On 12/8/21 7:47 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> 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.
> Think there might be a Nobel or two in there?

I hope there's teleporters in there. Preferably ones that have no range
limits.

Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote in
news:169a67e4827c2c70$1$1200776$20dd2a6e@news.thecubenet.com:

> On 12/8/21 7:47 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> 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.
>> Think there might be a Nobel or two in there?
>
> I hope there's teleporters in there. Preferably ones that have no
> range limits.
>

And no flies too. A definite no fly zone.

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.
>
>Jeroen Belleman

Simple experiments with a beam-splitter interferometer and a photon
detector are clearly in defiance of reason. But there they are.

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 1:34:05 AM UTC+10, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news:8a65hg1hdi09cn7e7...@4ax.com:
> > 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:

<snip>

> Yeah and you ain't Steven Pinker.

Obviously true - Steve Pinker is definitely an acquaintance of mine, and he's nowhere near as silly as John Larkin.

> > 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.

If history started around 1650.

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

Science - as we know it now - depends on scientists publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals. It started off with individuals exchanging letters about what they were doing, with the more significant letters getting passed on to others. The Royal Society in London was the first group that seems to have formalised this.
> 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 tit-bits add up to our current knowledge. That is what humans do. We accumulate knowledge.

Science involves testing that knowledge. Not all insights are equally valuable, and some evidence doesn't means what the people who collected it thought that it did.

> 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?

That's part of what peer review is about. Applications for research grants get reviewed by a select group drawn from the people that peer-review papers for publication.

That's bean-counting the prospective value. Most research grant applications get rejected.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 11:11:14 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:46:13 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >On 2021-08-11 15:01, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 23:14:26 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> 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>

> >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.
> >
> Simple experiments with a beam-splitter interferometer and a photon detector are clearly in defiance of reason. But there they are.

"Reasoning" is running a simulation inside your own head. If your mental model is inadequate, the results it predicts won't match what you observe.

They aren't "defying reason" but rather revealing the inadequacies in your mental model. It's unreasonable to look at them in any other way.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On a sunny day (Wed, 11 Aug 2021 20:46:13 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <sf15tl$sn8$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>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

Yep, as does string theory..
MatheMaMaticions claim they invented the wheel as they came up with PI..

Mostly I stopped reading stuff that had 'quantum' in it
and ends with the line 'this will bring the quantum computer so much closer'.
Highest number they could factor now is ?? (from google):
1,099,551,473,989 is equal to 1,048,589 multiplied by 1,048,601
but:
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/59795/largest-integer-factored-by-shors-algorithm

So, I am working on my own more mechanical explanation, without all the mass of math so to speak..

On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:34:06 +1000) it happened Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote in
<169a67e4827c2c70$1$1200776$20dd2a6e@news.thecubenet.com>:

>On 12/8/21 7:47 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> 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.
>> Think there might be a Nobel or two in there?
>
>I hope there's teleporters in there. Preferably ones that have no range
>limits.

And better replicators, ... put his girlfriend in a replicator and out came something we still do not know if its a hare or rabbit.

On 2021-08-12 03:11, John Larkin wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> Jeroen Belleman
>
> Simple experiments with a beam-splitter interferometer and a photon
> detector are clearly in defiance of reason. But there they are.
>

Think of light as waves instead of tiny marbles and there is no
problem.

Jeroen Belleman

On 12/08/2021 02:11, John Larkin wrote:

> Simple experiments with a beam-splitter interferometer and a photon
> detector are clearly in defiance of reason. But there they are.

This was posted here before. Interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ

--
Cheers
Clive

On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:01:04 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <sf2o0h$6tj$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <sf2o0h$6tj$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>Think of light as waves instead of tiny marbles and there is no
>problem.

The thing is that a 'wave' needs something o wave in, like waves in water in a pond
need water molecules.

If we take a Le Sage theory of gravity and give those particles light speed,
then EM waves may just consist of Le Sage particles in a special state (maybe spin),
then EM radiation and gravity is united, no photons needed.

So say you jingle an electron, it is hit by and affects many Le Sage particle (much much smaller and traveling at light speed)
those in the altered state then later transfer that to say an other electron elsewhere, with enough LS particles in all directions
Waves of modified Le Sage particles, different from how water waves move.

