GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:33:40 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
: : On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 05:31:46 -0800 (PST), Jerry
:
: : wrote:
: :
: : On Dec 9, 2:28 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: : "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in
: messagenews:dv2nl3pccam5mq0dk3ue6c90pea8ekv003@4a x.com...
: :
: : : He/she/it has dropped out of the Sagnac argument....apparently
: defeated.th
: :
: : Maybe the bozo took up my challenge and is trying desperately
: : to model Sagnac to run on our non-relativistic computers.
: : That ****ing idiot Tusseladd's latest attempt is to model
: : satellites and change numbers to suit his clocks, but he can't
: : change the computer's clock.
: :
: : I've long since -won- the argument in the opinions of the
: : individuals on this newsgroup who actually know anything
: : about the subject. Certainly not you two Bozos, whose
: : ability to follow rational argument is nil.
: :
: : Please don't ever categorise me with Androcles.
:
: Yes, I agree with that, you are the bozo that claims
:
: "In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER"
:
:
: Only a real idiot would keep on quoting typos.

Still waiting for the real idiot to 'fess up his blunder.

: "There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer."
:
:
: That is correct according to my established definition.

Your definition is not established.
BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?



: Your photon model doesn't even possess a 'wavelength'.

Correct. Wavelength is relative velocity dependent.

w = (c-v)/f, an equation you don't understand and deny.

Your cigar-shaped photons are STOOOPID and you have
no equation for them.

:
: : Meanwhile, my priority is to maintain my 3.87+ GPA in
: : medical school. Arguing with arrogant crackpots is not
: : a priority.
: :
: : There are plenty of those here...preaching the nonsense called
relativty.
: :
: 3.87 (out of 4.0) for a medic means the patient is only slightly
: dead. Jeery gets high marks for bed pans and folding neat corners
: on the sheets. It looks nice when the relatives come to identify
: the body.

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:17:43 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


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

: : I've long since -won- the argument in the opinions of the
: : individuals on this newsgroup who actually know anything
: : about the subject. Certainly not you two Bozos, whose
: : ability to follow rational argument is nil.
: :
: : Please don't ever categorise me with Androcles.
:
: Yes, I agree with that, you are the bozo that claims
:
: "In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER"
:
:
: Only a real idiot would keep on quoting typos.

Still waiting for the real idiot to 'fess up his blunder.

....and how's the COMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION coming along?

: "There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer."
:
:
: That is correct according to my established definition.

Your definition is not established.
BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?

Listen you silly old pommie engineer, a spinning wheel does NOT have a
wavelength.

: Your photon model doesn't even possess a 'wavelength'.

Correct. Wavelength is relative velocity dependent.

Not so.
All lengths are absolute.....unless you believe in Einstein or Lorentz
..
w = (c-v)/f, an equation you don't understand and deny.

....for a continuous wave..

Your cigar-shaped photons are STOOOPID and you have
no equation for them.

Do you know why a violin string is stroked where it is? Do you know the
equation of a standing wave. How about its harmonics?




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:17:43 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
:
: : : I've long since -won- the argument in the opinions of the
: : : individuals on this newsgroup who actually know anything
: : : about the subject. Certainly not you two Bozos, whose
: : : ability to follow rational argument is nil.
: : :
: : : Please don't ever categorise me with Androcles.
: :
: : Yes, I agree with that, you are the bozo that claims
: :
: : "In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER"
: :
: :
: : Only a real idiot would keep on quoting typos.
:
: Still waiting for the real idiot to 'fess up his blunder.
:
: ...and how's the COMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION coming along?
:
: : "There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer."
: :
: :
: : That is correct according to my established definition.
:
: Your definition is not established.
: BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?
:
: Listen you silly old pommie engineer, a spinning wheel does NOT have a
: wavelength.

Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain.
Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, birds do NOT have fishscales.
BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?


:
: : Your photon model doesn't even possess a 'wavelength'.
:
: Correct. Wavelength is relative velocity dependent.
:
: Not so.

Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain.
Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, fish do NOT have feathers.

BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?


: All lengths are absolute.....unless you believe in Einstein or Lorentz
: .
: w = (c-v)/f, an equation you don't understand and deny.
:
: ...for a continuous wave..
BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?


:
: Your cigar-shaped photons are STOOOPID and you have
: no equation for them.
:
: Do you know why a violin string is stroked where it is?
BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?



Do you know the
: equation of a standing wave. How about its harmonics?

BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:42:20 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


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

: Your definition is not established.
: BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?
:
: Listen you silly old pommie engineer, a spinning wheel does NOT have a
: wavelength.

Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain.
Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, birds do NOT have fishscales.
BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?

There was no Dr. Wavelength.

: : Your photon model doesn't even possess a 'wavelength'.
:
: Correct. Wavelength is relative velocity dependent.
:
: Not so.

Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain.
Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, fish do NOT have feathers.

BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?

........got the stutters again.....

: All lengths are absolute.....unless you believe in Einstein or Lorentz
: .
: w = (c-v)/f, an equation you don't understand and deny.
:
: ...for a continuous wave..
BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?

........got the stutters again.....

: Your cigar-shaped photons are STOOOPID and you have
: no equation for them.
:
: Do you know why a violin string is stroked where it is?
BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?

........got the stutters again.....

Do you know the
: equation of a standing wave. How about its harmonics?

BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?

........got the stutters again.....


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:42:20 GMT, "Androcles"

: wrote:
:
:
: "Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
: .. .
:
: : Your definition is not established.
: : BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?
: :
: : Listen you silly old pommie engineer, a spinning wheel does NOT have a
: : wavelength.
:
: Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain.
: Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, birds do NOT have fishscales.
: BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?
:
: There was no Dr. Wavelength.

I'd probably enjoy drinking with you, we still wouldn't get anywhere
but you are funnier than Dork Van de merde. I'd kick his ****ing
head in and get arrested. With you I'd fall on the floor laughing
and get arrested. Can't win for losing.
BTW, there is no Dame Frequency, and it is Sir Wavelength to you.




:
: : : Your photon model doesn't even possess a 'wavelength'.
: :
: : Correct. Wavelength is relative velocity dependent.
: :
: : Not so.
:
: Listen you idiotic old ozzie imbecile, physicists do NOT have a brain.
: Listen you stupid old ozzie cretin, fish do NOT have feathers.
:
: BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?
:
: .......got the stutters again.....

It's your round.

:
: : All lengths are absolute.....unless you believe in Einstein or Lorentz
: : .
: : w = (c-v)/f, an equation you don't understand and deny.
: :
: : ...for a continuous wave..
: BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?
:
: .......got the stutters again.....

It's still your round.



:
: : Your cigar-shaped photons are STOOOPID and you have
: : no equation for them.
: :
: : Do you know why a violin string is stroked where it is?
: BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?
:
: .......got the stutters again.....

Mine's a Glenlivet. Stop staring at the barmaid, that's hair, not wool.

:
: Do you know the
: : equation of a standing wave. How about its harmonics?
:
: BTW, what the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?
:
: .......got the stutters again.....

Are you going to get your round?
BTW, what's the difference between "wavelength shift" and Doppler shift?

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:08:38 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:59:42 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Surely one works out what its structure needs to be in order that it can
do what it does. Then and only then can you claim to know (or think you
know) what its structure is. Physics hasn't done that and therefore can
make no claims as to the structure of a photon.

It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that a photon can be
considered
as a 'moving oscillator' of some kind. This fits in with the BaTh explanation
of Sagnac and diffraction, amongst other phenomena.
The nature of that oscillation is not known but I suspect it could be a
rotating +/- charge pair

This was my suggestion some time back. If you think about it Maxwell's
equations are built solely on relationships relating to charge - Faraday
having shown that magnetism is caused by moving charge. As Maxwell's
equations model light very well that success means there must be a link
between light and charge therefore there must be a link between photons
and charge.

