"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 5 May 2007 02:02:47 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 4 May 2007 04:03:17 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

How can anything have 'intrinsic properties' (which can be measured in
3space1time) if it doesn't have a 'structure'?

Consider some entity A. It is made of entities B and C.
A has properties which come from the properties of B
and C plus some influence from the relationship between
B and C. For example the mass of A might be the sum
of the masses of B and C plus the binding energy of the
pair. As you go down the scale, eventually you come to
something fundamental which is not composed of other
things, and yet it must have some properties of its own.

I think you just enjoy arguing, George.

Probably, but what I said is still valid. I expected
you to reply that an electron is a fundamental particle
yet string theory says it has structure - a ring of
energy. My reply would be that "ring-like" is a property
rather than indicative of construction from lesser items.
Quite often I feel words can be ambiguous and exploring
alternative meanings for, in this case, "structure" can
be useful in clarifying what we mean.

Theories, theories....nobody really knows....

I see you still haven't learned what the word theory
means in science.

However, if single ONE bullet is fired at the target, it has zero
probability
of landing anywhere other than at the point where the gun was aimed.
(please
don't mention wind shear)

No, it has exactly the same probability of landing at any location
as each of the thousand.

No it doesn't!!!!!!

Yes it does, that is basic probability theory.

Probability is not a cause of anything. It's a result.

Nobody said anything about probability being causal.

George, like many others, you are completely misinterpreting the role of
statistics, which is a science dealing with the outcome of multiple
events.

Henry, I'm not talking about statistics, I'm talking
about probability. There is a subtle distinction.

Mathematics, on the other hand, is designed to analyse or predict single
events.

Maybe you should study probability a bit before
trying to discuss it.

All those bullets that were normally distributed around the bull landed
exactly
where they did for purely physical reasons.
Where the bullet will strike is precisely determined BEFORE it is fired.
Even
factors like the nerve movements of the shooter and the wind movements
are
precisely predetermined. There is no way anyone could produce a
mathematical
model to predict the outcome but it is still theoretically possible.

Statistics is the most misinterpreted science of all....

Indeed, though your mistake above is less common than
others. The key here is that the pprobability for each bullet
is unaffected by the existence of any preceding shot.

That is not related to my statement.

You said that a thosand bullets would be spread but a
single bullet would not, hence the implication is that
the first bullet always goes where it is aimed and
subsequent bullets go elsewhere because of the previous
one(s). That is not the case, the first bullet has as
much chance of landing at some off-centre point as any
other.

You can say that BEFORE the bullet is fired...because the conditions that
cause
the bullet to land where it does are random.
However, that does not alter the fact that each bullet hits where it does
for
specific physical reasons that are theoretically capable of being
mathematically analysed and explained.

Whether or not true randomicity exists is a big question.

No, it's not a question at all, it is proven beyond
any doubt.

It is
similar to tossing an unbiassed coin, the probability is
50:50 regardless of the outcome of preceding tosses, only
the variable is 2D real (location on the target) rather than
binary (heads or tails).

Yes I know that George.

Then why did you say "No it doesn't!!!!!!" ?

The bullet is destined to hit exactly where it does from the moment it is
fired. Chance doesn't enter into it...

Not true I'm afraid, but it doesn't alter the fact that
you said "No it doesn't" in one case and "Yes I know
that" a few lines later. It's hard to discuss anything
when you can't even express a consistent view in a single
post.

If you drop a thousand ball bearings on the floor they will end up
normally
distributed around the centre....BUT that does not alter the fact thta
there
was a precise physical reason why every one came to rest right where it
did.

Mostly, the scatter is dominated by slight variations at
the macroscopic level, but a small amount of uncertainty
is also an intrinsic property of any individual particle
so if you repeat that with electrons there is a lower
limit of spread beyond that from the lack of perfect
knowledge. Einstein didn't like that but it has been
proven experimentally beyond any doubt. Newton's clockwork
and fully deterministic universe isn't ours.

Nobody has demonstrated that true randomicty exists, at any level.

Sorry Henry, your decades out of date again.

Just the aggregate,

The way I see it is that a monochromatic beam is just a large number of
identical photons with that particular 'wavelength'.

Yes. A grating deflects an individual photon depending on
the colour of that beam, not the rate at which photons
arrive. I'm thinking of say a dim red laser with a flux
of a few photons per minute. Like the coin tosses, each
one is deflected purely on its intrinsic properties.

If all the photons are identical, should they all be deflected by the same
amount?

To within the intrinsic uncertainty of the energy property.
That means there is a fundamental lower limit to line width.
You can think of that either as the (gaussian) spectrum of
the line showing the power in each frequency that you get
from a Fourier transform of the received sine wave or as a
histogram of the photon energies (which will produce a small
spread of deflection angles) or by transforming to the time
domain as the phase jitter on the RF sine wave. They are all
just different coneptual models of the same feature.

I would like to think that the diffraction angle depends on the actual
phase of
the photon's INTRINSIC oscillation when it strikes the grating..

Frequency (or equivalently wavelength), not phase.

White light is a mixture.

Yes. When it hits a grating each photon deflects depending
only on its own properties and not the properties of other
photons that arrive some seconds earlier or later.

yes. That would have to be right.

Excellent. That is a major agreement Henry.

A radio signal is a mixture in which groups of individual photons form
sine
shaped 'bunches' which move along. ..somewhat like a water wave except
the
photons move back and forth rather than up and down.

No, radio is no different to light, it just has much lower
energy per photon.

