On 6 May 2007 10:28:13 -0700, George Dishman wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

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.

there is.

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.

I have already studied it George.



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.

You are jumping in too early again George.
It IS a big question that includes things like 'free will' if human action is
involved..

If I fire a bullet that misses the target, PROBABILITY says, 'that's OK, it is
a statistical fact that no matter how good the shooter, occasionally one WILL
miss'.
However, I say, it missed simply because I didn't aim in the right direction.

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.

I wasn't refering to the same thing.


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.

No. even at the atomic level, this has never been completely resolved.

For instance, consider radioactive decay.
We know all about its exponential rate. ..but we don't know why each event
occurs exactly when it does. Is there a unique physical explanation for each
one. Likewise, we don't know why emitted particles move in the directions they
do even though the angular distibution is statistical predictable.


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.

If E=h.nu there is no distribution at all.


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.

In the case of monochromatic light, the theory says energy is relfected equally
at all angles but is reinforced only at one angle. Destructive interference
occurs at all other angles thus nullifying energy transfer at those angles.

Try to explain THAT with the particle model George. How actually do photon
'particles' cancel each other out?

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.

not really...


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.

No it isn't. If you modulate a laser beam with a 100000hz signal, you get two
entirely different diffraction patterns.


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.

You have never seen zeeman lines from ONE transition.
there are always millions involved.

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.

I'm not even going to comment on this type of speculation.


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.

Nobody has ever measured OWLS at all George, let alone from a moving source.
So don't preach nonsense to me please...

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.

Indeed it isn't empty, that's why unificatoin occurs....but most of it lies
below the WDT, at which level the BaTh operates almost entirely.



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).

'the property of carrying energy'
That doesn't really tell us much does it George...hardly a model...

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.

If photon are particles that are reflected over 360 degrees from each line, how
do you explain all that destructive interference over the 359.9 degrees.

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.

Your theory has to rely 100% on the wave model of light to expain gratings.
...and then it fails. My model of photons as independent vibrating quanta
explains it all.

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.

I'm too busy...how about YOU do it.

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.

How do you explain destructive interference with the particle model George?


George



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.