My idea.

On 2021-08-12 11:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:01:04 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <sf2o0h$6tj$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <sf2o0h$6tj$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>
>> Think of light as waves instead of tiny marbles and there is no
>> problem.
>
> The thing is that a 'wave' needs something o wave in, like waves in water in a pond
> need water molecules.

Good point. I have no answer to that.

>
> If we take a Le Sage theory of gravity and give those particles light speed,
> then EM waves may just consist of Le Sage particles in a special state (maybe spin),
> then EM radiation and gravity is united, no photons needed.
>
> So say you jingle an electron, it is hit by and affects many Le Sage particle (much much smaller and traveling at light speed)
> those in the altered state then later transfer that to say an other electron elsewhere, with enough LS particles in all directions
> Waves of modified Le Sage particles, different from how water waves move.
>
> My idea.
>

On the subject of weird theories, there was this paper by Wolfgang Schnell,
a CERN physicist who passed away in 2006. He describes a universe that is
a sort of 'spherical granular medium'. What we see as matter, particles,
everything, are vibration modes in that medium. He goes on to derive from
that the existence and the masses of lots of elementary particles, electro-
magnetics, gravity, quantum mechanics and relativity. It's definitely an
outlandish way of describing the universe, yet oddly compelling. Nobody
takes it seriously though.

It was published in Il Nuovo Cimento, but you can get the paper here:
<http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf> (51p, 3.3MB).
There was a follow-up paper too, if there is interest.

Jeroen Belleman

Jeroen Belleman 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

Well, sort of. A photon is an elementary excitation of the EM field in
a given set of boundary conditions. Admittedly, if you don't have
matter in the vicinity, it's hard to have any boundary conditions except
free space. ;)

However, an isolated electron/positron pair that annihilated would
produce two gammas. In the centre-of-mass frame of the particles, the
photons would have equal energies and propagate antiparallel. (This is
on account of conservation of momentum.)

The question of whether it makes sense to talk about space in the total
absence of matter is one of those angel problems that philosophical
pinheads worry about. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:02:05 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <sf2v3d$157h$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On 2021-08-12 11:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> If we take a Le Sage theory of gravity and give those particles light speed,
>> then EM waves may just consist of Le Sage particles in a special state (maybe spin),
>> then EM radiation and gravity is united, no photons needed.
>>
>> So say you jingle an electron, it is hit by and affects many Le Sage particle (much much smaller and traveling at light
>> speed)
>> those in the altered state then later transfer that to say an other electron elsewhere, with enough LS particles in all
>> directions
>> Waves of modified Le Sage particles, different from how water waves move.
>>
>> My idea.
>>
>
>On the subject of weird theories, there was this paper by Wolfgang Schnell,
>a CERN physicist who passed away in 2006. He describes a universe that is
>a sort of 'spherical granular medium'. What we see as matter, particles,
>everything, are vibration modes in that medium. He goes on to derive from
>that the existence and the masses of lots of elementary particles, electro-
>magnetics, gravity, quantum mechanics and relativity. It's definitely an
>outlandish way of describing the universe, yet oddly compelling. Nobody
>takes it seriously though.

>It was published in Il Nuovo Cimento, but you can get the paper here:
><http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf> (51p, 3.3MB).

Man, just read that, some work!
Yes, it make sense in a way and that the gets the masses of so many particles to a few percent or less is amazing.
For a closed universe (he calls it sack of beans IIRC) he gets into the same question where does it end..
I asked 'where, if those exists, do Le Sage particles come from'
So I wrote in sci.physics decades ago 'maybe from stars or black holes'
Somebody then replied: "your theory is wrong because if it was that way the universe would be expanding ever faster",
A while later it was found the universe is expanding ever faster....

An other thing when reading his paper strikes me, he sees the universe as CERN sees it :-)
Maybe that way of looking at nature, for sure that way of looking at nature, is incomplete.

Was looking at a documentary about Christian belief in the US last night,
Here is a doctor in paleontology that states dinos and humans were created by God some 4? thousand years ago_
Kids questioned and repeat it,

No shortage of theories
Is mine right? Dunno, but uniting grafitti and electrickety is something we need.

>There was a follow-up paper too, if there is interest.

