On 8/15/2021 5:19, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>
>
>> Could be even worse than that, some may remember that:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Tension_(short_story)
>> https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1952-08/Galaxy_1952_08#page/n5/mode/2up
>
> It has been in a number of anthologies. At one stage I bought second hand science fiction magazines and might have got a copy of that issue of Galaxy.
>
> Biologically speaking, it's nonsense, but a cute story. James Blish wrote some very good stories, even if his grasp of science wasn't impressive. "Gavitationally polarised explosives" that created a thin disk of rapidly expanding gases was another of his very silly ideas.
>

I remember I liked the story back then, I think I read a Russian
translation (the only way I could have got it, back in the 70-s,
then my English was not good enough at that time even if I had had
access to the original...)
For someone in their early 20-s the idea that your universe may be
just a drop of water on some leaf to someone/something else while
not groundbreaking was not a cliche either so I have remembered
the story...

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >> >>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>
> >
> >> Could be even worse than that, some may remember that:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Tension_(short_story)
> >> https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1952-08/Galaxy_1952_08#page/n5/mode/2up
> >
> >It has been in a number of anthologies. At one stage I bought second hand science fiction magazines and might have got a copy of that issue of Galaxy.
> >
> >Biologically speaking, it's nonsense, but a cute story. James Blish wrote some very good stories, even if his grasp of science wasn't impressive. "Gavitationally polarised explosives" that created a thin disk of rapidly expanding gases was another of his very silly ideas.
>
> Linear shaped charge?
>
> .<http://www.aesys.biz/wp-content/uploads/14-102_liner-shaped-charge.pdf>
>
> No gravitons were abused.

Obviously not. Shaped charges work by emitting a jet of very hot gas at supersonic speed. Your linear shaped charge presumably emits a flat sheet of hot gas travelling just as fast - effectively a series of parallel jets.

It was the gravitational polarisation that was silly, not so much the thin disk (though shaped charges do waste most their energy on keeping the jet focussed - it's worth it to get through armour plate, as in armour-piercing shells, but it is a pretty specialised application).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>> >> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>
>> >
>> >> Could be even worse than that, some may remember that:
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Tension_(short_story)
>> >> https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1952-08/Galaxy_1952_08#page/n5/mode/2up
>> >
>> >It has been in a number of anthologies. At one stage I bought second hand science fiction magazines and might have got a copy of that issue of Galaxy.
>> >
>> >Biologically speaking, it's nonsense, but a cute story. James Blish wrote some very good stories, even if his grasp of science wasn't impressive. "Gavitationally polarised explosives" that created a thin disk of rapidly expanding gases was another of his very silly ideas.
>>
>> Linear shaped charge?
>>
>> .<http://www.aesys.biz/wp-content/uploads/14-102_liner-shaped-charge.pdf>
>>
>> No gravitons were abused.
>
>Obviously not. Shaped charges work by emitting a jet of very hot gas at supersonic speed. Your linear shaped charge presumably emits a flat sheet of hot gas travelling just as fast - effectively a series of parallel jets.
>
>It was the gravitational polarisation that was silly, not so much the thin disk (though shaped charges do waste most their energy on keeping the jet focussed - it's worth it to get through armour plate, as in armour-piercing shells, but it is a pretty specialised application).

Umm, no. Shaped charges do produce focused jets -- of solid copper,
not gas, moving at 2 or 3 Km/sec.

One can photograph these jets with X-Ray flash equipment.

..<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/X-ray-photographs-of-shaped-charge-jets-formed-with-the-generation-of-a-magnetic-field-in_fig2_243174155>

Joe Gwinn

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:16:14 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >> >> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> >> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>
> >> >
> >> >> Could be even worse than that, some may remember that:
> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Tension_(short_story)
> >> >> https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1952-08/Galaxy_1952_08#page/n5/mode/2up
> >> >
> >> >It has been in a number of anthologies. At one stage I bought second hand science fiction magazines and might have got a copy of that issue of Galaxy.
> >> >
> >> >Biologically speaking, it's nonsense, but a cute story. James Blish wrote some very good stories, even if his grasp of science wasn't impressive.. "Gavitationally polarised explosives" that created a thin disk of rapidly expanding gases was another of his very silly ideas.
> >>
> >> Linear shaped charge?
> >>
> >> .<http://www.aesys.biz/wp-content/uploads/14-102_liner-shaped-charge.pdf>
> >>
> >> No gravitons were abused.
> >
> >Obviously not. Shaped charges work by emitting a jet of very hot gas at supersonic speed. Your linear shaped charge presumably emits a flat sheet of hot gas travelling just as fast - effectively a series of parallel jets.
> >
> >It was the gravitational polarisation that was silly, not so much the thin disk (though shaped charges do waste most their energy on keeping the jet focussed - it's worth it to get through armour plate, as in armour-piercing shells, but it is a pretty specialised application).
>
> Umm, no. Shaped charges do produce focused jets -- of solid copper, not gas, moving at 2 or 3 Km/sec.

The melting point of copper is 1085 Celcius, so it won't be solid. It's boiling point is 2562 Celcius, so it may in fact be a gas.

