>>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
>>> the "striped pattern."
>> That is an unproved assertion, actually just handwaving. Why do we get
>> an interference pattern and not just any "striped pattern"?
>
> Because the photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency. The pattern
> on the screen shows that frequency.

So why do they match what is predicted for an interference pattern?
Why is the pattern different if there is only one slit vs. two slits?
If the slits are the same, why doesn't it matter which slit is blocked
to get the one slit pattern?
>
>>> "VIRTUAL photon exchanges"?? Why can't you describe what is ACTUALLY
>>> happening?
>> Because what is actually happening is not known, but virtual photon
>> exchange is a model which very accurately predicts the outcome. That is
>> how science modeling works.
>
> Yes, that is what they did to argue that the earth was the center of the
> universe. And when that was shown to be wrong, they used mathematical
> modeling to argue that the sun was the center of the universe.

Poor example, as learning the earth was not the center of the universe
was essentially the same as the beginning of science itself. But
anyway: Proto-scientists may have started out believing the earth was
the center of the universe, but then they got more information. Like
Galileo's telescope, as a big example. Between the new information and
certain big problems with the old theory (epicycles), they finally
figured out that the sun as the center of the solar system made much
more sense than the earth. This is not a failure of science, it was the
beginnings of science, and when new information comes along showing an
old theory isn't right, science uses it instead. And one day science
will get more information about what happens where "virtual particles"
are currently invoked, it will be tested and become a new theory and
"virtual particles" will be only of historic interest.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> YES, IT DOES. I explains it PERFECTLY. The oscillations cause
> the photon to change its trajectory when the oscillations encounter
> oscillating fields that come from the atoms that comprise the
> double slit experiment device.

Handwaving.

OK, so your claim would predict that slits which are identical except
for being in different materials will behave differently, because the
different atoms in the slit device affect the light differently? Be
careful...
>

>>> An oscillating photon is something like the South American bola. The
>>> bola has two or three balls connected together by a rope. When you
>>> throw it, the balls spin around like binary planets held together by the rope.
>>> When the bola hits something, it wraps around that object.
>> That is a piss-poor comparison, plus trying to compare photons to
>> macroscopic objects like that is doomed to fail.
>
> It's an okay analogy, except for the fact that the bola is spinning, not oscillating.

And the relevance is...?
>
>>> A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side. If
>>> the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
>>> photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
>>> instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
>>> re-emitted in some other direction.
>> None of your handwaving can explain the two slit outcome by having an
>> "oscillating" photon go through one slit like that.
>
> You just have to realize that an oscillating photon is interacting with the
> fields of the atoms that comprise the two slit device.

So if I have identical sized slits in different metals I will see
different results with photons of the same frequency?

> In mathematics you

We're discussing physics here. Mathematics is only a tool.

> but in REALITY photons oscillate

No, it is not REALITY. It is merely your BELIEF that photons oscillate,
and your belief is not shared by physicists.

>> Plus what frequency would a photon "oscillate" at, if it did? Don't
>> forget the measured frequency depends on the Doppler effect if the
>> source and observer are relatively moving....
>
> All photons oscillate at a specific frequency. How can you not know that???
> Radar guns emit photons that oscillate in the radio range. A typical radar gun
> emits photons that oscillate 35,000,000,000 times per second.

I can observe a certain star and find the Sodium D line pair but it
appears in the red portion of the spectrum. I can measure both their
frequencies and wavelengths and confirm this, both correspond to red
light, not the sodium yellow-orange. I can observe another star and
find the sodium D line pair but in the green region. Again, the
frequency and wavelengths correspond to green light, not yellow-orange.
So what are the frequencies of oscillation of the sodium light photons
I saw from the stars? A "red" frequency, a "green" frequency, the usual
sodium orange-yellow, or something else? An astronomer will us the
first star is receding and the second star is approaching which Doppler
shifts their light, affecting both frequency and wavelengths.
>
> The emitter inside a cesium atomic clock emits photons that oscillate at
> EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second.

And if the clock is receding at 0.5c, what will I measure for its frequency?
>
> We see colors because photons of different colors oscillate at different
> frequencies.

I look at the first star and I see red sodium light. I look at the
second star and I see green sodium light. What frequency do their
photons oscillate at?
>
>>>
>>> You need to stop using experiments that are TWO CENTURIES OLD and
>>> study experiments that are done TODAY.
>> Which agree with relative time dilation and disagree with "oscillating"
>> photons, big time.
>>> Experiments that are done TODAY
>>> show that if you send one photon at a time through the double slit device
>>> those photons will eventually form that same striped pattern on the wall.
>> Yet "oscillating" photons cannot explain that since the outcome is
>> different when there is two slits with the "oscillating" photon going
>> through one and one slit (the second slit blocked).
>>> That is NOT because of any MAGIC where one photon goes through both
>>> slits, it is because MOST photons hit some part of the device before they
>>> go through ONE of the slits. And hitting the device changes the trajectory
>>> of the photon.
>> Photons which hit the device are blocked, and don't contribute to the
>> pattern.
>
> I understand that is what you BELIEVE, but photons are not "blocked."

