On 8/10/2021 18:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:16:18 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/2021 17:46, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>> news:5s15hg5clf2ieuoh67fuqe8gpio8g20tvj@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>> Obviously you *know* what nonsense you are saying yet you
>>>>> keep on spreading it.
>>>>> What a shame.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?
>>>>
>>>> Cutting over to lame insults usually means you don't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Declaring that you do not know what you are saying is not an insult.
>>> Declaring that you know full well what you are saying and that such
>>> behavior is shameful is not one either.
>>>
>>
>> I was about to write something like this but you were faster, thanks.
>
> Don't be another old hen. This ain't Facebook. Talk about the merits
> of building more big accelerators.

Ah now that is an insult, a clumsy one but you tried.

So according to your initial post it is "Brookhaven good,
CERN bad", eh?
Pathetic.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:48:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>On 8/10/2021 18:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:16:18 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/10/2021 17:46, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>>> news:5s15hg5clf2ieuoh67fuqe8gpio8g20tvj@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you *know* what nonsense you are saying yet you
>>>>>> keep on spreading it.
>>>>>> What a shame.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cutting over to lame insults usually means you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Declaring that you do not know what you are saying is not an insult.
>>>> Declaring that you know full well what you are saying and that such
>>>> behavior is shameful is not one either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I was about to write something like this but you were faster, thanks.
>>
>> Don't be another old hen. This ain't Facebook. Talk about the merits
>> of building more big accelerators.
>
>Ah now that is an insult, a clumsy one but you tried.
>
>So according to your initial post it is "Brookhaven good,
>CERN bad", eh?
>Pathetic.

Cluck cluck. You have joined the village old biddies.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On 8/10/2021 18:43, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2021-08-10 17:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7,
>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>>> another.
>>>>>
>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear
>>>>> optics.
>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>> photons.
>>>
>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>
>> Did you read my original link? It seems that a pair of photons can
>> collide and produce matter.
>>
>> Sort of like a pair of particles colliding and making photons.
>>
>> Of course, the smallest particle has a lot of mc^2 energy, so the
>> photons would have to be very energetic.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I did. It seemed to involve colliding gold ions.
>
> Jeroen Belleman

If I got it right it involved gold nuclei passing each other nearly
at the speed of light thus producing enough EM field so the photons
would have the energy it takes.
A fine measurement.

I wonder if John knew they had done it at BNL and posted it because
"BNL good CERN bad" you know :D. Or he just did not read that far
and still "all colliders bad"....

On 8/10/2021 18:57, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:48:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/2021 18:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:16:18 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/10/2021 17:46, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>>>> news:5s15hg5clf2ieuoh67fuqe8gpio8g20tvj@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously you *know* what nonsense you are saying yet you
>>>>>>> keep on spreading it.
>>>>>>> What a shame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cutting over to lame insults usually means you don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Declaring that you do not know what you are saying is not an insult.
>>>>> Declaring that you know full well what you are saying and that such
>>>>> behavior is shameful is not one either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was about to write something like this but you were faster, thanks.
>>>
>>> Don't be another old hen. This ain't Facebook. Talk about the merits
>>> of building more big accelerators.
>>
>> Ah now that is an insult, a clumsy one but you tried.
>>
>> So according to your initial post it is "Brookhaven good,
>> CERN bad", eh?
>> Pathetic.
>
> Cluck cluck. You have joined the village old biddies.
>
>
>

Answer the question. Trying to be witty instead is just more
pathetic.
Or did you post the link without knowing how and where the experiment
took place while waiting me to join your club.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:58:58 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>On 8/10/2021 18:43, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> On 2021-08-10 17:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear
>>>>>> optics.
>>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>>> photons.
>>>>
>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>
>>> Did you read my original link? It seems that a pair of photons can
>>> collide and produce matter.
>>>
>>> Sort of like a pair of particles colliding and making photons.
>>>
>>> Of course, the smallest particle has a lot of mc^2 energy, so the
>>> photons would have to be very energetic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I did. It seemed to involve colliding gold ions.
>>
>> Jeroen Belleman
>
>If I got it right it involved gold nuclei passing each other nearly
>at the speed of light thus producing enough EM field so the photons
>would have the energy it takes.
>A fine measurement.
>
>I wonder if John knew they had done it at BNL and posted it because
>"BNL good CERN bad" you know :D. Or he just did not read that far
>and still "all colliders bad"....

