Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:nBYNa.119895$hd6.76587@fed1read05...
....
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.

You understand that your respond is an usual sophistry. Speaking of a
particle having a size of the Universe, you would have to say, a sea
is a particle, a river is a particle, interstellar gas is also a
particle. You can call whatever a particle, but we spoke of another
thing, it is not worth to substitute the concepts in order to disagree
with the obvious. Think, why the universe, as you are saying, can be a
medium only in case if a particle has a size of Universe? Is it
serious even for sophists? ;-)

Try the inverse, and see how you like its flavour. At any point, is the
slightest hint of every other particle in the Universe. Does this sound
familiar?

Why does the Universe care to require so much energy of me, if I wish to go
0.9c? Because all of it is affected!

Besides. the definition of particle has already been altered. It could
easily be a wave... American Heritage dictionary: "A body whose spatial
extent and internal motion and structure, if any, are irrelevant in a
specific problem."

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

Not exactly. Should a particle diffract with itself, we would observe
the diffraction not at the boundary but for any freely moving
particle, and the principle of minimal trajectory would be violated
everywhere. ;-)

Particles *do* only interfere with themselves. This has been shown with
photons, electrons, neutrons, and buckyballs. Trajectory of a quantum
particle is a joke. Trajectories may apply to the average of a host of
particles, but not one of them is constrained to follow it.

is "aware" of geometries the size of the
Universe.

It remains to find, whether your particles have a cerebellum and
walkie-talkie. ;-)

They are smeared across the Universe. So being aware of geometry is then
no issue.

The amount of diffraction is *very* small for macroscopic
distances.

Should the diffraction of particles with themselves be a natural
phenomenon at micro-distances, at macro-distances the trajectory of
particles would be absent at all. Don't forget, diffraction is the
trajectory warping in direction of obstacle. ;-)

There is no evidence that scale matters. The shadow of the Moon across the
Earth can show diffraction.

And photon-photon interactions (for example) do not include
reflection of one photon off the other, leaving the first unaffected.

Sorry, David, photon cannot interact with photon at all.

It has been done at many places. There are about 15 papers in the archives
on this very topic. But it is not a *reflection* as I stated, but a
conversion of Gev photons into "material" particles.

There exists
a very muddle-headed substantiation of interaction only for electron,
and with certainly absorbed photons. Only adherents of QM could derive
such mess, as they do adhere no rules in physics and mathematics. But
even they deny a pure photon-photon interaction. ;-)

Disproven by experiment.

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.

This your phrases finishes the initial part of our discussion, as you
have recognised a straight and indivisible connection between GR and
QM - just what I said, and you argued.

Sorry, I disagree. QM talks about probabilites, and individual particle
behaviours, GR talks about the host, about large statistical
populations... like the Universe and sub-sets of it.

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

David, it would be very kind of you to be sequential in your answers.
If photon contained a whole period of EM wave, its length FOR US also
must correspond to the wavelength, but earlier you said, photon is
infinitesimal!

For the photon, Lorentz and SR do not apply, they have no mass. Therefore
there is no need for time to stop for the photon, as it would for a
material particle. So it can oscillate EM fields all it wishes to.

The width of the photon, such that one photon interacts with another, is
very small... including zero width. That does not, in my opinion, keep it
from being aware of geometries as wide as the Universe, and being affected
by them.

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.

No, David, this is not a different beast. ;-) I'm discussing not
simply a distance, I'm asking you specifically: which part of EM wave
period is WITHIN one photon as a particle? You are saying, a whole
period, but then the size of photon has to correspond to the
wavelength. Of which additional 'host' are you saying if the wave
energy was enclosed WITHIN a photon? ;-)

All of it. Time passage is not constrained to be zero for the photon, as
it would be for a particle with mass. So a photon can be oriented one way,
and then orient another, just as Maxwell would have it.

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.

I'm soothed - since you contradict your definition of photon.

No. I may not be clear, and leave questions in your mind, but that is my
failing. I only have one word for "width", and I may have to remedy this.

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?

Neither a multiplier nor an adder - this is a question to which you
haven't a substantiated answer! ;-)

I have. Here is a partial list of papers (in no particular order) where
photons interact, and reveal their tiny size:
0012132, 9807017, 9908315, 9912049, 0010012, 9708006, 0102019, 0111052,
0112020, 0205301, 0207181, 0210059

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.

Again you contradict your previous answers. You said above,

[David]
And photon-photon interactions (for example) do not include
reflection of one photon off the other, leaving the first unaffected.

[Sergey]
What collisions? ;-) ;-) ;-) And as to the dense and rarefied groups.
Is there EM field between photons?

Collision: an event where momentum is changed between two or more particles
(DAS definition).
Reflection: an event where a particle has one component of its momentum
reversed in sign, normal to a surface. Commonly the surface is considered
to be unaffected.

In order to observe what a photon might look like, you'd need to reflect
photons off a photon. This has not been observed.

Perhaps "reflection" and "collision" are not different in Russian? I know
driving in "rush hour" traffic in Moscow might make me wonder.

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.

This is not so much exactly - or rather, inexactly at all. The
interference pattern is created with respect to the wave phase, not
simply to sums. Just so I asked you, how the particles energy is added
- and you didn't answer. ;0(

Have you ever observed traffic from a highway bridge? All sorts of
intensity changes occur. By changing the nature of the on-ramps, and how
they are metered, the intensity can be altered. Now what is wave about
that? Only the words.