That may be what YOU believe, but by "blocked" the photons aren't
contributing to the pattern just like any light encountering an opaque
object. They are absorbed as heat or reflected away.

> They are either absorbed and converted to heat, or they are absorbed
> and RE-EMITTED.

Which is what I meant by blocked. They don't contribute to the pattern
because they are absorbed or reflected away from where the pattern is.
>
> And what about photons that just graze the sides of the slits?

SlitS as in plural? Does one photon go through both slits if it grazes
the sides? Explain?

> How can you believe those photons will not have their paths altered?

On 8/30/2021 2:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 3:08:14 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>>> A photon cannot interfere with itself.
>>> Again, how do you VALIDATE that a photon cannot interfere with itself?
>>> Reminder, note, that just because you don’t see how something is possible
>>> does not make it impossible.
>>
>> You cannot prove the negative, so there is no way to prove that
>> a photon CANNOT interfere with itself. But there is simply no REASON
>> to believe a photon somehow interferes with itself.
>
> Actually, there is good reason, see the book already mentioned below, which
> you’ve tried to read.
>
>> The photon is going
>> through a barrier that consists of ATOMS. And photons routinely
>> interact with ATOMS. A photon can be DEFINED as energy being
>> TRANSFERRED from one atom to another.
>
> Well, really the issue is not about the photons that get stopped by the
> barrier. It’s only about the photons that pass through the slits. What’s in
> fact interesting is that the interference pattern does not change if you
> change the width of each slit, and this is how you know that grazing is not
> the driver for the behavior. What’s also interesting is that you can tune
> down the intensity of the source so that you know there is ONLY one photon
> being sent toward the slits at a time — say, one photon every 3 seconds, so
> that the likelihood of them being sent in pairs is essentially nil. The
> interference pattern remains. This is one of the good reasons to start
> considering that the photons must be interfering with themselves — it
> doesn’t count on grazing, and it still happens when it’s one photon at a
> time.
>
>>
>>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
>>>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
>>>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
>>>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
>>>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
>>>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
>>>> the "striped pattern."
>>> I suggest you read Feynman’s book for laypeople: The Character of Physical
>>> Law. He describes this in very simple terms, though it takes several
>>> chapters to make the point.
>>
>> I've read "The Character of Physical Law." I have a hardback copy and I have
>> it in digital form. Feynman just describes the double slit experiment as a
>> "mystery."
>
> No, he doesn’t just say that. He spends several chapters talking about the
> experiment in detail.
>
>> He also says the two holes are in a plate made of TUNGSTEN.
>> That poses the question: What happens to a photon when it hits tungsten?
>
> It stops. But the interference pattern is all about those photons that do
> not touch or graze any tungsten at all.
>
>>
>> I think we'd all be better off if we could pick just one subject to argue about.
>> Arguing a dozen topics at once just leads to confusion and misunderstandings.

https://youtu.be/iVpXrbZ4bnU?list=PLkyBCj4JhHt-elH-mR1d1NfTZ-W0_DCRl

>

On 8/30/2021 3:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Well, I don’t think it’s quite THAT crazy.

Maybe a bit strong since Ed isn't claiming that God Himself handed him
stone tablets stating his beliefs, however:

Ed refers to his beliefs as factual and everyone else's beliefs as
easily dismissed beliefs, misunderstandings or whatever. It is my
belief that Ed is much like Plutonium, McGinn and many others in that
they cannot tell the difference between fact and what they believe in.
Plutonium in particular, try to tell him that one of his beliefs is
false! This is true even though they seem to understand the concept of
a belief when held by someone else. Not the first case of a "double
standard", again with Plutonium he frequently complains of spammers or
even regulars posting more than he likes, yet he's by far the biggest
spammer in his regular groups. It must be part of NPD, different
"rules" for everyone else don't apply to themselves.
>
>> 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".
>
> Yes, this is just spin for propaganda’s sake. He’s taking the default state
> of assuming that anything that makes sense to him is (for him) “fact” and
> anything that anybody else says but can’t convince Ed of is a “belief”.
> That’s just a baiting tactic to try to push people to re-explain their
> cases in a way that Ed will both understand and believe.