> One can photograph these jets with X-Ray flash equipment.
>
> .<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/X-ray-photographs-of-shaped-charge-jets-formed-with-the-generation-of-a-magnetic-field-in_fig2_243174155>

The X-rays just tell us that there is a mass of copper in the jet. They don't say anything about it's state. The fact that it seems to form droplets does suggest that it is fluid, rather than solid. Vortex rings in gas could look like that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 12:45:50 PM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2021-08-15 01:09, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 2:23:23 PM UTC-7, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> >
> >> Do you know of a device that emits single photons on command?
> >
> > It's possible. There are traps where one can park an ion, and only ONE single
> > ion, and which will fluoresce when given the right illumination. So, shine the
> > illuminator for a time short compared to the fluorescence lifetime, and
> > you can expect one photon emitted thereafter.
> >
>
> Reference?

Try <https://www.nature.com/articles/35097017> ; I've seen earlier work, too
(this one will likely have citations worth following).

Warren Nagourney buttonholed me in the hall, and I actually saw a single atom
(trapped, and fluoresceing) some decades ago. Smallest thing one can see
with the naked eye, but if it had been TWO atoms... I wouldn't have been able to tell.

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2021-08-14 20:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>
> [Snip!]
>
>>>
>>> Think of light as waves instead of tiny marbles and there is no
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>
>>
>> Interactions of light with matter are still super mysterious
>> though--you can send an arbitrarily weak and arbitrarily short pulse
>> of light at an efficient large detector, and you'll get one detection
>> event per photon even though most pairs of points on the detector are
>> separated by a spacelike interval, i.e. no mutual communication is
>> possible between them during the pulse duration.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>
> Do you know of a device that emits single photons on command?

Statistically, yes. There's been a lot, a lot of work on single-photon
sources in the last 20 years or so.

> Detecting light is very much a crapshoot. With very weak light
> in short pulses, you get mostly nothing, sometimes one, and very
> rarely two events, in addition to events when there is in fact no
> light at all.
>
> Why do you suggest communication is necessary between points on
> the detector?

Because you never get more detection events than permitted by the pulse
energy, even though one area of the detector (even in principle) can
have no information about whether they've already been detected elsewhere.

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 Sun, 15 Aug 2021 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:16:14 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>> >> >> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>
>> >> >
>> >> >> Could be even worse than that, some may remember that:
>> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Tension_(short_story)
>> >> >> https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1952-08/Galaxy_1952_08#page/n5/mode/2up
>> >> >
>> >> >It has been in a number of anthologies. At one stage I bought second hand science fiction magazines and might have got a copy of that issue of Galaxy.
>> >> >
>> >> >Biologically speaking, it's nonsense, but a cute story. James Blish wrote some very good stories, even if his grasp of science wasn't impressive. "Gavitationally polarised explosives" that created a thin disk of rapidly expanding gases was another of his very silly ideas.
>> >>
>> >> Linear shaped charge?
>> >>
>> >> .<http://www.aesys.biz/wp-content/uploads/14-102_liner-shaped-charge.pdf>
>> >>
>> >> No gravitons were abused.
>> >
>> >Obviously not. Shaped charges work by emitting a jet of very hot gas at supersonic speed. Your linear shaped charge presumably emits a flat sheet of hot gas travelling just as fast - effectively a series of parallel jets.
>> >
>> >It was the gravitational polarisation that was silly, not so much the thin disk (though shaped charges do waste most their energy on keeping the jet focussed - it's worth it to get through armour plate, as in armour-piercing shells, but it is a pretty specialised application).
>>
>> Umm, no. Shaped charges do produce focused jets -- of solid copper, not gas, moving at 2 or 3 Km/sec.
>
>The melting point of copper is 1085 Celcius, so it won't be solid. It's boiling point is 2562 Celcius, so it may in fact be a gas.
>
>> One can photograph these jets with X-Ray flash equipment.
>>
>> .<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/X-ray-photographs-of-shaped-charge-jets-formed-with-the-generation-of-a-magnetic-field-in_fig2_243174155>
>
>The X-rays just tell us that there is a mass of copper in the jet. They don't say anything about it's state. The fact that it seems to form droplets does suggest that it is fluid, rather than solid. Vortex rings in gas could look like that.

Umm. Explosion forces vastly exceed the yield strength of any solid
material, so flow does not prove that the material is molten. The
theory treats the uranium being compressed as a very dense gas.

In an implosion-type nuclear bomb, the metallic plutonium pit is
compressed to at least 10 times normal density by converging
detonation waves, and a well-timed neutron pulse causes the compressed
put to go into a full-bore chain reaction - it's over in a tenth of a
microsecond or so.

Joe Gwinn

On 2021-08-16 16:09, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> On 2021-08-14 20:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>
>> [Snip!]
>>
>>>>
>>>> Think of light as waves instead of tiny marbles and there is
>>>> no problem.
>>>>
>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>
>>>
>>> Interactions of light with matter are still super mysterious
>>> though--you can send an arbitrarily weak and arbitrarily short
>>> pulse of light at an efficient large detector, and you'll get one
>>> detection event per photon even though most pairs of points on
>>> the detector are separated by a spacelike interval, i.e. no
>>> mutual communication is possible between them during the pulse
>>> duration.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>
>>
>> Do you know of a device that emits single photons on command?
>
> Statistically, yes. There's been a lot, a lot of work on
> single-photon sources in the last 20 years or so.
>
>> Detecting light is very much a crapshoot. With very weak light in
>> short pulses, you get mostly nothing, sometimes one, and very
>> rarely two events, in addition to events when there is in fact no
>> light at all.
>>
>> Why do you suggest communication is necessary between points on the
>> detector?
>
> Because you never get more detection events than permitted by the
> pulse energy, even though one area of the detector (even in
> principle) can have no information about whether they've already been
> detected elsewhere.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
>

This view is the Copenhagen-style collapse of the wave function,
which I am convinced is wrong. There's no such thing as 'never'
in these matters. It's just very unlikely.