I currently think a photon in transit is not just a 'spinning wheel' but looks
something like this:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg

I am not saying it is wrong but it reminds me a bit too much of the
'wave packet' idea which doesn't really work.


The fields are oscillating and form a standing wave along the photon's length.
Each photon has a well defined INTRINSIC 'wavelength' that is absolute and the
same in all frames.

You can see my model oscillating and moving (in reality at c wrt its source) at
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/E-field.exe


Physics is undisciplined because it has turned its back on the idea that
maths and physical interpretation compliment each other and now physical
interpretation is considered an unnecessary adjunct to theory. If one
insists on maintaining that discipline see where it leads.

If there is no aether (as believed by mainstream physics) then it cannot
be responsible for action at a distance forces.

There is no obvious alternative explanation so one might ask if one is
actually needed. Ultimately all force acts at a distance and one is lead
to the conclusion that although counter intuitive, one should accept
this as fundamental without need of explanation.

If so, then a 'field' becomes a 'field of influence'. A mapping of the
direction and amplitude of the force which *would* act on a charge *if*
a charge were placed at a given point.

In which case a field is not physical but metaphysical it cannot exist
without a source of influence and cannot store energy (because it isn't
physical) nor propagate through space as a separate entity.

If there is no aether then a field is a metaphysical 'field of
influence' and cannot exist without a source of that influence so if
photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge.

I agree with that.
I am now wondering if each photon consists of an individual package of 'the
stuff that fields are made of'.
Since photons are apparently everywhere, so is the 'stuff'.
Even though the individual photons are moving, does the 'stuff they carry' form
a kind of continuous aether?
...just a thought....

You are in a sense re-running the argument of Einstein.

"The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this
state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist
at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, [stress
in the aether JK] but they are independent realities which are not
reducible to anything else [ a field is some sort of physical 'stuff'
JK], exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception
suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory,
electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and
energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity,
both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy,
ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of
energy.
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of
relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence
of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion
to it." AE 1920

Basically if you want physically real fields the choices are to either
stick with some sort of aether in which case a field is a stress in that
aether or assume a field is some sort of physical stuff. He concluded
that the 'stuff' idea is more of a problem than sticking with the
aether. Modern aetherists I believe think that there is *only aether*,
that the particles of matter are simply 'different sorts of stable knots
in the aether' - my description - I'm sure they put it more
scientifically. It has some attractions. If you think of things like
experiments done at CERN one can think of the resultant short lived
particles as 'unstable knots in the aether' and one does not need to
categorise them assume that they have any particular significance. At
one time the list of particles was absurdly long until they decided to
re-classify some interactions as 'resonances' to prune it down to the
'standard model'.

or something like a standing wave running along the
length of the photon 'envelope'.
Photons also have effective 'cross section and length',

If photons contain rotating charge then they produce a surrounding
field. You therefore have both the physical cross section but an
effective width beyond that to the extent of the field.

Yes. Even a pair of spinning charges should generate a similar field that
operates withing a 'volume'.

which explains the
double slit experiment.

I am told that even if the light level is reduced such that photons
arrive singly at a double slit, interference fringes are detected,
'interference' still takes place. I beg to differ. Not as I understand
interference at any rate. If two sine waves each amplitude unity are
interfering with each other then depending on the phase the result is
anything from an amplitude of 2 to 0 and *any amplitude in between* e.g.
an amplitude of say 0.333 is perfectly possible.

In the case of photons you cannot have 0.333 of a photon. Although the
result might be mathematically similar to interference in fact either a
whole photon arrives at a point on the detector, or doesn't. A maximum
may indeed be a build up of photons each adding to the intensity but a
minimum is not where two things have cancelled. The slits somehow
determine the probability that a photon will travel in any given
direction, the probability of travelling in some directions being much
higher than in others.

Thus a fringe pattern is built up over time. A minimum represents a
direction with a very low probability where very few photons have
arrived. Explaining this behaviour is a difficult matter but at least
let us be clear about what it is we are trying to explain and not go
into fantasy land and suggest that a photon becomes a wave and passes
through both slits and interferes with itself as I have seen suggested.
If it did you could get 0.333 of a photon.