I understand Ed is largely a troll, but I will stick to my belief that
he doesn't understand the difference between fact and his own beliefs,
even if "the word of God" is too strong a description of his beliefs.
>
> There are also non-manipulative self-delusions like his insisting that
> visualization is the only proper way to understand something just because
> that’s the one way that works for him; that web sites are correct and
> physics textbooks are wrong, just because he can read and digest web pages
> but can’t read or digest textbooks; and that any explanation that is over
> Ed’s head is simply regurgitated rote material. He REALLY doesn’t want to
> accept that physics is not acceptable to him because of math or studying
> textbooks or jargon — that seems unfair to him — and so he simply denies
> that they’re important.

Three days spent arguing like if Ed, Bodkin and others were from different species talking different
languages.

Still, Raemsch original (and weird question) remains unanswered.

I tried to give Raemsch an explanation and, also, to help Ed understanding about photons, waves
and atomic clocks in a couple of detailed posts, but nobody gave a shit about them.

Meanwhile, the ignorance, stupidity, arrogance and patronizing post rules this thread.

I don't care that my posts were ignored. What scares me (besides Bodkin's verbal diarrhea) is that nobody
here know what a fucking photon is alleged to be. All of you should read the foundational paper of Quantum
Physics, written by Planck in Dec. 1900 (and it's not that I think of him as a superb genius in theoretical physics)
but, at his paper, he cleared stated (CLEARLY):

********************************************************************************************************************
On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum
Max Planck
Annalen der Physik, vol. 4, p. 553 ff (1901)

§3. It is now a matter of finding the probability W so that the N resonators together possess the vibrational
energy UN. Moreover, it is necessary to interpret UN not as a continuous, infinitely divisible quantity, but as a
discrete quantity composed of an integral number of finite equal parts. Let us call each such part the energy
element ϵ; consequently we must set

UN = Pϵ (4)

where P represents a large integer generally, while the value of ϵ is yet uncertain.
.................................................
§10. If we apply Wien’s displacement law in the latter form to equation (6) for the entropy S, we then find that
the energy element ϵ must be proportional to the frequency ʋ, thus:

ϵ = hʋ
................................................
3 Numerical Values
§11. The values of both universal constants..........
....................
From this and from equation (14) the values for the universal constants become:

h = 6.55 · 10−27 erg · sec

********************************************************************************************************************

Since then, and for 121 years being unchallenged, Planck's h quantum of action (erg.sec) and Planck's ϵ = h𝜈 quanta
of energy (the energy of the fucking PHOTON), that Planck found as the ELEMENTARY MULTIPLIER for the energy of
an integer P number of resonators OSCILLATING at a single frequency ʋ (which is the excess energy above equilibrium)
in the Black Body Cavity), BEING THAT such excess of energy is the one contained in EVERY SINGLE PERIOD of the
electromagnetic radiation that fills the cavity at frequency ʋ.

And then, his conclusion is that the DENSITY OF ENERGY within the BBC (EM waves soup) for every conceivable
frequency ʋ = 1/τ is described as:

u(ʋ,T) = (8πhʋ^3)/c^3 . 1/(e^(hʋ/kT)-1) , (in units Joule.m^-3.Hz^-1)

AND ϵ = hʋ = h/τ

is the energy carried by such fucking PHOTON, in every single wavelength/period of an EM wave.

Energy of a photon = Quantum of Action h/Time at which its energy is delivered (ϵ = h/τ).

The generalized use of frequency ʋ instead of period τ of an EM wave is the cause of rotten minds which still speculate
what a photon IS. It's nothing but an expression of the energy carried by an EM wave, period after period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, read about the first two posts on this thread, and tell me why answers that can fill 200 pages in a book were written.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 26, 2021, 11:02:11 PM (3 days ago)

and how could the changing atomic be counted?
by what macro machine?

Mitchell Raemsch

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 27, 2021, 11:01:19 AM (3 days ago)

As I understand it, what they do is shoot a photon at a Cesium atom,
the Cesium atom immediately gets rid of that energy by emitting a
new photon, the atomic clock collects that photon and sends another
photon to Cesium atom, which is again rejected.

The clock counts how many times PER SECOND the Cesium atom
rejects the photons sent to it. The answer is: 9,192,631,770.
A second is 1/86,400th of an Earth day, and a Cesium atomic clock
ticks 9,192,631,770 times during that period of time.

Ed

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Photons or quanta of energy, carried in an EM wave, are just simplification to analyze discreteness of energy
values carried by EM waves. They don't exist by themselves, and they are NOTHING without an EM wave, being
it continuous (Maxwell) or short-lived (like the gaussian shaped packet waves in the quantum world).

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> 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 only ones that contribute to the interference pattern are the ones that
pass through the slits without any kind of contact.

This is demonstrated by changing the material of the plate in which the
slits are cut, changing the width of the slits themselves, and changing the
intensity of the light.