I found the physics interesting, namely whether space is classical and
linear. Both effects were predicted in theory decades ago.

Some people may think that the laws of the universe are regional. I
don't. I sell to both BNL and to CERN.

You guys are such my-o-my old gossips. The physics doesn't care about
your clucking.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

The best designs are necessarily accidental.

On 8/10/2021 19:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:58:58 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/2021 18:43, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-10 17:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear
>>>>>>> optics.
>>>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>>>> photons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>
>>>> Did you read my original link? It seems that a pair of photons can
>>>> collide and produce matter.
>>>>
>>>> Sort of like a pair of particles colliding and making photons.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the smallest particle has a lot of mc^2 energy, so the
>>>> photons would have to be very energetic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did. It seemed to involve colliding gold ions.
>>>
>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>
>> If I got it right it involved gold nuclei passing each other nearly
>> at the speed of light thus producing enough EM field so the photons
>> would have the energy it takes.
>> A fine measurement.
>>
>> I wonder if John knew they had done it at BNL and posted it because
>> "BNL good CERN bad" you know :D. Or he just did not read that far
>> and still "all colliders bad"....
>
> I found the physics interesting, namely whether space is classical and
> linear. Both effects were predicted in theory decades ago.
>
> Some people may think that the laws of the universe are regional. I
> don't. I sell to both BNL and to CERN.
>
> You guys are such my-o-my old gossips. The physics doesn't care about
> your clucking.
>
>

So did you realize the link you were posting was about an experiment
at BNL at the time of posting, yes or no please. We all know what
the physics does not care about, clucking that sort of thing does
not answer the questions I asked.

The other question was not to whom you sell, read it as many times
as it takes.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>> didn't work!
>>>
>>>
>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>> another.
>>>
>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear optics.
>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>
>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>
>>
>>
>
>No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>photons.

While photons couple strongly with charged particles, photons are
independent of matter - both exist, neither depending on the other for
its existence.

As others have said, the experiment involved gold ions passing quite
close to one another, but not actually colliding.

Joe Gwinn

On 8/10/2021 19:40, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>> another.
>>>>
>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear optics.
>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>
>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>> photons.
>
> While photons couple strongly with charged particles, photons are
> independent of matter - both exist, neither depending on the other for
> its existence.
>
> As others have said, the experiment involved gold ions passing quite
> close to one another, but not actually colliding.
>
>
> Joe Gwinn
>

I was wondering how did they do it - did they manage to make collisions
unlikely enough (at that proximity... seems unlikely to me) or did they
(likely) have both and just managed to measure what they were after.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:37:48 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>On 8/10/2021 19:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:58:58 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/10/2021 18:43, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>> On 2021-08-10 17:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear
>>>>>>>> optics.
>>>>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>>>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>>>>> photons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you read my original link? It seems that a pair of photons can
>>>>> collide and produce matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sort of like a pair of particles colliding and making photons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, the smallest particle has a lot of mc^2 energy, so the
>>>>> photons would have to be very energetic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did. It seemed to involve colliding gold ions.
>>>>
>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>
>>> If I got it right it involved gold nuclei passing each other nearly
>>> at the speed of light thus producing enough EM field so the photons
>>> would have the energy it takes.
>>> A fine measurement.
>>>
>>> I wonder if John knew they had done it at BNL and posted it because
>>> "BNL good CERN bad" you know :D. Or he just did not read that far
>>> and still "all colliders bad"....
>>
>> I found the physics interesting, namely whether space is classical and
>> linear. Both effects were predicted in theory decades ago.
>>
>> Some people may think that the laws of the universe are regional. I
>> don't. I sell to both BNL and to CERN.
>>
>> You guys are such my-o-my old gossips. The physics doesn't care about
>> your clucking.
>>
>>
>
>So did you realize the link you were posting was about an experiment
>at BNL at the time of posting, yes or no please. We all know what
>the physics does not care about, clucking that sort of thing does
>not answer the questions I asked.

I didn't pay much attention to where it was done. The photons don't
care either.

What does it matter?