Now if you study the original double slit experiment the slits are
illuminated by a single slit. Without such things as lasers this is
necessary so as to select a small area of the source in order that the
light from it is sufficiently coherent to give interference fringes. For
an ordinary source photons are given off in large coherent bursts (all
oscillating in phase). If you take the light from two big an area you
collect bursts of different phases (there is also something called
temporal coherence which is that light from the same spot but later in
time will not cause interference with earlier light from the same spot).

I was hoping my model might explain this.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg
The thing is oscilating. The diffracted angle depends on the phase of the
intrinsic field on arrival at the slits. A small portion of the individual
photon is deflected to an angle that somehow depends on that phase.....I don't
know how 'wavelength' comes into the picture though.

OK now here is my question. If a single photons will produce
'interference' fringes how come incoherent light prevents interference
fringes?

CMIIW but I don't think that's true for incoherent MONOCHROMATIC light.

I think you will find it is. My understanding is that there is a
parameter called coherent length. Imagine an interferometer - the MMX
apparatus will do. Now suppose you lengthen one arm. The fringes move
obviously but at some point you stop getting interference patterns
because the light which sets out later has no fixed phase relationship
with that which sets out earlier. They even quote a coherence length for
lasers so even laser light is not completely coherent although the very
best are as near as damn-it. Coherence length is related to temporal
coherence - how long it remains coherent. Spatial coherence relates to
how far apart light from two parts of a source can be before you lose
interference fringes.
Anyway that is my understanding and if so my question is a valid one.


We take it for granted that the material in which the slits are
cut plays no part in it the process but you wouldn't use transparent
material would you? If you wanted to do the experiment at RF you would
have to make the slits in metal as that is not transparent to RF. Just
as with the optical experiment you would select the size of the slit to
give best results - clearest fringes. Now I am an electronics engineer
but aerial design is not something I know too much about but I think
that that arrangement at RF would be described as two slot antenna. The
excitation of those slots not being the RF which manages to make it
through the slots but the metal plate as a whole being excited by the
incident RF energy and being re-radiated by the slots.

Even if you think of an optical double slit as a shooting gallery where
some photons go through and some do not the geometry is such that more
photons will miss the slots than go through. One cannot simply ignore
them and say they play no further part. It is possible that those which
do not go through the slits play as important a role as those which do.
That they in some way prime the fields which exist in the slots in such
a way that the next photon passing through them is deflected by an angle
whose probability is effected by the previous photons - including those
which didn't go through.

I don't think you need to worry about that.
A single photon has a finite cross section. Some of it passes through each slit
and presumably disperses a little. The amount of reinforcement and hence
diffracted angle depends on the relationship between the (phase?) properties of
the 'two bits' as they meet.

Maybe.


Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation
frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its
source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it
slowly lose
energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift).

If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost?

Part of the CMBR

Ok. So a light photon would be giving off low frequency, low energy
radio photons. It might work. Continuously or whenever it contacts a
charged particle? Extinction is based on the estimate that there are
sufficient charged particles in space for a photon to interact with one
every 3 light years (or something like that). If each such interaction
was not totally loss free that would produce red shift even if the
oscillator itself was loss free. I read somewhere that red shift is
quantized.

A thought occurred to me as follows.
Suppose we are somewhere near the centre of the universe.
The radius of the universe is 14billion light year so I am told
i.e radius = 1.4 ^10 light years
= 1.23^14 light seconds
= 3.68^22 m
Circumference = 2.3^23 m
1 degree of arc = 6.4^20 m

If the universe was as a whole rotating at a rate of 1 degree every
68,500 years the periferal speed would be 0.99c redshifting anything at
that distance down to radio frequency.

Why should we assume the universe isn't rotating? Rotation is the norm
for just about everything within it. If the universe as a whole isn't
rotating about its centre of gravity it is the only thing which isn't.