Light detectors are noisy. You *do* get events even when there
shouldn't be any.

Jeroen Belleman

Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2021-08-16 16:09, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>> On 2021-08-14 20:48, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>> Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>>
>>> [Snip!]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Think of light as waves instead of tiny marbles and there is
>>>>> no problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interactions of light with matter are still super mysterious
>>>> though--you can send an arbitrarily weak and arbitrarily short
>>>> pulse of light at an efficient large detector, and you'll get one
>>>> detection event per photon even though most pairs of points on
>>>> the detector are separated by a spacelike interval, i.e. no
>>>> mutual communication is possible between them during the pulse
>>>> duration.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know of a device that emits single photons on command?
>>
>> Statistically, yes.  There's been a lot, a lot of work on
>> single-photon sources in the last 20 years or so.
>>
>>> Detecting light is very much a crapshoot. With very weak light in
>>> short pulses, you get mostly nothing, sometimes one, and very
>>> rarely two events, in addition to events when there is in fact no
>>> light at all.
>>>
>>> Why do you suggest communication is necessary between points on the
>>> detector?
>>
>> Because you never get more detection events than permitted by the
>> pulse energy, even though one area of the detector (even in
>> principle) can have no information about whether they've already been
>> detected elsewhere.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>>
>
> This view is the Copenhagen-style collapse of the wave function,
> which I am convinced is wrong. There's no such thing as 'never'
> in these matters. It's just very unlikely.
>
> Light detectors are noisy. You *do* get events even when there
> shouldn't be any.

I'm not talking about any interpretation, I'm talking about experiment.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
>
> Jeroen Belleman

--
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 Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:29:27 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:16:14 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >> >> >> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>

> >>
> >> Umm, no. Shaped charges do produce focused jets -- of solid copper, not gas, moving at 2 or 3 Km/sec.
> >
> >The melting point of copper is 1085 Celcius, so it won't be solid. It's boiling point is 2562 Celcius, so it may in fact be a gas.
> >
> >> One can photograph these jets with X-Ray flash equipment.
> >>
> >> .<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/X-ray-photographs-of-shaped-charge-jets-formed-with-the-generation-of-a-magnetic-field-in_fig2_243174155>
> >
> >The X-rays just tell us that there is a mass of copper in the jet. They don't say anything about it's state. The fact that it seems to form droplets does suggest that it is fluid, rather than solid. Vortex rings in gas could look like that.
>
> Umm. Explosion forces vastly exceed the yield strength of any solid
> material, so flow does not prove that the material is molten.

Explosions work by turning a lump of solid explosive into very hot gas. If there's copper in the middle of the lump of explosive it's going to get hot too - too hot to be solid.

It may be dense because it is being compressed by converging shock waves, but it is also going to be hot for exactly the same reason. It's not going to have any mechanical strength at all. The appropriate description would probably be "a supercritical fluid".

Waffling on about what happen in a nuclear bomb where the core is driven critical by a compression wave - an implosion device

https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/implosion-device.htm

is merely hand-waving flim-flam. We all know this stuff anyway.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman)

Bozo the Clown...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:588:: with SMTP id c8mr353642qtb.102.1629154213064; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7f0b:: with SMTP id f11mr315702qtk.247.1629154212766; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder5.feed.usenet.farm!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!tr3.eu1.usenetexpress.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <1ntkhgha05qai2n1d84keh5o91h9fno58g@4ax.com>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=14.202.161.14; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 14.202.161.14
> References: <1tfahgtgd45landpdrakl20vhdmujfpclf@4ax.com> <fbdd483e-708a-8749-18a5-49baefa87e2b@electrooptical.net> <h36ghg1jd6nl8epjceot4k6h5vld4lq4ia@4ax.com> <sf963d$h89$1@dont-email.me> <694cd693-4d91-47f7-85dc-dcadb16ff58dn@googlegroups.com> <og9ihgp07ansu0tk337jqdnta2f4reelhh@4ax.com> <aec37805-cfd2-40bf-a3f3-1afdfc2f3802n@googlegroups.com> <kh7jhgd5kapf3c3l6nalqsdgpo1jccu53e@4ax.com> <c4c4004c-b0ab-42d9-964a-0050e1826665n@googlegroups.com> <1ntkhgha05qai2n1d84keh5o91h9fno58g@4ax.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <2a1df8c3-e2c7-47c3-bf4b-c9f050f10b9fn@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: interesting physics
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 22:50:13 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Lines: 66
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:640613
>
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:29:27 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill...
> .@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:16:14 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill
> ....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <b
> ill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wr
> ote:
>> >> >> >> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@e
> lectrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...
> @electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>> Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>>> On 2021-08-10 16:08, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wro
> te:
>> >> >> >> >>>>>> 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...@hi
> ghlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Umm, no. Shaped charges do produce focused jets -- of solid copper, no
> t gas, moving at 2 or 3 Km/sec.
>> >
>> >The melting point of copper is 1085 Celcius, so it won't be solid. It's
> boiling point is 2562 Celcius, so it may in fact be a gas.
>> >
>> >> One can photograph these jets with X-Ray flash equipment.
>> >>
>> >> .<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/X-ray-photographs-of-shaped-char
> ge-jets-formed-with-the-generation-of-a-magnetic-field-in_fig2_243174155>
>> >
>> >The X-rays just tell us that there is a mass of copper in the jet. They
> don't say anything about it's state. The fact that it seems to form droplets does suggest that it is fluid, rather than solid. Vortex rings in gas could look like that.
>>
>> Umm. Explosion forces vastly exceed the yield strength of any solid
>> material, so flow does not prove that the material is molten.
>
> Explosions work by turning a lump of solid explosive into very hot gas. If there's copper in the middle of the lump of explosive it's going to get hot too - too hot to be solid.
>
> It may be dense because it is being compressed by converging shock waves, but it is also going to be hot for exactly the same reason. It's not going to have any mechanical strength at all. The appropriate description would probably be "a supercritical fluid".
>
> Waffling on about what happen in a nuclear bomb where the core is driven critical by a compression wave - an implosion device
>
> https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/implosion-device.htm
>
> is merely hand-waving flim-flam. We all know this stuff anyway.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
>
>