On 8/10/2021 20:41, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:37:48 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/10/2021 19:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:58:58 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/10/2021 18:43, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-08-10 17:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>>>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear
>>>>>>>>> optics.
>>>>>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>>>>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>>>>>> photons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you read my original link? It seems that a pair of photons can
>>>>>> collide and produce matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sort of like a pair of particles colliding and making photons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, the smallest particle has a lot of mc^2 energy, so the
>>>>>> photons would have to be very energetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did. It seemed to involve colliding gold ions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>
>>>> If I got it right it involved gold nuclei passing each other nearly
>>>> at the speed of light thus producing enough EM field so the photons
>>>> would have the energy it takes.
>>>> A fine measurement.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if John knew they had done it at BNL and posted it because
>>>> "BNL good CERN bad" you know :D. Or he just did not read that far
>>>> and still "all colliders bad"....
>>>
>>> I found the physics interesting, namely whether space is classical and
>>> linear. Both effects were predicted in theory decades ago.
>>>
>>> Some people may think that the laws of the universe are regional. I
>>> don't. I sell to both BNL and to CERN.
>>>
>>> You guys are such my-o-my old gossips. The physics doesn't care about
>>> your clucking.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So did you realize the link you were posting was about an experiment
>> at BNL at the time of posting, yes or no please. We all know what
>> the physics does not care about, clucking that sort of thing does
>> not answer the questions I asked.
>
> I didn't pay much attention to where it was done. The photons don't
> care either.
>
> What does it matter?
>

Of course it does not matter, the link was interesting.
My initial question was with a smile, you got angry nonetheless
and switched to insult mode - which is no big deal for me
but my question "is it BNL good CERN bad" or is it "all colliders
bad", based on our previous exchanges seemed amusing enough
to me so I did not spare it to you. Was it so hard? Come on,
give us a grin.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:45:50 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>On 8/10/2021 19:40, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>>> another.
>>>>>
>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear optics.
>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>> photons.
>>
>> While photons couple strongly with charged particles, photons are
>> independent of matter - both exist, neither depending on the other for
>> its existence.
>>
>> As others have said, the experiment involved gold ions passing quite
>> close to one another, but not actually colliding.
>>
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>>
>
>I was wondering how did they do it - did they manage to make collisions
>unlikely enough (at that proximity... seems unlikely to me) or did they
>(likely) have both and just managed to measure what they were after.

I would assume the latter, that they can tell the cases apart and
ignore collisions. While I have not read the underlying data yet,
it's hard to see how it could be done otherwise.

The bullets are gold nuclei, stripped of all electrons, and so are
very strongly charged, and so will strongly repel one another. A
direct collision will yield a shower of hadron et al debris. A very
near miss will yield a large-angle deflection, but no debris.

Joe Gwinn

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 20:48:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
wrote:

>On 8/10/2021 20:41, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:37:48 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/10/2021 19:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:58:58 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/10/2021 18:43, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 17:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear
>>>>>>>>>> optics.
>>>>>>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>>>>>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>>>>>>> photons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Did you read my original link? It seems that a pair of photons can
>>>>>>> collide and produce matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sort of like a pair of particles colliding and making photons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, the smallest particle has a lot of mc^2 energy, so the
>>>>>>> photons would have to be very energetic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did. It seemed to involve colliding gold ions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>
>>>>> If I got it right it involved gold nuclei passing each other nearly
>>>>> at the speed of light thus producing enough EM field so the photons
>>>>> would have the energy it takes.
>>>>> A fine measurement.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if John knew they had done it at BNL and posted it because
>>>>> "BNL good CERN bad" you know :D. Or he just did not read that far
>>>>> and still "all colliders bad"....
>>>>
>>>> I found the physics interesting, namely whether space is classical and
>>>> linear. Both effects were predicted in theory decades ago.
>>>>
>>>> Some people may think that the laws of the universe are regional. I
>>>> don't. I sell to both BNL and to CERN.
>>>>
>>>> You guys are such my-o-my old gossips. The physics doesn't care about
>>>> your clucking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So did you realize the link you were posting was about an experiment
>>> at BNL at the time of posting, yes or no please. We all know what
>>> the physics does not care about, clucking that sort of thing does
>>> not answer the questions I asked.
>>
>> I didn't pay much attention to where it was done. The photons don't
>> care either.
>>
>> What does it matter?
>>
>
>Of course it does not matter, the link was interesting.
>My initial question was with a smile, you got angry nonetheless
>and switched to insult mode -

All I insulted was Big Money Physics.