See Feynman’s book on this subject.

>
>>> 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
>

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

Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 10:34:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/30/2021 10:59 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 30, 2021 at 2:19:15 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 29, 2021 at 12:58:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
>>> Yes, each photon goes through just one slit. But there are two different
>>> routes a photon can take. Some go through one slit, some go through
>>> the other slit. That FACT and the fact that all photons do not MAGICALLY
>>> go straight through the slits but hit various parts of the device means
>>> that it is probably very rare for a photon to go straight through either
>>> slit without hitting or grazing something along the way. THAT causes
>>> the "striped pattern."
>> That is an unproved assertion, actually just handwaving. Why do we get
>> an interference pattern and not just any "striped pattern"?
>
> Because the photons OSCILLATE at a specific frequency. The pattern
> on the screen shows that frequency.
>
>>> "VIRTUAL photon exchanges"?? Why can't you describe what is ACTUALLY
>>> happening?
>> Because what is actually happening is not known, but virtual photon
>> exchange is a model which very accurately predicts the outcome. That is
>> how science modeling works.
>
> Yes, that is what they did to argue that the earth was the center of the
> universe. And when that was shown to be wrong,

For the sake of argument, HOW was it shown that the earth was not in the
center of the universe? The answer is illuminating.

> they used mathematical
> modeling to argue that the sun was the center of the universe.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
> YES, IT DOES. I explains it PERFECTLY. The oscillations cause
> the photon to change its trajectory when the oscillations encounter
> oscillating fields that come from the atoms that comprise the
> double slit experiment device.

Only if you can quantitatively predict the pattern. That’s a requirement of
a quantitative science like physics. Qualitative explanations don’t cut it.

This small fact is going to be very discouraging for you.

>
>>>
>>> You are talking mathematics. I am talking about what ACTUALLY happens.
>> He IS talking about what actually happens! No mathematics involved, either.
>>> An oscillating photon is something like the South American bola. The
>>> bola has two or three balls connected together by a rope. When you
>>> throw it, the balls spin around like binary planets held together by the rope.
>>> When the bola hits something, it wraps around that object.
>> That is a piss-poor comparison, plus trying to compare photons to
>> macroscopic objects like that is doomed to fail.
>
> It's an okay analogy, except for the fact that the bola is spinning, not oscillating.
>
>>> A photon oscillates as it travels. It's fields move from side to side. If
>>> the fields hit the side of a slit, they can deflect the direction of travel for the
>>> photon. And what happens to photons that hit some part of the device
>>> instead of going straight through? The photon will be absorbed and
>>> re-emitted in some other direction.
>> None of your handwaving can explain the two slit outcome by having an
>> "oscillating" photon go through one slit like that.
>
> You just have to realize that an oscillating photon is interacting with the
> fields of the atoms that comprise the two slit device. In mathematics you
> can have a photon that does not oscillate, and atoms that do not have
> fields, but in REALITY photons oscillate and those oscillating fields can
> encounter fields from any atoms in the vicinity.
>
>>
>> Plus what frequency would a photon "oscillate" at, if it did? Don't
>> forget the measured frequency depends on the Doppler effect if the
>> source and observer are relatively moving....
>
> All photons oscillate at a specific frequency. How can you not know that???
> Radar guns emit photons that oscillate in the radio range. A typical radar gun
> emits photons that oscillate 35,000,000,000 times per second.
>
> The emitter inside a cesium atomic clock emits photons that oscillate at
> EXACTLY 9,192,631,770 times per second.
>
> We see colors because photons of different colors oscillate at different
> frequencies.
>
>>>
>>> You need to stop using experiments that are TWO CENTURIES OLD and
>>> study experiments that are done TODAY.
>> Which agree with relative time dilation and disagree with "oscillating"
>> photons, big time.
>>> Experiments that are done TODAY
>>> show that if you send one photon at a time through the double slit device
>>> those photons will eventually form that same striped pattern on the wall.
>> Yet "oscillating" photons cannot explain that since the outcome is
>> different when there is two slits with the "oscillating" photon going
>> through one and one slit (the second slit blocked).
>>> That is NOT because of any MAGIC where one photon goes through both
>>> slits, it is because MOST photons hit some part of the device before they
>>> go through ONE of the slits. And hitting the device changes the trajectory
>>> of the photon.
>> Photons which hit the device are blocked, and don't contribute to the
>> pattern.
>
> I understand that is what you BELIEVE, but photons are not "blocked."
> They are either absorbed and converted to heat, or they are absorbed
> and RE-EMITTED.
>
> And what about photons that just graze the sides of the slits?
> How can you believe those photons will not have their paths altered?
>
> Ed
>

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