On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:29:27 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:16:14 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>
>
>
>> >>
>> >> Umm, no. Shaped charges do produce focused jets -- of solid copper, not gas, moving at 2 or 3 Km/sec.
>> >
>> >The melting point of copper is 1085 Celcius, so it won't be solid. It's boiling point is 2562 Celcius, so it may in fact be a gas.
>> >
>> >> One can photograph these jets with X-Ray flash equipment.
>> >>
>> >> .<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/X-ray-photographs-of-shaped-charge-jets-formed-with-the-generation-of-a-magnetic-field-in_fig2_243174155>
>> >
>> >The X-rays just tell us that there is a mass of copper in the jet. They don't say anything about it's state. The fact that it seems to form droplets does suggest that it is fluid, rather than solid. Vortex rings in gas could look like that.
>>
>> Umm. Explosion forces vastly exceed the yield strength of any solid
>> material, so flow does not prove that the material is molten.
>
>Explosions work by turning a lump of solid explosive into very hot gas. If there's copper in the middle of the lump of explosive it's going to get hot too - too hot to be solid.
>
>It may be dense because it is being compressed by converging shock waves, but it is also going to be hot for exactly the same reason. It's not going to have any mechanical strength at all. The appropriate description would probably be "a supercritical fluid".
>
>Waffling on about what happen in a nuclear bomb where the core is driven critical by a compression wave - an implosion device
>
>https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/implosion-device.htm
>
>is merely hand-waving flim-flam. We all know this stuff anyway.

Well, the implosion in a nuclear core is likely to be somewhat in
excess of that needed to generate a shaped-charge metal jet that can
drill armor steel. Also look into self-forging projectiles, a kind of
shaped charge.

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator>

If the jet were really liquid, it would be pretty hard to forge a
metal slug moving at meteor-strike speeds.

Anyway, we have achieved our usual limit cycle. You may have the last
word.

Joe Gwinn

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 9:16:01 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 15:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 1:29:27 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:16:14 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM....@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM....@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>
> >
> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Umm, no. Shaped charges do produce focused jets -- of solid copper, not gas, moving at 2 or 3 Km/sec.
> >> >
> >> >The melting point of copper is 1085 Celcius, so it won't be solid. It's boiling point is 2562 Celcius, so it may in fact be a gas.
> >> >
> >> >> One can photograph these jets with X-Ray flash equipment.
> >> >>
> >> >> .<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/X-ray-photographs-of-shaped-charge-jets-formed-with-the-generation-of-a-magnetic-field-in_fig2_243174155>
> >> >
> >> >The X-rays just tell us that there is a mass of copper in the jet. They don't say anything about it's state. The fact that it seems to form droplets does suggest that it is fluid, rather than solid. Vortex rings in gas could look like that.
> >>
> >> Umm. Explosion forces vastly exceed the yield strength of any solid
> >> material, so flow does not prove that the material is molten.
> >
> >Explosions work by turning a lump of solid explosive into very hot gas. If there's copper in the middle of the lump of explosive it's going to get hot too - too hot to be solid.
> >
> >It may be dense because it is being compressed by converging shock waves, but it is also going to be hot for exactly the same reason. It's not going to have any mechanical strength at all. The appropriate description would probably be "a supercritical fluid".
> >
> >Waffling on about what happen in a nuclear bomb where the core is driven critical by a compression wave - an implosion device
> >
> >https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/implosion-device.htm
> >
> >is merely hand-waving flim-flam. We all know this stuff anyway.
>
> Well, the implosion in a nuclear core is likely to be somewhat in excess of that needed to generate a shaped-charge metal jet that can drill armor steel.

It is also symmetrical, so it can generate much higher pressures (and temperatures).

> Also look into self-forging projectiles, a kind of shaped charge.
>
> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator>
>
> If the jet were really liquid, it would be pretty hard to forge a metal slug moving at meteor-strike speeds.

If it is moving at meteor strike speeds if won't even be liquid as it hits its target. Not that it has to be - a substantial mass at that temperature will erode it's way in by washing away the structure that it is hitting - actually volatilising it but it is an inconsequential distinction at the temperatures involved.

Not that chemical explosives will generate meteor-strike speeds.

> Anyway, we have achieved our usual limit cycle. You may have the last word.

Not a particularly generous concession.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

> 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 Mon, 16 Aug 2021 23:10:21 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sfer8t$5df$2@dont-email.me>.

On 14/08/2021 19:40, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Jeroen Belleman 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.
>
> So if a tree falls in the forest when there's nobody to hear, it doesn't
> make a sound?
>
> I agree that a photon isn't a thing, as a boulder or even an electron is
> a thing.  As an elementary excitation of another system, it's a property
> of that system.