>which is no big deal for me
>but my question "is it BNL good CERN bad" or is it "all colliders
>bad", based on our previous exchanges seemed amusing enough
>to me so I did not spare it to you. Was it so hard? Come on,
>give us a grin.

;) or something?

I've been to SLAC, BNL, LLNL, NIF, LANL, Jlabs, Fermilab and designed
a wire chamber system for CERN, but never went there. I don't think
any of the big particle accelerators have returned much for their
cost.

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:42:02 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:37:48 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 8/10/2021 19:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:58:58 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/10/2021 18:43, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-08-10 17:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> >>>>> <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7,
> >>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> >>>>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
> >>>>>>>>> another.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear
> >>>>>>>> optics.
> >>>>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.

> >>>>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.

> >>>>> Did you read my original link? It seems that a pair of photons can
> >>>>> collide and produce matter.

> >>>> I did. It seemed to involve colliding gold ions.

> >>> If I got it right it involved gold nuclei passing each other nearly
> >>> at the speed of light thus producing enough EM field so the photons
> >>> would have the energy it takes.
> >>> A fine measurement.
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if John knew they had done it at BNL and posted it because
> >>> "BNL good CERN bad" you know :D. Or he just did not read that far
> >>> and still "all colliders bad"....
> >>
> >> I found the physics interesting, namely whether space is classical and
> >> linear. Both effects were predicted in theory decades ago.

> I didn't pay much attention to where it was done. The photons don't
> care either.
>
> What does it matter?

Since you want to see photons interacting in free space, without big physics, it's
an example that involves fast gold ions, in a big-physics collider. That's why it
matters.

Seeing a pair production without that impetus, is inconsistent with human lifespan.

On 2021-08-10 18:40, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>> another.
>>>>
>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear optics.
>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>
>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>> photons.
>
> While photons couple strongly with charged particles, photons are
> independent of matter - both exist, neither depending on the other for
> its existence.

My point is that you can't tell if you've got a photon until it has
interacted with matter in a detector. Many would say that the photon
had an independent existence before the interaction, but I adhere to
the view that the photon *is* the interaction. Without interaction,
there is no photon.

>
> As others have said, the experiment involved gold ions passing quite
> close to one another, but not actually colliding.
>
>
> Joe Gwinn
>

On these scales, the very concept of a 'collision' is vague. An ion
is not a little solid clump of stuff. It has springiness, modes of
vibration, rotation and it could even be said to be transparent.
A 'collision' between two ions may result in anything from a mild
deflection to a total destruction. Ions may end up vibrating or
spinning after the interaction. Either way, this involves the
exchange of photons and maybe other bosons beside. Again, a photon
is merely the manifestation of an interaction. It has no independent
existence.

Jeroen Belleman

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:58:09 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:48:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 8/10/2021 18:24, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:16:18 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/10/2021 17:46, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> >>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
> >>>> news:5s15hg5clf2ieuoh6...@4ax.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Obviously you *know* what nonsense you are saying yet you
> >>>>>> keep on spreading it.
> >>>>>> What a shame.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cutting over to lame insults usually means you don't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Declaring that you do not know what you are saying is not an insult.
> >>>> Declaring that you know full well what you are saying and that such
> >>>> behavior is shameful is not one either.
> >>>
> >>> I was about to write something like this but you were faster, thanks.
> >>
> >> Don't be another old hen. This ain't Facebook. Talk about the merits of building more big accelerators.

It provides jobs for electronic engineers? That might qualify as "on-topic"..
> >Ah now that is an insult, a clumsy one but you tried.
> >
> >So according to your initial post it is "Brookhaven good, CERN bad", eh?
>
> >Pathetic.
> Cluck cluck. You have joined the village old biddies.

John Larkin's judgment is impressively poor. He posts a lot of stuff that really does need to be corrected, which reliably provokes him into complaining about "hens clucking". It isn't an honour which is hard to earn. I got there years ago. Dimiter has now joined this not-very-exclusive club and I'm happy to welcome him in.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 6:48:48 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 20:48:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >On 8/10/2021 20:41, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:37:48 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >>> On 8/10/2021 19:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:58:58 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 8/10/2021 18:43, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2021-08-10 17:28, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail..com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

> I've been to SLAC, BNL, LLNL, NIF, LANL, Jlabs, Fermilab and designed
> a wire chamber system for CERN, but never went there.