I am trying to get my hands on an article by Waldron:

Waldron R.A. 1983b "the spinning photon" SST 6,259
I believe SST may stand for "Speculations in Science and Technology".

You might be interested in
Waldron, R. A., 1981b. "Is the Universe Really Expanding?" SST 4, 539.

will look.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

--
John Kennaugh

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:28:55 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:08:38 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:


I currently think a photon in transit is not just a 'spinning wheel' but looks
something like this:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg

I am not saying it is wrong but it reminds me a bit too much of the
'wave packet' idea which doesn't really work.

....but it is pretty well established that light IS transmitted in some kind of
individual 'packets'.
It is also claimed that individual photons will diffract and over time will
produce the same accumulated diffraction pattern of a full beam.

This means that each photon MUST possess some kind of continuous wave as an
intrinsic feature since the laws of diffraction require that successive
'cycles' exist.

The fields are oscillating and form a standing wave along the photon's length.
Each photon has a well defined INTRINSIC 'wavelength' that is absolute and the
same in all frames.

You can see my model oscillating and moving (in reality at c wrt its source) at
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/E-field.exe



If there is no aether then a field is a metaphysical 'field of
influence' and cannot exist without a source of that influence so if
photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge.

I agree with that.
I am now wondering if each photon consists of an individual package of 'the
stuff that fields are made of'.
Since photons are apparently everywhere, so is the 'stuff'.
Even though the individual photons are moving, does the 'stuff they carry' form
a kind of continuous aether?
...just a thought....

You are in a sense re-running the argument of Einstein.

"The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this
state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist
at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, [stress
in the aether JK] but they are independent realities which are not
reducible to anything else [ a field is some sort of physical 'stuff'
JK], exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception
suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory,
electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and
energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity,
both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy,
ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of
energy.
More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of
relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence
of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion
to it." AE 1920

Basically if you want physically real fields the choices are to either
stick with some sort of aether in which case a field is a stressmus be associated wth 'stuff', for want of a better word.
in that
aether or assume a field is some sort of physical stuff. He concluded
that the 'stuff' idea is more of a problem than sticking with the
aether. Modern aetherists I believe think that there is *only aether*,
that the particles of matter are simply 'different sorts of stable knots
in the aether' - my description - I'm sure they put it more
scientifically. It has some attractions. If you think of things like
experiments done at CERN one can think of the resultant short lived
particles as 'unstable knots in the aether' and one does not need to
categorise them assume that they have any particular significance. At
one time the list of particles was absurdly long until they decided to
re-classify some interactions as 'resonances' to prune it down to the
'standard model'.

One of the big unanswered questions is, "what makes a field?"...or more
precisely..."what makes space in which a field exists different from space
devoid of fields?"
So far, physics has not made any progress in answering this question.
Like all scientists of the day, Einstein was aware that fields must be
associated with some kind of 'stuff', for want of a better word.

My idea is that each photon carries its own little bit of 'stuff' along with
it. Since photons are everywhere, the whole universe is virtually filled with
it to varying degrees. This does in no way resemble the classical absolute
aether concept since each portion is moving in a particular direction and there
are vast density variations. I suppose it could be likened to a typical gas,
with the whole photon capsule constituting something like a thermally moving
molecule. I have previously put forward the idea that fields could be made of
'matter of a second mass dimension'.




I was hoping my model might explain this.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg
The thing is oscilating. The diffracted angle depends on the phase of the
intrinsic field on arrival at the slits. A small portion of the individual
photon is deflected to an angle that somehow depends on that phase.....I don't
know how 'wavelength' comes into the picture though.

OK now here is my question. If a single photons will produce
'interference' fringes how come incoherent light prevents interference
fringes?

CMIIW but I don't think that's true for incoherent MONOCHROMATIC light.