But the simplest system it is a property of is an ideal vacuum.

I have often wondered what the wavefunction of a nominally monochromatic
laser source photon looks like when you Q gate those you let out it to
the point where df/f is quite large. The photons (wavefunction) clearly
had a well defined frequency before they were allowed out of the cavity.

But afterwards to match the boundary conditions they have a much wider
spread of possible frequencies.

The intensity optical interferometer is particularly challenging to
explain without some way of having photons correlated. Before it was
built several eminent scientists insisted it would never work.

> Where we maybe differ is that I think that a perfect vacuum would
> qualify as such a system, whereas you apparently insist on nearby matter.

+1

I'm with you on a perfect vacuum being the original ideal medium for EM
waves. Although a real vacuum also has virtual particles flickering in
and out of existence (and also a trace of neutral hydrogen or plasma).
The main difference is you get a slight rotation of polarisation and
frequency dependent propagation speed in an imperfect vacuum.

Corrections for these experimental quirks have caused the official speed
of light to vary quite markedly over the years with tight formal error
bounds but significant systematic error in one of the techniques. ISTR
it was only discovered when a new microwave method disagreed.

There is a textbook around in the 1970's that had this graph in from
Romer onwards with error bars and a discussion. I cannot recall the
title. Does anyone recognise it from this description?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

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

[...]

> I'm with you on a perfect vacuum being the original ideal medium for EM
> waves. Although a real vacuum also has virtual particles flickering in
> and out of existence (and also a trace of neutral hydrogen or plasma).
> The main difference is you get a slight rotation of polarisation and
> frequency dependent propagation speed in an imperfect vacuum.
>
> Corrections for these experimental quirks have caused the official speed
> of light to vary quite markedly over the years with tight formal error
> bounds but significant systematic error in one of the techniques. ISTR
> it was only discovered when a new microwave method disagreed.

I'm sure you know the speed of light is now defined exactly:

Speed of light

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical
constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is defined as
299792458 metres per second (approximately 300000 km/s, or 186000 mi/s).
[Note 3] It is exact because, by international agreement, a metre is
defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a
time interval of 1?299792458 second.[Note 4][3] According to special
relativity, c is the upper limit for the speed at which conventional
matter, energy or any signal carrying information can travel through space.

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

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

On 2021-08-17 09:52, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 14/08/2021 19:40, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Jeroen Belleman 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.
>>
>> So if a tree falls in the forest when there's nobody to hear, it
>> doesn't make a sound?
>>
>> I agree that a photon isn't a thing, as a boulder or even an
>> electron is a thing. As an elementary excitation of another
>> system, it's a property of that system.
>
> But the simplest system it is a property of is an ideal vacuum.
>
> I have often wondered what the wavefunction of a nominally
> monochromatic laser source photon looks like when you Q gate those
> you let out it to the point where df/f is quite large. The photons
> (wavefunction) clearly had a well defined frequency before they were
> allowed out of the cavity.
>
> But afterwards to match the boundary conditions they have a much
> wider spread of possible frequencies.

I don't really see a problem. When you gate an EM wave, either
spatially or in time, you get sidebands. It's when you try to
reason in terms of photons that you get into trouble. Anyway,
even the QM maths to model these effects are really wave maths.

>
> The intensity optical interferometer is particularly challenging to
> explain without some way of having photons correlated. Before it was
> built several eminent scientists insisted it would never work.

A remote star, for any practical purpose, is a point source. How
could it be anything but coherent? Yes, the spectrum is still
basically thermal, so the coherence length is minuscule.

>
>> Where we maybe differ is that I think that a perfect vacuum would
>> qualify as such a system, whereas you apparently insist on nearby
>> matter.
>
> +1

Only where interactions occur. No matter is needed to just
propagate EM waves, even though I find that hard to accept too.

>
> I'm with you on a perfect vacuum being the original ideal medium for
> EM waves. Although a real vacuum also has virtual particles
> flickering in and out of existence (and also a trace of neutral
> hydrogen or plasma). [...]

Virtual particles arise from the same reasoning that grants
a physical existence to photons, so ...

Jeroen Belleman

On 17/08/2021 14:03, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2021-08-17 09:52, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 14/08/2021 19:40, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> Jeroen Belleman 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.
>>>
>>> So if a tree falls in the forest when there's nobody to hear, it
>>> doesn't make a sound?
>>>
>>> I agree that a photon isn't a thing, as a boulder or even an
>>> electron is a thing.  As an elementary excitation of another
>>> system, it's a property of that system.
>>
>> But the simplest system it is a property of is an ideal vacuum.
>>
>> I have often wondered what the wavefunction of a nominally
>> monochromatic laser source photon looks like when you Q gate those
>> you let out it to the point where df/f is quite large. The photons
>> (wavefunction) clearly had a well defined frequency before they were
>> allowed out of the cavity.
>>
>> But afterwards to match the boundary conditions they have a much
>> wider spread of possible frequencies.
>
> I don't really see a problem. When you gate an EM wave, either
> spatially or in time, you get sidebands. It's when you try to
> reason in terms of photons that you get into trouble. Anyway,
> even the QM maths to model these effects are really wave maths.
>
>>
>> The intensity optical interferometer is particularly challenging to
>> explain without some way of having photons correlated. Before it was
>> built several eminent scientists insisted it would never work.
>
> A remote star, for any practical purpose, is a point source. How
> could it be anything but coherent? Yes, the spectrum is still
> basically thermal, so the coherence length is minuscule.