He might have designed some of the electronics for a wire chamber system, which probably means that he was told exactly what the electronics had to do, with examples from other people's wire chambers. His "idea" of design seems to come close to doing what he was told to do, and documenting it.

> I don't think any of the big particle accelerators have returned much for their cost.

John Larkin doesn't seem to think enough - he certainly doesn't know enough - to have a useful opinion. He certainly doesn't know enough to realise how uninteresting his opinions are.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 23:14:26 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 2021-08-10 18:40, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>>> another.
>>>>>
>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear optics.
>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>
>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>> photons.
>>
>> While photons couple strongly with charged particles, photons are
>> independent of matter - both exist, neither depending on the other for
>> its existence.
>
>My point is that you can't tell if you've got a photon until it has
>interacted with matter in a detector. Many would say that the photon
>had an independent existence before the interaction, but I adhere to
>the view that the photon *is* the interaction. Without interaction,
>there is no photon.

While it's certainly true that we cannot detect any particle unless it
blunders into something and changes it, it does not mean that such
particles don't exist. Neutrinos are a classic example. And whatever
Dark Matter turns out to be.

I suppose that for gravity waves there is no particle blundering into
anything (instead we measure distortion of space), and yet gravity
waves do exist.

>> As others have said, the experiment involved gold ions passing quite
>> close to one another, but not actually colliding.
>
>On these scales, the very concept of a 'collision' is vague. An ion
>is not a little solid clump of stuff. It has springiness, modes of
>vibration, rotation and it could even be said to be transparent.
>A 'collision' between two ions may result in anything from a mild
>deflection to a total destruction. Ions may end up vibrating or
>spinning after the interaction. Either way, this involves the
>exchange of photons and maybe other bosons beside.

This is certainly true.

The basic article is behind a paywall, so I don't know just how these
issues are handled. Maybe there is an open pre-print somewhere.

> Again, a photon
>is merely the manifestation of an interaction. It has no independent
>existence.

But this is an assertion that may not follow from the above.

I fear we are falling into the "interpretations" swamp of quantum
mechanics.

As many famous physicists have said, nobody understands QM, but it
works spectacularly well, so just calculate and be happy.

Joe Gwinn

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 7:14:36 AM UTC+10, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2021-08-10 18:40, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

> > While photons couple strongly with charged particles, photons are
> > independent of matter - both exist, neither depending on the other for
> > its existence.
>
> My point is that you can't tell if you've got a photon until it has
> interacted with matter in a detector. Many would say that the photon
> had an independent existence before the interaction, but I adhere to
> the view that the photon *is* the interaction. Without interaction,
> there is no photon.

But it is a lot easier to think about them as having an independent existence. Some photon that was emitted in a distant galaxy a couple of billion years, might not have had an independent existence until got into the camera on a local telescope, but it's lot easier to think in terms of a wavepacket getting from there to here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:8a65hg1hdi09cn7e727r0is42rbonhcrqs@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:16:18 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff
> <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>
>>On 8/10/2021 17:46, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
>>wrote:
>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>> news:5s15hg5clf2ieuoh67fuqe8gpio8g20tvj@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>> Obviously you *know* what nonsense you are saying yet you
>>>>> keep on spreading it.
>>>>> What a shame.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?
>>>>
>>>> Cutting over to lame insults usually means you don't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Declaring that you do not know what you are saying is not an
>>> insult.
>>> Declaring that you know full well what you are saying and that
>>> such behavior is shameful is not one either.
>>>
>>
>>I was about to write something like this but you were faster,
>>thanks.
>
> Don't be another old hen.

Sounds insulting to me. And you were the one pissing off about
"cutting over to lame insults". You should watch what you dish for.
And no that is not a typo.

> This ain't Facebook.

Yeah and you ain't Steven Pinker.

> Talk about the
> merits of building more big accelerators.

That was the discussion before you got all personally analytical,
and that down the wrong path.
>
> How much is it worth to know a little bit more about the Higgs
> particle?

Quite a lot. How many real scientists do you think are involved
around the world with particle physics. It is a massive scalar
boson. Science is a massive human undertaking. Has been throughout
history.