Sure like to read it!, please!

Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

> On 2021-08-12 11:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:01:04 +0200) it happened Jeroen
>> Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <sf2o0h$6tj$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>
>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <sf2o0h$6tj$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>>
>>> Think of light as waves instead of tiny marbles and there is no
>>> problem.
>>
>> The thing is that a 'wave' needs something o wave in, like waves in
>> water in a pond need water molecules.
>
> Good point. I have no answer to that.
>
>>
>> If we take a Le Sage theory of gravity and give those particles light
>> speed, then EM waves may just consist of Le Sage particles in a special
>> state (maybe spin), then EM radiation and gravity is united, no photons
>> needed.
>>
>> So say you jingle an electron, it is hit by and affects many Le Sage
>> particle (much much smaller and traveling at light speed) those in the
>> altered state then later transfer that to say an other electron
>> elsewhere, with enough LS particles in all directions Waves of modified
>> Le Sage particles, different from how water waves move.
>>
>> My idea.
>>
>
> On the subject of weird theories, there was this paper by Wolfgang
> Schnell, a CERN physicist who passed away in 2006. He describes a
> universe that is a sort of 'spherical granular medium'. What we see as
> matter, particles, everything, are vibration modes in that medium. He
> goes on to derive from that the existence and the masses of lots of
> elementary particles, electro- magnetics, gravity, quantum mechanics and
> relativity. It's definitely an outlandish way of describing the
> universe, yet oddly compelling. Nobody takes it seriously though.
>
> It was published in Il Nuovo Cimento, but you can get the paper here:
> <http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf> (51p, 3.3MB).
> There was a follow-up paper too, if there is interest.
>
> Jeroen Belleman

See quantum mechanics field theory (QFT)

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=quantum+mechanics+field

--
The best designs occur in the theta state. - sw

On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 19:24:23 -0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

>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.

What we spend differentially on premium ice cream would save a kid's
life in some poor country.

--

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 2021-08-12 16:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 13:02:05 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <sf2v3d$157h$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
>
>> On 2021-08-12 11:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> If we take a Le Sage theory of gravity and give those particles light speed,
>>> then EM waves may just consist of Le Sage particles in a special state (maybe spin),
>>> then EM radiation and gravity is united, no photons needed.
>>>
>>> So say you jingle an electron, it is hit by and affects many Le Sage particle (much much smaller and traveling at light
>>> speed)
>>> those in the altered state then later transfer that to say an other electron elsewhere, with enough LS particles in all
>>> directions
>>> Waves of modified Le Sage particles, different from how water waves move.
>>>
>>> My idea.
>>>
>>
>> On the subject of weird theories, there was this paper by Wolfgang Schnell,
>> a CERN physicist who passed away in 2006. He describes a universe that is
>> a sort of 'spherical granular medium'. What we see as matter, particles,
>> everything, are vibration modes in that medium. He goes on to derive from
>> that the existence and the masses of lots of elementary particles, electro-
>> magnetics, gravity, quantum mechanics and relativity. It's definitely an
>> outlandish way of describing the universe, yet oddly compelling. Nobody
>> takes it seriously though.
>
>> It was published in Il Nuovo Cimento, but you can get the paper here:
>> <http://cds.cern.ch/record/301528/files/open-96-008.pdf> (51p, 3.3MB).
>
> Man, just read that, some work!
> Yes, it make sense in a way and that the gets the masses of so many particles to a few percent or less is amazing.
> For a closed universe (he calls it sack of beans IIRC) he gets into the same question where does it end..
> I asked 'where, if those exists, do Le Sage particles come from'
> So I wrote in sci.physics decades ago 'maybe from stars or black holes'
> Somebody then replied: "your theory is wrong because if it was that way the universe would be expanding ever faster",
> A while later it was found the universe is expanding ever faster....
>
> An other thing when reading his paper strikes me, he sees the universe as CERN sees it :-)
> Maybe that way of looking at nature, for sure that way of looking at nature, is incomplete.
>
> Was looking at a documentary about Christian belief in the US last night,
> Here is a doctor in paleontology that states dinos and humans were created by God some 4? thousand years ago_
> Kids questioned and repeat it,
>
> No shortage of theories
> Is mine right? Dunno, but uniting grafitti and electrickety is something we need.
>
>
>> There was a follow-up paper too, if there is interest.
>
> Sure like to read it!, please!
>

Here it is: <https://cds.cern.ch/record/455295/files/open-2000-267.pdf> (103kB).