That was the point though. Some are close enough for the difference to
be detectable. They are resolved on suitably long baseline.

Michelson & Pease first did it two slits style on the Mount Wilson 100"
scope with an iron beam across the front. It took two great
experimentalists to make it work back then!

The intensity interferometer is quite amazing. It was used to measure
stellar diameters back in the 1960's using 931 PMTs and searchlight
reflectors as photon catchers. The second generation instrument at
Narrabi was very impressive - and explanation of exactly how it works at
a quantum had to wait for the 2005 Nobel Physics prize.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SPIE.9146E..0CT/abstract

I can't find the article not behind a paywall celebrating its 50th
anniversary. ISTR Phil has the (rare) book online somewhere.

>>> Where we maybe differ is that I think that a perfect vacuum would
>>> qualify as such a system, whereas you apparently insist on nearby
>>> matter.
>>
>> +1
>
> Only where interactions occur. No matter is needed to just
> propagate EM waves, even though I find that hard to accept too.

>> I'm with you on a perfect vacuum being the original ideal medium for
>> EM waves. Although a real vacuum also has virtual particles
>> flickering in and out of existence (and also a trace of neutral
>> hydrogen or plasma). [...]
>
> Virtual particles arise from the same reasoning that grants
> a physical existence to photons, so ...

And you can detect their existence as the Casimir effect.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:16:14 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could be even worse than that, some may remember that:
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Tension_(short_story)
>>>>>>> https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1952-08/Galaxy_1952_08#page/n5/mode/2up
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been in a number of anthologies. At one stage I bought second hand science fiction magazines and might have got a copy of that issue of Galaxy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Biologically speaking, it's nonsense, but a cute story. James Blish wrote some very good stories, even if his grasp of science wasn't impressive. "Gavitationally polarised explosives" that created a thin disk of rapidly expanding gases was another of his very silly ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linear shaped charge?
>>>>>
>>>>> .<http://www.aesys.biz/wp-content/uploads/14-102_liner-shaped-charge.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> No gravitons were abused.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously not. Shaped charges work by emitting a jet of very hot gas at supersonic speed. Your linear shaped charge presumably emits a flat sheet of hot gas travelling just as fast - effectively a series of parallel jets.
>>>>
>>>> It was the gravitational polarisation that was silly, not so much the thin disk (though shaped charges do waste most their energy on keeping the jet focussed - it's worth it to get through armour plate, as in armour-piercing shells, but it is a pretty specialised application).
>>>
>>> Umm, no. Shaped charges do produce focused jets -- of solid copper, not gas, moving at 2 or 3 Km/sec.
>>
>> The melting point of copper is 1085 Celcius, so it won't be solid. It's boiling point is 2562 Celcius, so it may in fact be a gas.
>>
>>> One can photograph these jets with X-Ray flash equipment.
>>>
>>> .<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/X-ray-photographs-of-shaped-charge-jets-formed-with-the-generation-of-a-magnetic-field-in_fig2_243174155>
>>
>> The X-rays just tell us that there is a mass of copper in the jet. They don't say anything about it's state. The fact that it seems to form droplets does suggest that it is fluid, rather than solid. Vortex rings in gas could look like that.
>
> Umm. Explosion forces vastly exceed the yield strength of any solid
> material, so flow does not prove that the material is molten. The
> theory treats the uranium being compressed as a very dense gas.
>

Above the critical point, there's no distinction between liquid and
gas--with water in a pressure vessel with a window, you can watch the
meniscus appear and disappear as you go back and forth across the
critical temperature.

The critical temperature of copper is apparently 5421 K, according to
<http://www.knowledgedoor.com/2/elements_handbook/critical_point.html>,
which has the following citation for copper:

"See p. 335 in A. L. Horvath. "Critical Temperature of Elements and the
Periodic System." Journal of Chemical Education, volume 50, number 5,
1973, pp. 335–336. doi:10.1021/ed050p335"

That's a factor of 2 higher than its boiling point at 1 bar. (It would
be interesting to know how they measured that value.) So there's a wide
volume of pressure/temperature space where you could get liquid copper,
and of course that doesn't take the fluid dynamics into account--all
those tabulated properties assume thermal equilibrium.