Everything in life is one step at a time. Mothers spent hundreds
or even thousands of years learning the intracies of child bearing
and child rearing. All of those tid bits add up to our current
knowledge. That is what humans do. We accumulate knowledge.
Sometimes only one bit at a time, and some bits are very expensive to
acquire, but we trudge on, nonetheless. You seem to be
"sometheless". Always declaring that others are not discussing
things or cannot or do not do what you can do. Does the side of your
building have a big mural of you on it?

How much is anything which increases man's knowledge worth?

How do you even bean count the value of our endeavors?

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:9e85hg5541klqbr79qube52ktsmqi75kda@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:48:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff
> <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>
>>On 8/10/2021 18:24, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:16:18 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff
>>> <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/10/2021 17:46, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>>>> news:5s15hg5clf2ieuoh67fuqe8gpio8g20tvj@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously you *know* what nonsense you are saying yet you
>>>>>>> keep on spreading it.
>>>>>>> What a shame.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cutting over to lame insults usually means you don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Declaring that you do not know what you are saying is not
>>>>> an insult.
>>>>> Declaring that you know full well what you are saying and that
>>>>> such behavior is shameful is not one either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I was about to write something like this but you were faster,
>>>> thanks.
>>>
>>> Don't be another old hen. This ain't Facebook. Talk about the
>>> merits of building more big accelerators.
>>
>>Ah now that is an insult, a clumsy one but you tried.
>>
>>So according to your initial post it is "Brookhaven good,
>>CERN bad", eh?
>>Pathetic.
>
> Cluck cluck. You have joined the village old biddies.

You can't even get that stupid shit right.

The term was "Old bitties". You know... like you.

John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
news:e4p5hg9doftfjqib83joueu6n2h8jmgh43@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 20:48:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff
> <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>
>>On 8/10/2021 20:41, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:37:48 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff
>>> <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/10/2021 19:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:58:58 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff
>>>>> <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/10/2021 18:43, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 17:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
>>>>>>>>>> <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was
>>>>>>>>>>>> a kid. It didn't work!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just
>>>>>>>>>>>> pass through one another.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called
>>>>>>>>>>> nonlinear optics.
>>>>>>>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free
>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>>>>>>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>>>>>>>> photons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you read my original link? It seems that a pair of
>>>>>>>> photons can collide and produce matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sort of like a pair of particles colliding and making
>>>>>>>> photons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, the smallest particle has a lot of mc^2 energy,
>>>>>>>> so the photons would have to be very energetic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did. It seemed to involve colliding gold ions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I got it right it involved gold nuclei passing each other
>>>>>> nearly at the speed of light thus producing enough EM field
>>>>>> so the photons would have the energy it takes.
>>>>>> A fine measurement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if John knew they had done it at BNL and posted it
>>>>>> because "BNL good CERN bad" you know :D. Or he just did not
>>>>>> read that far and still "all colliders bad"....
>>>>>
>>>>> I found the physics interesting, namely whether space is
>>>>> classical and linear. Both effects were predicted in theory
>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some people may think that the laws of the universe are
>>>>> regional. I don't. I sell to both BNL and to CERN.
>>>>>
>>>>> You guys are such my-o-my old gossips. The physics doesn't
>>>>> care about your clucking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So did you realize the link you were posting was about an
>>>> experiment at BNL at the time of posting, yes or no please. We
>>>> all know what the physics does not care about, clucking that
>>>> sort of thing does not answer the questions I asked.
>>>
>>> I didn't pay much attention to where it was done. The photons
>>> don't care either.
>>>
>>> What does it matter?
>>>
>>
>>Of course it does not matter, the link was interesting.
>>My initial question was with a smile, you got angry nonetheless
>>and switched to insult mode -
>
> All I insulted was Big Money Physics.
>
>>which is no big deal for me
>>but my question "is it BNL good CERN bad" or is it "all colliders
>>bad", based on our previous exchanges seemed amusing enough
>>to me so I did not spare it to you. Was it so hard? Come on,
>>give us a grin.
>
>
> ;) or something?
>
> I've been to SLAC, BNL, LLNL, NIF, LANL, Jlabs, Fermilab and
> designed a wire chamber system for CERN, but never went there. I
> don't think any of the big particle accelerators have returned
> much for their cost.