I think you will find it is. My understanding is that there is a
parameter called coherent length. Imagine an interferometer - the MMX
apparatus will do. Now suppose you lengthen one arm. The fringes move
obviously but at some point you stop getting interference patterns
because the light which sets out later has no fixed phase relationship
with that which sets out earlier. They even quote a coherence length for
lasers so even laser light is not completely coherent although the very
best are as near as damn-it. Coherence length is related to temporal
coherence - how long it remains coherent. Spatial coherence relates to
how far apart light from two parts of a source can be before you lose
interference fringes.
Anyway that is my understanding and if so my question is a valid one.

Yes, what you say is probably correct for interferometers or anything that
involves fringes...but I was thinking in terms of broader aspects of
interference, including gratings, thin films etc. In fact there are plenty of
examples of interference involving only sunlight. But that's another
matter.....

To get back to your question, it is fair to say that in experiments where
single photons are used, the idea of coherence is not relevant anyway for
obvious reasons. My theory explains why interference patterns produced by
single monochromatic photons passing through double slits are the same as those
of a whole beam. It doesn't matter if the beam is coherent or not.



I don't think you need to worry about that.
A single photon has a finite cross section. Some of it passes through each slit
and presumably disperses a little. The amount of reinforcement and hence
diffracted angle depends on the relationship between the (phase?) properties of
the 'two bits' as they meet.

Maybe.

It's a theory anyway.... that appears to explain what is still a mystery.

Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon oscillation
frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its
source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it
slowly lose
energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift).

If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost?

Part of the CMBR

Ok. So a light photon would be giving off low frequency, low energy
radio photons. It might work. Continuously or whenever it contacts a
charged particle? Extinction is based on the estimate that there are
sufficient charged particles in space for a photon to interact with one
every 3 light years (or something like that). If each such interaction
was not totally loss free that would produce red shift even if the
oscillator itself was loss free. I read somewhere that red shift is
quantized.

There is a problem though. The radiated EM would have to be emiited in
approximately the same direction as the original photon or the latter would be
sent off course and all distant images would be blurred.

This has given ME a thought....maybe the red shift is caused by an internal
arrangement of the harmonics of the intrinsic wave itself. ....but I wont go
into that till I think more about it..


A thought occurred to me as follows.
Suppose we are somewhere near the centre of the universe.
The radius of the universe is 14billion light year so I am told
i.e radius = 1.4 ^10 light years
= 1.23^14 light seconds
= 3.68^22 m
Circumference = 2.3^23 m
1 degree of arc = 6.4^20 m

If the universe was as a whole rotating at a rate of 1 degree every
68,500 years the periferal speed would be 0.99c redshifting anything at
that distance down to radio frequency.

....a transverse doppler shift...maybe...I haven't really thought much about
transverse doppler in BaTh.

Why should we assume the universe isn't rotating? Rotation is the norm
for just about everything within it. If the universe as a whole isn't
rotating about its centre of gravity it is the only thing which isn't.

That's a very reasonable theory. However would it mean that redshift is exactly
proportional to distance (something that has never been proved anyway)? I don't
think so because the angular rotation rate would probably fall of with
distance.

I am trying to get my hands on an article by Waldron:




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:28:55 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:08:38 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:


I currently think a photon in transit is not just a 'spinning wheel' but
looks
something like this:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg

I am not saying it is wrong but it reminds me a bit too much of the
'wave packet' idea which doesn't really work.

...but it is pretty well established that light IS transmitted in some
kind of
individual 'packets'.
It is also claimed that individual photons will diffract and over time
will
produce the same accumulated diffraction pattern of a full beam.

This means that each photon MUST possess some kind of continuous wave as
an
intrinsic feature since the laws of diffraction require that successive
'cycles' exist.

Welcome to Quantum mechanics 101

One of the big unanswered questions is, "what makes a field?"...or more
precisely..."what makes space in which a field exists different from space
devoid of fields?"
So far, physics has not made any progress in answering this question.

Because it is a matter of metaphysics .. its outside the scope of physics,
although still an interesting question (as are most questions of
metaphysics)

Like all scientists of the day, Einstein was aware that fields must be
associated with some kind of 'stuff', for want of a better word.