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 Tue, 17 Aug 2021 09:39:42 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:16:14 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could be even worse than that, some may remember that:
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Tension_(short_story)
>>>>>>>> https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1952-08/Galaxy_1952_08#page/n5/mode/2up
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has been in a number of anthologies. At one stage I bought second hand science fiction magazines and might have got a copy of that issue of Galaxy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Biologically speaking, it's nonsense, but a cute story. James Blish wrote some very good stories, even if his grasp of science wasn't impressive. "Gavitationally polarised explosives" that created a thin disk of rapidly expanding gases was another of his very silly ideas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linear shaped charge?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .<http://www.aesys.biz/wp-content/uploads/14-102_liner-shaped-charge.pdf>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No gravitons were abused.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously not. Shaped charges work by emitting a jet of very hot gas at supersonic speed. Your linear shaped charge presumably emits a flat sheet of hot gas travelling just as fast - effectively a series of parallel jets.
>>>>>
>>>>> It was the gravitational polarisation that was silly, not so much the thin disk (though shaped charges do waste most their energy on keeping the jet focussed - it's worth it to get through armour plate, as in armour-piercing shells, but it is a pretty specialised application).
>>>>
>>>> Umm, no. Shaped charges do produce focused jets -- of solid copper, not gas, moving at 2 or 3 Km/sec.
>>>
>>> The melting point of copper is 1085 Celcius, so it won't be solid. It's boiling point is 2562 Celcius, so it may in fact be a gas.
>>>
>>>> One can photograph these jets with X-Ray flash equipment.
>>>>
>>>> .<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/X-ray-photographs-of-shaped-charge-jets-formed-with-the-generation-of-a-magnetic-field-in_fig2_243174155>
>>>
>>> The X-rays just tell us that there is a mass of copper in the jet. They don't say anything about it's state. The fact that it seems to form droplets does suggest that it is fluid, rather than solid. Vortex rings in gas could look like that.
>>
>> Umm. Explosion forces vastly exceed the yield strength of any solid
>> material, so flow does not prove that the material is molten. The
>> theory treats the uranium being compressed as a very dense gas.
>>
>
>Above the critical point, there's no distinction between liquid and
>gas--with water in a pressure vessel with a window, you can watch the
>meniscus appear and disappear as you go back and forth across the
>critical temperature.
>
>The critical temperature of copper is apparently 5421 K, according to
><http://www.knowledgedoor.com/2/elements_handbook/critical_point.html>,
>which has the following citation for copper:
>
>"See p. 335 in A. L. Horvath. "Critical Temperature of Elements and the
>Periodic System." Journal of Chemical Education, volume 50, number 5,
>1973, pp. 335–336. doi:10.1021/ed050p335"
>
>That's a factor of 2 higher than its boiling point at 1 bar. (It would
>be interesting to know how they measured that value.) So there's a wide
>volume of pressure/temperature space where you could get liquid copper,
>and of course that doesn't take the fluid dynamics into account--all
>those tabulated properties assume thermal equilibrium.

Yeah. It gets complicated.

For the nuclear trigger implosions, I'd assume that they are well
above critical temperature for plutonium, but at those force levels
intermolecular binding forces are round off errors. Which would
explain why the theory guys tread the imploding plutonium as a very
dense gas.

But for the ordinary shaped charges of whatever shape, the general
opinion in the literature is that the copper does not melt. This is
supported by the fact that explosively forged penetrators are
practical.

And the X-ray flash pictures sure look like solid metal is flying.

Joe Gwinn

tirsdag den 17. august 2021 kl. 15.39.50 UTC+2 skrev Phil Hobbs:
> Joe Gwinn wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
> > <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 9:16:14 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 12:36:54 AM UTC+10, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 19:19:45 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 5:38:26 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 8/14/2021 22:30, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 15:04:50 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2021 10:08:57 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jeroen Belleman 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>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Could be even worse than that, some may remember that:
> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Tension_(short_story)
> >>>>>>> https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1952-08/Galaxy_1952_08#page/n5/mode/2up
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It has been in a number of anthologies. At one stage I bought second hand science fiction magazines and might have got a copy of that issue of Galaxy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Biologically speaking, it's nonsense, but a cute story. James Blish wrote some very good stories, even if his grasp of science wasn't impressive. "Gavitationally polarised explosives" that created a thin disk of rapidly expanding gases was another of his very silly ideas.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Linear shaped charge?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .<http://www.aesys.biz/wp-content/uploads/14-102_liner-shaped-charge.pdf>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No gravitons were abused.
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously not. Shaped charges work by emitting a jet of very hot gas at supersonic speed. Your linear shaped charge presumably emits a flat sheet of hot gas travelling just as fast - effectively a series of parallel jets.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was the gravitational polarisation that was silly, not so much the thin disk (though shaped charges do waste most their energy on keeping the jet focussed - it's worth it to get through armour plate, as in armour-piercing shells, but it is a pretty specialised application).
> >>>
> >>> Umm, no. Shaped charges do produce focused jets -- of solid copper, not gas, moving at 2 or 3 Km/sec.
> >>
> >> The melting point of copper is 1085 Celcius, so it won't be solid. It's boiling point is 2562 Celcius, so it may in fact be a gas.
> >>
> >>> One can photograph these jets with X-Ray flash equipment.
> >>>
> >>> .<https://www.researchgate.net/figure/X-ray-photographs-of-shaped-charge-jets-formed-with-the-generation-of-a-magnetic-field-in_fig2_243174155>
> >>
> >> The X-rays just tell us that there is a mass of copper in the jet. They don't say anything about it's state. The fact that it seems to form droplets does suggest that it is fluid, rather than solid. Vortex rings in gas could look like that.
> >
> > Umm. Explosion forces vastly exceed the yield strength of any solid
> > material, so flow does not prove that the material is molten. The
> > theory treats the uranium being compressed as a very dense gas.
> >
> Above the critical point, there's no distinction between liquid and
> gas--with water in a pressure vessel with a window, you can watch the
> meniscus appear and disappear as you go back and forth across the
> critical temperature.
>