Jeroen Belleman

On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>Jeroen Belleman 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
>
>Well, sort of. A photon is an elementary excitation of the EM field in
>a given set of boundary conditions. Admittedly, if you don't have
>matter in the vicinity, it's hard to have any boundary conditions except
>free space. ;)
>
>However, an isolated electron/positron pair that annihilated would
>produce two gammas. In the centre-of-mass frame of the particles, the
>photons would have equal energies and propagate antiparallel. (This is
>on account of conservation of momentum.)
>
>The question of whether it makes sense to talk about space in the total
>absence of matter is one of those angel problems that philosophical
>pinheads worry about. ;)
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

Presumably two gammas could collide in free space and create a
particle pair. That complicates the "think of a photon as a wave until
it encounters matter" idea.

I wonder if longwave, like visible, photon pairs create particles. It
would have to be something light, like a neutrino.

--

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.

Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:sf2j0o$3up$2@gioia.aioe.org:

> On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:34:06 +1000) it happened
> Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote in
> <169a67e4827c2c70$1$1200776$20dd2a6e@news.thecubenet.com>:
>
>>On 12/8/21 7:47 am, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> 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.
>>> Think there might be a Nobel or two in there?
>>
>>I hope there's teleporters in there. Preferably ones that have no
>>range limits.
>
> And better replicators, ... put his girlfriend in a replicator and
> out came something we still do not know if its a hare or rabbit.
>
That's not right... (Sam Rockwell inflection)

Reminds me of this:

<https://youtu.be/BJUdduz86K8?t=435>

Clive Arthur <clive@nowaytoday.co.uk> wrote in news:sf2q4k$q35$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 12/08/2021 02:11, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> Simple experiments with a beam-splitter interferometer and a photon
>> detector are clearly in defiance of reason. But there they are.
>
> This was posted here before. Interesting.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ
>

I guess it depends on what school of reasoning one chooses to follow.

Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in news:sf2v3d$157h$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

> Good point. I have no answer to that.
>

The waves are made in an otherwise 'standing' energy field.

Hard to picture since there is no "perfectly still" space.

The FCC used to have fleets of cars with snoopers on them to go out
looking for CB radio enthusiasts that got too zealous and fired up a
linear RF amp, but now they likely only have one per state or such and
the air is so flooded with waves it would be hard to track folks. That
was when the density was so low they could come nail yer butt.

That is why cells phones are all addressible and the node you are
logging into and your device's GPS chip allows you to be tracked and or
data grabbed as timestamped evidence of a person's location. They do
not need triangulation any more or direction finders.

The waves floating around are pretty dense... All across the
spectrum too. Good thing they do not interact with flesh.

Unlike what those TrumpTarded conspiracy theory believing idiots who
think that the coronavirus was created by 5G cell service towers. Even
TrumpTarded Larkin can't fall for that bullshit.

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

As ironically stated by the John Doe <always.look@message.header> troll
in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me> who has posted yet another
incorectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:45:13 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sf3j6o$83o$4@dont-email.me>.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>>Jeroen Belleman 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
>>
>>Well, sort of. A photon is an elementary excitation of the EM field in
>>a given set of boundary conditions. Admittedly, if you don't have
>>matter in the vicinity, it's hard to have any boundary conditions except
>>free space. ;)
>>
>>However, an isolated electron/positron pair that annihilated would
>>produce two gammas. In the centre-of-mass frame of the particles, the
>>photons would have equal energies and propagate antiparallel. (This is
>>on account of conservation of momentum.)
>>
>>The question of whether it makes sense to talk about space in the total
>>absence of matter is one of those angel problems that philosophical
>>pinheads worry about. ;)
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Phil Hobbs
>
> Presumably two gammas could collide in free space and create a
> particle pair. That complicates the "think of a photon as a wave until
> it encounters matter" idea.
>
> I wonder if longwave, like visible, photon pairs create particles. It
> would have to be something light, like a neutrino.

