On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 12:29:43 PM UTC-8, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 12:51:10 PM UTC-6, Townes Olson wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:14:16 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > > Your "oscillating photons" can't account for the quantum interference effects
> > > > as illustrated by the two-slit experiment.
> > >
> > > That's because no one has bothered to figure out how...
> >
> > Your reply doesn't change the fact that your "oscillating photons" can't account for the quantum interference effects as illustrated by the two-slit experiment.
>
> Yes they can. Oscillating photons consist of oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
> The atoms in the two slits have similar fields surrounding them. It seems clear that
> the fields affect each other, just the way polarizing lenses affect light.. In fact,
> I wrote a paper about how the slits are similar to polarizing lenses. But I withdrew
> the paper when it became clear that there was more to it.
>
> > This, along with the illogical features, answers your question about why no one is interested in your concept of "oscillating photons". Remember, you momentarily thought you could explain the quantum effects, but quickly realized that you can't. In contrast, quantum electrodynamics explains things perfectly. That's why people are interested in QED and not in your "oscillating photons".
>
> QED explains SOME things perfectly. But NOT HOW photons can appear
> to be BOTH particles and waves. Oscillating photons explains that.
>
> > > I don't recall "invoking the 'different size of a second'" when discussing
> > > differences between frequencies and speeds.
> > You don't? Just 30 minutes ago, to excuse yourself from answering my simple question about the speed of the light relative to the road, you wrote:
> >
> > > When you have a moving object and a stationary object you get into the subject
> > > of time dilation. A second is shorter for the moving object, so c is not the same
> > > in the two "systems of reference,"
> > That's what I'm pointing out doesn't make sense, because relativistic time dilation is far too small to account for the difference between c and c+v, and likewise to account for the corresponding differences in frequencies due to the Doppler effect.
>
> When I wrote that I do not want to get into the subject of time dilation
> when discussing radar guns, that doesn't mean I am "invoking" the
> subject. YOU "invoked" the subject. I merely said I didn't want to get
> into that subject.
>
> This discussion is getting tedious.
>
> Ed

Simultaneity? Is waiting on light to arrive together
in space and time...

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

>> When I wrote that I do not want to get into the subject of time
>> dilation when discussing radar guns, that doesn't mean I am "invoking"
>> the subject. YOU "invoked" the subject. I merely said I didn't want to
>> get into that subject. This discussion is getting tedious. Ed
>
> Simultaneity? Is waiting on light to arrive together in space and
> time...

there is no opposite appearance when you move around in quantum scale.
That's a macro scale thing.