here's a demonstration of supercritical CO2

https://youtu.be/-gCTKteN5Y4

Martin Brown wrote:
> On 17/08/2021 14:03, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>> On 2021-08-17 09:52, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 14/08/2021 19:40, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>> Jeroen Belleman 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.
>>>>
>>>> So if a tree falls in the forest when there's nobody to hear, it
>>>> doesn't make a sound?
>>>>
>>>> I agree that a photon isn't a thing, as a boulder or even an
>>>> electron is a thing.  As an elementary excitation of another
>>>> system, it's a property of that system.
>>>
>>> But the simplest system it is a property of is an ideal vacuum.
>>>
>>> I have often wondered what the wavefunction of a nominally
>>> monochromatic laser source photon looks like when you Q gate those
>>> you let out it to the point where df/f is quite large. The photons
>>> (wavefunction) clearly had a well defined frequency before they were
>>> allowed out of the cavity.
>>>
>>> But afterwards to match the boundary conditions they have a much
>>> wider spread of possible frequencies.
>>
>> I don't really see a problem. When you gate an EM wave, either
>> spatially or in time, you get sidebands. It's when you try to
>> reason in terms of photons that you get into trouble. Anyway,
>> even the QM maths to model these effects are really wave maths.
>>
>>>
>>> The intensity optical interferometer is particularly challenging to
>>> explain without some way of having photons correlated. Before it was
>>> built several eminent scientists insisted it would never work.
>>
>> A remote star, for any practical purpose, is a point source. How
>> could it be anything but coherent? Yes, the spectrum is still
>> basically thermal, so the coherence length is minuscule.
>
> That was the point though. Some are close enough for the difference to
> be detectable. They are resolved on suitably long baseline.
>
> Michelson & Pease first did it two slits style on the Mount Wilson 100"
> scope with an iron beam across the front. It took two great
> experimentalists to make it work back then!
>
> The intensity interferometer is quite amazing. It was used to measure
> stellar diameters back in the 1960's using 931 PMTs and searchlight
> reflectors as photon catchers. The second generation instrument at
> Narrabi was very impressive - and explanation of exactly how it works at
> a quantum had to wait for the 2005 Nobel Physics prize.
>
> https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014SPIE.9146E..0CT/abstract
>
> I can't find the article not behind a paywall celebrating its 50th
> anniversary. ISTR Phil has the (rare) book online somewhere.

<https://electrooptical.net/static/oldsite/hanbury/The_Intensity_Interferometer-Hanbury_Brown.pdf>

A very good read. RHB started out in radio and infrared. Classically
it's not too hard to take the angular spectrum of a thermal source,
compute the expected (classical) fluctuations, and use diffraction
theory to show how the cross-correlations change with receiver position.

The quantum folks of the day thought that that didn't apply to light
from different sources. It was held that light from independent sources
could never interfere, whereas they (paradoxically) had no problems
tuning in the BBC on their table radio, whose superheterodyne design
used the exact same principle.

>
>>>> Where we maybe differ is that I think that a perfect vacuum would
>>>> qualify as such a system, whereas you apparently insist on nearby
>>>> matter.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> Only where interactions occur. No matter is needed to just
>> propagate EM waves, even though I find that hard to accept too.
>
>>> I'm with you on a perfect vacuum being the original ideal medium for
>>> EM waves. Although a real vacuum also has virtual particles
>>> flickering in and out of existence (and also a trace of neutral
>>> hydrogen or plasma). [...]
>>
>> Virtual particles arise from the same reasoning that grants
>> a physical existence to photons, so ...
>
> And you can detect their existence as the Casimir effect.

Yup.

I'm very sympathetic to Jeroen's position--it really is unsatisfying
that we don't have intuition of how quantum mechanics works. The
ancient Greek philosophers spent centuries sorting out issues of being,
essence, identity, and so on, based on sharp reasoning from common
notions and observation.

The truncated version of their work that's our common coin ignores
spiritual realities, but apart from that rather recent mistake, their
notions have held up pretty well for over 2000 years.

At macroscopic levels, they still do. One major problem with them is
that they tend to lead to the error of philosophical determinism, with
its well-known inhumane consequences and other absurdities such as the
abolition of the possibility of logical thought.

Quantum folks like Sabine Hossenfelder (and many before her) try to
preserve the determinist view by saying that the equations of quantum
mechanics are linear, so that the wave function at any time t is
completely determined by its form at earlier times.

That's true unless there are state transitions involved, but then state
transitions are occurring randomly everywhere, so that new information
is appearing in the universe on a massive scale at all times.

The world is very mysterious.

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 (Tue, 17 Aug 2021 21:39:47 -0400) it happened Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
<c31d6cbd-e883-76ef-c042-4e123777c889@electrooptical.net>:

>Quantum folks like Sabine Hossenfelder (and many before her) try to
>preserve the determinist view by saying that the equations of quantum
>mechanics are linear, so that the wave function at any time t is
>completely determined by its form at earlier times.
>
>That's true unless there are state transitions involved, but then state
>transitions are occurring randomly everywhere, so that new information
>is appearing in the universe on a massive scale at all times.
>
>The world is very mysterious.

The physics peers make it so.
Take the example of 'virtual particles popping in and out of existence in a vacuum."
To me, when somebody refers to 'virtual' that suggest something not real.
Mathemamaticians are good in that: (singularities as example divide by zero, re-normalization etc ?'
Anyways, IF (Hello Jeroen) we look at a Le Sage theory of gravity,
and just say for a moment these particles actually move at light speed,
and EM waves are just the same particle in a different state, we united everything.
We see then, from reasoning, that in free space (vacuum as physics thinks)
there must also be collisions between these Le Sage particles,
are those collisions fully elastic? what happens when more collide together?
What happens when EM type and non EM type collide?
There are your virtual particles, everywhere.
Without a _mechanism_ any theory immediately becomes philosophy and mathematical divide by zero crap.

The papers Jeroen mentioned actually relate to the same model / issue I am referring too, no empty space!

Not saying my way is right, but it does well explain and predict.
Ad the variable light speedS (capital S because of multiple big bangs) and let's look a bit better at all the measurements
and not ignore the outlayers because 'obviously it must fit Neinstein and C).
Else we will be here in circles doing the divide by zero virtual reality illusion till we go dinos way.