I don't agree with this at all...and I don't think many others would
either.

I'm afraid you are wrong on that, there might be a few
cranks around who would dispute it but it has been
known in scientific circles for well over a century.

Consider microwaves hitting a wire grid.
Each photon in the wave is deflected by an angle that depends
only on its own properties independent of any others.

But there is also a second diffraction based on the microwave
'wavelength'.

Same thing.

Sure, I expect the formula to be different in BaTh, but
the argument still holds, that energy is deposited where
the photon lands, not somehwere else.

That's probably OK for monochromatic light but you can't deduce that the
same
will apply to, say, RF.

They are both just EM, all the rules must apply to everything
from ELF at a few Hz up to gamma rays.

Sorry George, I cannot imagine a single photon that is maybe 1 lightsecond
in
length and expands as a radio signal diverges. Do you think it expands
forever?

Photons are particles Henry. Look at the example I gave
of the sodium doublet. The line width has to be less than
6A while the mean wavelength is 5893A. The Zeeman effect
produces individual lines with far smaller spacing. A line
of 5893A wavelength and width of 0.003A must contain more
than 1.7 million cycles so would be more than 1 light
second long in a classical wave model, yet it is absorbed
instantly by a single electron in the photo-electric effect.

Photons are particles and energy is an intrinsic property.
The probability of a single photon being measured at some
location after deflection from a grating depends on the
energy, and the maths that describes that dependence
includes a sine function which is related to energy.
Planck's constant allows us to express the energy in the
classical "frequency" concept which can then be used in
the maths.

You see, I believe that eventually EM beams become so weak due to square
law
divergence that genuine 'nothing' appears between individual photons and
their
fields.

"Field" is just a name for the statistical summed effect
of many photons, there is nothing between them.

That's why I invented Wilsonian nort-holes.

Everyone else calls it the vaccuum through which the photons
move.

This argument is not about how gratings behave according to BaTh.

Of course it is.

The BaTh doesn't need gratings to verify it.

BaTh needs a version of the grating equation. Working
that out will tell you about the rules for dealing with
reflection in BaTh which is something you currently don't
know. Once you do that you could apply it to Sagnac's
experiment without having to assume all the mirrors are
at the same radius as you do at present.

I believe the sagnac effect is due to an entirely different factor...such
as a
local EM frame that behaves like an aether.

I don't care what you belive, it is a fact that the measued
speed is independent of the speed of the source.

I'm starting to think that local EM reference frames are everywhere around
us,
...inside accelerators, etc....

The BaTh only holds 100% in truly empty space.

Even the IGM isn't "truly empty" so basically you
are simply back to LET to explain both the MMX and
Sagnac.

Water waves carry longitudinal energy...but the individual molecules
go
up and
down. Their vertical KE is NOT what is carried with the wave.

The wave energy is deposited where the waves lap the shore,
not somewhere else.

But the energy of the vertically oscillating water molecules is
continuously
being dampened out and absorbed as heat in the ocean.

Yes, and the heat is deposited at the location of the
wave, not elsewhere.

Underneath a traveling water wave, the individual molecules move in
roughly
elliptical orbits....which accounts for the macroscopic movement of water
and
energy. ...but the molecules move laterally far less than the wave
crests.
CMIIW..

Sure but a wave on the sea moves the sand on the shore,
it doesn't deposit its energy a mile inland.

Wavelength and/or frequency.

Since nobody has a clue what photon 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually
signify, that is a pretty meaningless statement.

Speak for yourself.

Come on George, you don't have any kind of model for a photon. You think
it's
just a couple of sinewaves drawn at right angles on paper.

No, I think it is a fundamental particle like an electron
which has the property of carrying energy (and others).

I think when the charge is taken to some destination, the car
also arrives at the same place. You can't send the car to
Boston and have the charge arrive in Cairo which is what you
are suggesting. Beyond that discussions of their length are
irrelevant, the length has no analog in the photon.

How do you know.

Because your suggestion is equivalent to saying the heat
produced by friction in an ocean wave can be deposited
inland.

George, you know how water waves can be diffracted, for instance by a row
of
vertical bars.

Yes, and the energy of the waves is then carried in
another direction to be deposited where the waves go.

Do you really believe that the water molecules that go up and down near
the
bars are the ones that end up making the diffraction pattern maybe 100
metres
away?

No Henry, exactly my point. That is what you are telling
me, that the grating angle for the wave is not the same
as that for the photons composing the wave.

Henry, I think we have maybe got a handle on this, in
your grating equation if you have red laser light
arriving at a level of one photon per second, would you
use the frequency of the red light or the 1Hz rate of
one photon per second to work out the deflection angle.
I say it is that of the light regardless of the arrival
rate, you are telling me the wave energy goes to one
place at an angle determined by the 1Hz figure while
the photons themselves go to the location given by the
red light frequency.

the should be another very weak energy build up where the 1 hz is
diffracted.
How about modifying your experiment to make the 1 Hz sinusoidal.

How about you calculate how much energy BaTh says is in
this extra mode you have invented. For a fairly bright
source with random arrival times (e.g. a sodium lamp
where the photons are emitted thermally) there should
be a background continuum under the lines. Make your
prediction of that level and then research the literature.

The concept matches the data very well.

It makes no sense though, how can the energy go anywhere
other than where the photons go?

Strange things happen.

Perhaps, but for your bizarre idea to 'match the data
very well' requires _all_ the energy to go where the
1Hz deflection predicts and none to go with the photons.
As I said, it makes no sense.

George