Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:ER5Ja.97749$hd6.37192@fed1read05...
....
I have discussed this with Alexandr. If particles are the width of the
Universe (in some sense), then the Universe is the medium.

Sorry, David, this is not an answer of physicist but a simple wish to
avoid an inconvenient answer. ;-) If a particle had a size of
universe, by our own observations it is not an elementary particle and
has a mass!

This does not follow. All this says is that "Here" and "There" are
connected by more than distance. To say that something is finite and
separable, is not to say that you can really establish a "size" for the
silly thing.

Its substructure would be seen in telescope, would have a
spectrum an so on.

Doesn't follow. The diffraction formula (choose one) indicates that a
particle that self-interferes is "aware" of geometries the size of the
Universe. The amount of diffraction is *very* small for macroscopic
distances. And photon-photon interactions (for example) do not include
reflection of one photon off the other, leaving the first unaffected.

But if particles move in a 'void' space, which is
necessary for GR postulates to be substantiated, quanta and photons
automatically become necessary, with all consequences. And you are
saying, relativism and photon theory don't 'intersect' each other! ;-)

GR says little about quanta. It says much about "signals", which are
statistically significant populations. GR is the road, and QM is the
foundation on which the road is laid.

....
Size of photons is very close to zero, by experiment. Size of
electrons is
very close to zero, by experiment. Next!

No, not next. You are too in hurry. Please stop here and determine,
which part of period of EM wave having 100 kHz frequency is involved
in one photon (at least approximately - which order of a part?)

All of it. Now *measurement* to establish this "period" or "frequency"
will require more than one photon. Next.

2. Which part of period has to be included within a photon to provide
it uncharged?

I do not understand your question. The net charge across one
wavelength is
zero. The net "torque" across two wavelengths is zero.

This question continues the first. If a wave has 100 kHz, it has a
period 3000 m,

Wavelength.

whilst the size of photons of which this wave consists
tends to zero, as you say, then one photon contains only a part of
period!

You are discussing the distance the host of very large transverse diameter
particles travel between changes in E & M polarization are "noted".
Different beast.

Thus, please return to the above question and soothe me -
determine, which approximately part of a period each photon carries.

All of it. Be soothed. Next.

3. Which approximately has to be the distance between photons to
provide their non-interaction with each other?

As close as zero distance.

Not so much exactly. Feynman determined the distance between photons
as much more than their size!

Much more than zero... is this a multiplier or an adder?

And there are weighty reasons for it. As
is known from optic experiments, we can merge a set of beams without
broadening the beam diameter. Should the between-photon distance be
negligibly small, the total beam has to broaden! Either several
photons have to be located at the same point of space and time. Could
you prompt me such particles? I would be very grateful.

Photons. Electrons (except for that danged charge). The photons do not
show any awareness of their neighbors, allowing a very dense grouping of
them. Yet experiments have been performed where photons have had head-on
collisions with each other.

4. How non-interacting photons interfere?

They interfere with themselves.

Fine! Let us recall the Caderholm's experiment with two independent
masers [J.P. Caderholm, G.F. Bland, B.L. Havens and C.H. Townes. Phys.
Rev. Letters, 1958, 1, 342]. The basic frequency was 23 870 MHz.
Beating of two masers was about 20 Hz and continually registered. With
such beating Caderholm observed the interference, and we can
substantiate it in the view of classical wave optics. To your mind, it
appears that two masers at the same time created one and the same
photon?

No. To my mind, you are observing increases and decreases in the number of
photons detected. Fluctuations in intensity.

Varying the angle between the masers, they changed the
interference pattern - it evidences that just waves of two masers
interfered, not photons of each maser with themselves. ;-)

Not applicable. Because a model works for expediency, namely casting a
host as a wave, doesn't mean it reveals underlying truth. It would reveal
the same result if one were to calculate 10^10 trajectories for said number
of ballistic particles that are aware of Universal geometries, and then
multipled that by the number of such particle "groups" required to assure
yourself that you had the phase right.