You sure as fuck haven't returned much to the world for your cost.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 15:45:13 -0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

>John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>news:e4p5hg9doftfjqib83joueu6n2h8jmgh43@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 20:48:29 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff
>> <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 8/10/2021 20:41, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 19:37:48 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff
>>>> <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/10/2021 19:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 18:58:58 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff
>>>>>> <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/10/2021 18:43, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 17:28, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
>>>>>>>>>>> <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a kid. It didn't work!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass through one another.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called
>>>>>>>>>>>> nonlinear optics.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free
>>>>>>>>>>> space.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>>>>>>>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>>>>>>>>> photons.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did you read my original link? It seems that a pair of
>>>>>>>>> photons can collide and produce matter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sort of like a pair of particles colliding and making
>>>>>>>>> photons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, the smallest particle has a lot of mc^2 energy,
>>>>>>>>> so the photons would have to be very energetic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did. It seemed to involve colliding gold ions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I got it right it involved gold nuclei passing each other
>>>>>>> nearly at the speed of light thus producing enough EM field
>>>>>>> so the photons would have the energy it takes.
>>>>>>> A fine measurement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if John knew they had done it at BNL and posted it
>>>>>>> because "BNL good CERN bad" you know :D. Or he just did not
>>>>>>> read that far and still "all colliders bad"....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found the physics interesting, namely whether space is
>>>>>> classical and linear. Both effects were predicted in theory
>>>>>> decades ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some people may think that the laws of the universe are
>>>>>> regional. I don't. I sell to both BNL and to CERN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You guys are such my-o-my old gossips. The physics doesn't
>>>>>> care about your clucking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So did you realize the link you were posting was about an
>>>>> experiment at BNL at the time of posting, yes or no please. We
>>>>> all know what the physics does not care about, clucking that
>>>>> sort of thing does not answer the questions I asked.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't pay much attention to where it was done. The photons
>>>> don't care either.
>>>>
>>>> What does it matter?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Of course it does not matter, the link was interesting.
>>>My initial question was with a smile, you got angry nonetheless
>>>and switched to insult mode -
>>
>> All I insulted was Big Money Physics.
>>
>>>which is no big deal for me
>>>but my question "is it BNL good CERN bad" or is it "all colliders
>>>bad", based on our previous exchanges seemed amusing enough
>>>to me so I did not spare it to you. Was it so hard? Come on,
>>>give us a grin.
>>
>>
>> ;) or something?
>>
>> I've been to SLAC, BNL, LLNL, NIF, LANL, Jlabs, Fermilab and
>> designed a wire chamber system for CERN, but never went there. I
>> don't think any of the big particle accelerators have returned
>> much for their cost.
>
>
> You sure as fuck haven't returned much to the world for your cost.

I've funded over 100 surgeries in Africa. And rescued a lot of dogs.
That's worth doing.

How about you? Do you make the world better? We all should.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On 2021-08-11 15:01, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 23:14:26 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-08-10 18:40, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear optics.
>>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>>> photons.
>>>
>>> While photons couple strongly with charged particles, photons are
>>> independent of matter - both exist, neither depending on the other for
>>> its existence.
>>
>> My point is that you can't tell if you've got a photon until it has
>> interacted with matter in a detector. Many would say that the photon
>> had an independent existence before the interaction, but I adhere to
>> the view that the photon *is* the interaction. Without interaction,
>> there is no photon.
>
> While it's certainly true that we cannot detect any particle unless it
> blunders into something and changes it, it does not mean that such
> particles don't exist. Neutrinos are a classic example. And whatever
> Dark Matter turns out to be.
>
> I suppose that for gravity waves there is no particle blundering into
> anything (instead we measure distortion of space), and yet gravity
> waves do exist.
>
>
>>> As others have said, the experiment involved gold ions passing quite
>>> close to one another, but not actually colliding.
>>
>> On these scales, the very concept of a 'collision' is vague. An ion
>> is not a little solid clump of stuff. It has springiness, modes of
>> vibration, rotation and it could even be said to be transparent.
>> A 'collision' between two ions may result in anything from a mild
>> deflection to a total destruction. Ions may end up vibrating or
>> spinning after the interaction. Either way, this involves the
>> exchange of photons and maybe other bosons beside.
>
> This is certainly true.
>
> The basic article is behind a paywall, so I don't know just how these
> issues are handled. Maybe there is an open pre-print somewhere.
>
>
>> Again, a photon
>> is merely the manifestation of an interaction. It has no independent
>> existence.
>
> But this is an assertion that may not follow from the above.
>
> I fear we are falling into the "interpretations" swamp of quantum
> mechanics.
>
> As many famous physicists have said, nobody understands QM, but it
> works spectacularly well, so just calculate and be happy.
>
> Joe Gwinn
>