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.

Stop it, David! Interference pattern is registered by unbiased
devices, and the point was, I can repeat, that you said photons
interfering with themselves!!!!!

They do. And they do based on their momentum. Just like electrons,
neutron, charged nucleii, and buckyballs.

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

The wave model is not easier. It's NOT CONTRADICTIVE - and the truth
is in what is non-contradictive. ;-)

Photoelectric effect is contraindicative. Refraction can be described by
material particles with-non-zero width (in the larger sense).

Wave descriptions are simply easier.

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?

Just the same as Caderholm experiment. ;-)

What does this have to do with self-interference? You are describing a
host of particles and their observed arrivals at a single point detector,
or have I misunderstood?

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.

You are right, near a beach also. But if you open the literature on
this issue, you will see that mathematical and experimental models are
built on the basis of shallow channel, where the influence of bottom
is considerable. Space hasn't a bottom, this is equivalent to the
waves in depths. Though the surface waves and waves in continuum
interrelate only in frames of general laws of wave physics. The
physical conditions of their propagation are different. Such analogy
works only for demos, in a limited sense.

Cherenkov radiation is the result in the case of electrons. Similar to the
breaking of ocean waves.

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?

Let us do not reduce the dictionary of physical terminology to the
concept 'the universe'. Yes, I defend the conception of material
SPACE. ' The Universe' is a complex idea that includes space, material
objects, interstellar gas, wave processes in this space and many other
things. It would be some inaccurate to say the universe as a medium.
It has a sense to say as I did above. Is it the aether? If we don't
connect this word with some definite conception and think it only as
some medium having definite properties to pass the excitation from one
point to another, then it's the aether.

So not a sensible aether, but a mathematical or conceptual crutch?

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)?

And what's it - "the passage of distant photons"? ;-)

If all particles are the width of the Universe, and they are not slowed to
the speed-of-light-in-the-medium at a particular place, then they are
distant from that place.

Such passage would be being brushed by the "hair" of all the particles
passing perpendicular to the volume of interest.

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?

If you actually want to be well-dressed as the physicist, you should
value first of all the truth as it is, which is not always easy and
pleasant. In this view, if I were you, I would omit this your
question. I would draw more attention to the logic consistence of my
answers. But this is your right - to stay 'slumbering in a chair'...

I am not slumbering. I am mathematically challenged, as I have many math
courses between me an an understanding of GR.

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".

Not so. First, if SR 'doesn't allow' the acceleration, the Einstein's
attempt to apply the Lorentz transform to the Maxwell equations is
inadmissible, as E and H are the force vectors, and where are forces
there accelerations take place also.

Not true. E and H, for waves, are field "strength", and do not apply to
the acceleration of charged particles, unless you want to make the issue
more complex. A photon interferes with itself, not with its EM field.

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.

You don't mean to say so, David, don't pretend. You understood it all
well. Electron has a mass, it's undoubtedly. And which mass will it
have at the sub-light velocity? Will it be a massive body or not?

This paragraph I understand. The electron exhibits "mass", yes. As its
speed increases, its momentun increases, but its mass does not. I am
trying to avoid the term "relativistic mass".

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?

The orbital platform has failed not because of 'dark matter'
affection, but because you all are defending the dogmata instead to
penetrate into the depths of phenomena. You bury your heads into sand,

I had nothing to do with this decision. I would have funded the next
generation ship. I only get one vote, and when my President wins, he plays
with cigars.

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?

If you are thinking, you cannot substantiate 4D of GR, what are you
defending at all? Are you dressed at least in shorts? ;-) And what's
the metric of the fourth dimension in GR? What do you want to prove?
What's behind the outer fetish? Please understand me, I'm far from
mocking, I'm simply interesting, what's the sense of such persistence?

I am not speaking of GR, except in passing. Yes GR is a 4D theory (at
least). Yes SR is a 2D theory.

P.S. David, I would like to ask you of one more aspect which makes me
much wondering. You wrote, you were on vacations these days. It says
me, you are not a pensioner but an acting physicist.

I am a mechanical engineer.

Please tell me,
how the physicist can stop when so many questions arose and he finds
no answers?

How can a doctor go on vacation when so many people are sick?

Whether having understood that the theories on which you
were taught led you to the very brink of a precipice, you decide not
to build a bridge ahead, not to seek the answers but to shut your eyes
lest to feel fear, walk off the brink and to say yourself honestly:
you will never go there where you intended, even if all your life of
physicist is wasted at this beach!

Perhaps each day is an investment for both of us?

Isn't it the more terrible for a
physicist than to cross the precipice?

Yes, ignoring experimental result would be crossing the precipice. From
employment, into insanity.

David, you are so clever, you
shouldn't give up so fast! The more that I can say you, at your beach
there is actually nothing for the physicist, and at that beach there
begins Klondike. I'm already in Klondike, so I know. And you will
stay?!

Actually I have seen your position shift ever so slightly. Perhaps it is
you that is moving ?

It's your right. You understood it all. If you think it up, write me,
we will go on discussing inconvenient questions. Just inconvenient.
Believe me, they are so not only for you. They were so for me no less
than for you now. The only matter is, are you the physicist either a
lyricist.

David A. Smith