Pair production in gamma collision requires extremely high energy gamma
rays in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus. Thus it cannot occur in a
vacuum. See Wikipedia:

Pair production

Photon to electron and positron

For photons with high photon energy (MeV scale and higher), pair production
is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. These interactions
were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled cloud chamber,
leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics.[3]

If the photon is near an atomic nucleus, the energy of a photon can be
converted into an electron�positron pair

The photon's energy is converted to particle mass in accordance with
Einstein�s equation, E = m�c2; where E is energy, m is mass and c is the
speed of light.

The photon must have higher energy than the sum of the rest mass energies
of an electron and positron (2?�?511 keV = 1.022 MeV, resulting in a
photon-wavelength of 1.2132 picometer) for the production to occur. (Thus,
pair production does not occur in medical X-ray imaging because these X-
rays only contain ~150 keV.)

The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of
momentum, as an electron�positron pair produced in free space cannot
satisfy conservation of both energy and momentum.[4] Because of this, when
pair production occurs, the atomic nucleus receives some recoil. The
reverse of this process is electron positron annihilation.

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

--
The best designs occur in the theta state. - sw

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 2:50:49 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:01:04 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
> <jer...@nospam.please> wrote in <sf2o0h$6tj$1...@gioia.aioe.org>:

> >Think of light as waves instead of tiny marbles and there is no
> >problem.
> The thing is that a 'wave' needs something o wave in, like waves in water in a pond
> need water molecules.

No, it suffices to have a function solution formed like exp( j * (omega * t - k* x))
and once we find that (for instance) electrons diffract, the deBroglie and Davisson-Germer
wavefunction ideas are established.

On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:07:20 +0200) it happened Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in <sf3df8$1pd6$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>>> There was a follow-up paper too, if there is interest.
>>
>> Sure like to read it!, please!
>>
>
>
>Here it is: <https://cds.cern.ch/record/455295/files/open-2000-267.pdf> (103kB).

Thank you.
Just did read it, the math sort of overwhelmed me..
Just had a flashback to what's his name doctor ????? long ago in sci.physics
he would write weird crap ... just to play with people there...
One day he got it from some professor, never returned,

On a sunny day (Thu, 12 Aug 2021 16:30:09 -0000 (UTC)) it happened
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in
<sf3iah$459$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote in news:sf2v3d$157h$1
>@gioia.aioe.org:
>
>> Good point. I have no answer to that.
>>
>
> The waves are made in an otherwise 'standing' energy field.
>
> Hard to picture since there is no "perfectly still" space.
>
>
> The FCC used to have fleets of cars with snoopers on them to go out
>looking for CB radio enthusiasts that got too zealous and fired up a
>linear RF amp, but now they likely only have one per state or such and
>the air is so flooded with waves it would be hard to track folks. That
>was when the density was so low they could come nail yer butt.

In the early seventies when CB was illegal here, we went to some local
meeting of CBers in Amsterdam, We had two of these small handsets.
On the way back was talking to some guys, my friend driving and I with antenna stuck out of a window talking.
We got stopped by police who thought we are robbing a bank or something like that,
Taken to the police station, had to turn in the sets...
Could id ourselves, we both worked at the state TV station :-)
Month later we got a message we could collect the CB sets, power was too low to be illegal.
A few years later the 27 MHz was made free up until 4W and FM only IIRC.

> That is why cells phones are all addressible and the node you are
>logging into and your device's GPS chip allows you to be tracked and or
>data grabbed as timestamped evidence of a person's location. They do
>not need triangulation any more or direction finders.
>
> The waves floating around are pretty dense... All across the
>spectrum too. Good thing they do not interact with flesh.

Actually they do
Whole thing going on with radar here less than a mile away.
Holding a cellphone next to your brain also has an effect on its function and cells,
as does sleeping with your cellphone under your pillow (my experience, radiation from the GHz processor).
But things need to sell...

That said, been exposed to strong RF so many times, now you see what happens!!

> Unlike what those TrumpTarded conspiracy theory believing idiots who
>think that the coronavirus was created by 5G cell service towers.

That is an other thing, it may however somehow decrease your resistance.
I sure would not like a 5G transmitter next to my front door,
I even switch off all wifi at night (it is off most of the time here anyways).