Indeed! One would think that when a theory leads to clearly
ridiculous assertions, like objects being in multiple locations
at once, or being in mutually incompatible states simultaneously,
that the theory would be rejected or adapted. Not quantum mechanics:
You're expected to accept all this without question. Just keep
quiet and follow the rules. Very frustrating.

Jeroen Belleman

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:eu08hgp56fckl24i25c2q7h9lnjnmbsh8k@4ax.com:

> I've funded over 100 surgeries in Africa.

Good job.

> And rescued a lot of dogs.

Even more deserving than most humans. Good job.

> That's worth doing.

Yep.

> How about you? Do you make the world better?

Of course. Likely been my goal longer than it has been your goal. I
simply ended up with less means.

> We all should.

You are right more often in this thread alone than I have seen in
quite a while.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:46:13 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 2021-08-11 15:01, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 23:14:26 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2021-08-10 18:40, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 17:14:11 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:04:56 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 8:01:01 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried bending light with a magnetic field when I was a kid. It
>>>>>>>> didn't work!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I've wondered if photons could interact, or just pass through one
>>>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In some materials, there are interactions; it's called nonlinear optics.
>>>>>>> The easiest observable effect is in photochromic glass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. I was wondering about photon interactions in free space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No such thing. A photon is a quantized interaction between
>>>>> matter and electromagnetic radiation. Without matter, no
>>>>> photons.
>>>>
>>>> While photons couple strongly with charged particles, photons are
>>>> independent of matter - both exist, neither depending on the other for
>>>> its existence.
>>>
>>> My point is that you can't tell if you've got a photon until it has
>>> interacted with matter in a detector. Many would say that the photon
>>> had an independent existence before the interaction, but I adhere to
>>> the view that the photon *is* the interaction. Without interaction,
>>> there is no photon.
>>
>> While it's certainly true that we cannot detect any particle unless it
>> blunders into something and changes it, it does not mean that such
>> particles don't exist. Neutrinos are a classic example. And whatever
>> Dark Matter turns out to be.
>>
>> I suppose that for gravity waves there is no particle blundering into
>> anything (instead we measure distortion of space), and yet gravity
>> waves do exist.
>>
>>
>>>> As others have said, the experiment involved gold ions passing quite
>>>> close to one another, but not actually colliding.
>>>
>>> On these scales, the very concept of a 'collision' is vague. An ion
>>> is not a little solid clump of stuff. It has springiness, modes of
>>> vibration, rotation and it could even be said to be transparent.
>>> A 'collision' between two ions may result in anything from a mild
>>> deflection to a total destruction. Ions may end up vibrating or
>>> spinning after the interaction. Either way, this involves the
>>> exchange of photons and maybe other bosons beside.
>>
>> This is certainly true.
>>
>> The basic article is behind a paywall, so I don't know just how these
>> issues are handled. Maybe there is an open pre-print somewhere.
>>
>>
>>> Again, a photon
>>> is merely the manifestation of an interaction. It has no independent
>>> existence.
>>
>> But this is an assertion that may not follow from the above.
>>
>> I fear we are falling into the "interpretations" swamp of quantum
>> mechanics.
>>
>> As many famous physicists have said, nobody understands QM, but it
>> works spectacularly well, so just calculate and be happy.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>>
>
>Indeed! One would think that when a theory leads to clearly
>ridiculous assertions, like objects being in multiple locations
>at once, or being in mutually incompatible states simultaneously,
>that the theory would be rejected or adapted. Not quantum mechanics:
>You're expected to accept all this without question. Just keep
>quiet and follow the rules. Very frustrating.

Physics is well aware of this. People are waiting for the "new
physics" to emerge. A century after Relativity and QM emerged, it
ought to be just about due.

In the cases of Relativity and QM, the initial clues were small but
inexplicable differences between theory and experiment. But because
Relativity and QM predict things to 9 decimal places, this gets
difficult.

Think there might be a Nobel or two in there?

Joe Gwinn