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

Dear David,

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? ;-)



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. ;-)

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

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

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. ;-)

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. 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. ;-)


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.


...
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!


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.

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? ;-)


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.

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?

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


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?



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.

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(

Again, a question of the Caderholm experiment arose with your
statement that photon interferes with itself. Answering in this way,
you are simply trying to 'change the points'. However this contradicts
my opinion of you and is rather like you thought that I'm thinking
about you, though I don't think so and wouldn't like you to give an
occasion for such opinion. ;-)



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!!!!!


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. ;-)


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. ;-)


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.

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.



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.

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"? ;-)


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?

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'...


...
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".

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. If SR describes the forces but
don't describe the result of their affection, this theory is
erroneous. Second, Einstein himself and his followers tried to apply
SR to the accelerated motion. You can find a good survey in V. Pauli's
"Relativity". There are no contra-indications of which you are saying;
true, the results are mournful, but I'm telling you - and you simply
don't like to hear. ;-)


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?


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?

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,
as ostriches do, so we have as a result which we have. A scientist has
lied when substantiated the phenomenology. Politicians, with the
prestige of this scientist, hoisted up this lie on the flag of
national politics and attached securities to 'guard' this dogma. An
engineer under this pressing also has lied and introduced this initial
lie into his calculation of the construction. Technologists are much
smaller people, this is not their business to seek mistakes in the
basic dogma and doubt the authorities. In the end of these ends, the
pilot takes its place in the shuttle and perishes with the shuttle
because of three-kg piece of foam rubber ... Hmm. Cosmic bodies are
known to be much more rigid and weighty. How fragile has to be
shuttle's construction to be unable to stand such impact? And you are
asking, what concern has lie to this all. At due time a famous Soviet
humorist Arkady Raikin said so: "If in a large chorus everyone sings,
only one opens his mouth, its nothing wrong. But if everyone only
opens mouth...? ;-)


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?

Sergey.



David A. Smith

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. Please tell me,
how the physicist can stop when so many questions arose and he finds
no answers? 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! Isn't it the more terrible for a
physicist than to cross the precipice? 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?!

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.

Sergey.