The wave model is easier. It is not the whole truth.

Just like electrons, neutrons, nucleii,
and bucky balls.

Okay, tell me please, how the energy is added in interaction of two
particles?

What does this have to do with self-interference?

5. All bodies in material medium encounter retardation. If photon was
a particle, it either is retarded or the aether as a material medium
filling the space is absent.

Classical waves in a fluid medium do not experience "retardation". The
wave is in resonance with the "depth" of the fluid (and a number of
other
parameters).

Right, waves in a flow do not encounter deceleration, but particles
do, as they always have a drag, and a wave hasn't. ;-) Velocity of
waves depends on the depth only in a shallow channel.

Doesn't have to be a channel, by the way. This is why waves crash onto a
beach. The deep sea wave speed is faster than the in-shore wavespeed. The
water "piles up", and breakers are the result.


In infinite
continuum they depend on density, elasticity and viscosity of the
medium. By a 'strange chance', velocity of EM wave is also
proportional to the dielectric and magnetic constants.

Ah, so you do believe that the Universe is the medium? And the "bulk
parameters" to which you refer are the way the Universe handles
very-low-energy-density effects (namely the passage of distant photons)?

You don't know photons well enough to call them retarded. They may
have
gone to school! ;}

As to my knowledge of photon theory - we will sort it out, if you dare
to dive deeper. Still, it would be very kind of you if you are able to
give a substantiated answers to the phenomenological questions of this
theory. ;-)

I will probably never be able to satisfy this requirement. At least to
your satisfaction. Shall we stop now?

....
Yes. The transforms are not applicable to GR. Space is curved, and a
two
dimensional equation set no longer suffices.

And could you point at least one 2D event in space? Maybe you would
like to say, GR metric is not 4D? A simple additional question: will a
body having a transverse initial velocity move along geodesics? Or
geodesics 'change a lane' with the change of initial conditions? ;-)

The difference between SR and GR is to what I referred. SR is limited to a
single line of motion, since acceleration is not "permitted".

Or SR is one
physics and GR - another physics as to the same objects?

Just as SR devolves to Newton for vc, so does GR devolve to SR when
m-0.

I-i-i-i-nteresting conclusion! It means, for massive bodies the
constant light velocity postulate doesn't conserve, and for
non-massive bodies it conserves! The metric of non-massive bodies
varies as SR, and massive bodies on which these non-massive are
located - as GR? Non-massive body (e.g. electron), as its velocity
approaches the velocity of light, doesn't become massive? Terrific!!!

I have no idea what this paragraph says. And by the way, an electron has
mass.

There will be a theory that will devolve to GR, once we have figured
out
how to do without Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Dark Matter is an attribute of Dark Theory. This term serves to
designate all what the relativists have piled up, where both ends
don't meet - and the main, the trick serves! And project reports are
approved, and papers are accepted for publication, and these 'results'
are added to the textbooks. Why then they are surprised that there
fall Shuttles and skyscrapers, trains from bridges and so on, so on.
Irresponsibility is such as if these all are not catastrophes of real
life but only images at the TV screen. Right, David! You don't need to
worry! You colleagues don't need to open all these mistakes and to
make corrections! A fresh example, how they have lied in their report
of 'Columbia' - well, what of it that they have lied? See, there is
already a new picture at the screen, we are flying further! Well,
people, everything is all right, calmly slumber in your chairs!

Only don't be surprised, why everything fails!

These conclusions don't follow.

I do agree, that in my opinion, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are measures of
what we don't know. It has nothing to do with the failure of an orbital
platform. Unless DM is what you'd like to propose damaged it?

Or GR has
been constructed not on 4D metric of SR?

Yes, it has been. The linear relations one expects no longer applies.

Well, you would like to say that the main equation of GR is not 4D?
It's staggering!

What you are trying to say is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps we should
stop?

David A. Smith