My idea is that each photon carries its own little bit of 'stuff' along
with
it. Since photons are everywhere, the whole universe is virtually filled
with
it to varying degrees. This does in no way resemble the classical absolute
aether concept since each portion is moving in a particular direction and
there
are vast density variations. I suppose it could be likened to a typical
gas,
with the whole photon capsule constituting something like a thermally
moving
molecule. I have previously put forward the idea that fields could be made
of
'matter of a second mass dimension'.

All just metaphysics and philsophy .. unless it can lead to some new theory
of physics which can be experimentally tested

To get back to your question, it is fair to say that in experiments where
single photons are used, the idea of coherence is not relevant anyway for
obvious reasons. My theory explains why interference patterns produced by
single monochromatic photons passing through double slits are the same as
those
of a whole beam. It doesn't matter if the beam is coherent or not.

You've not explained how such an interference pattern is generated. If it
is soley to do with phase angle (which is finite) then there would just be a
closed finite interference pattern .. but the pattern is not.

It's a theory anyway.... that appears to explain what is still a mystery.

Its not a theory .. its an idea, a concept .. but not a theory (in the
scientific sense) .. unles it can predict experim,ental results and is able
to be refuted (ie it is testable)

This has given ME a thought....maybe the red shift is caused by an
internal
arrangement of the harmonics of the intrinsic wave itself. ....but I wont
go
into that till I think more about it..

The red **** is just Dopler .. it happens to all things that are waves (or
wave like) when the observer is moving realtive to the source or medium (for
waves that have a medium)

...a transverse doppler shift...maybe...I haven't really thought much
about
transverse doppler in BaTh.

BaTH is a refuted theory .. there's not much point in thinking about how it.

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:28:55 +0000, John Kennaugh
: wrote:
:
: Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
: On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:08:38 +0000, John Kennaugh
: wrote:
:
:
: I currently think a photon in transit is not just a 'spinning wheel' but
looks
: something like this:
: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg
:
: I am not saying it is wrong but it reminds me a bit too much of the
: 'wave packet' idea which doesn't really work.
:
: ...but it is pretty well established that light IS transmitted in some
kind of
: individual 'packets'.
: It is also claimed that individual photons will diffract and over time
will
: produce the same accumulated diffraction pattern of a full beam.
:
: This means that each photon MUST possess some kind of continuous wave as
an
: intrinsic feature since the laws of diffraction require that successive
: 'cycles' exist.
:
: The fields are oscillating and form a standing wave along the photon's
length.
: Each photon has a well defined INTRINSIC 'wavelength' that is absolute
and the
: same in all frames.
:
: You can see my model oscillating and moving (in reality at c wrt its
source) at
: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/E-field.exe
:
:
:
: If there is no aether then a field is a metaphysical 'field of
: influence' and cannot exist without a source of that influence so if
: photons have fields associated with them they must contain charge.
:
: I agree with that.
: I am now wondering if each photon consists of an individual package of
'the
: stuff that fields are made of'.
: Since photons are apparently everywhere, so is the 'stuff'.
: Even though the individual photons are moving, does the 'stuff they
carry' form
: a kind of continuous aether?
: ...just a thought....
:
: You are in a sense re-running the argument of Einstein.
:
: "The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this
: state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist
: at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, [stress
: in the aether JK] but they are independent realities which are not
: reducible to anything else [ a field is some sort of physical 'stuff'
: JK], exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception
: suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory,
: electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and
: energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity,
: both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy,
: ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of
: energy.
: More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of
: relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence
: of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion
: to it." AE 1920
:
: Basically if you want physically real fields the choices are to either
: stick with some sort of aether in which case a field is a stressmus be
associated wth 'stuff', for want of a better word.
: in that
: aether or assume a field is some sort of physical stuff. He concluded
: that the 'stuff' idea is more of a problem than sticking with the
: aether. Modern aetherists I believe think that there is *only aether*,
: that the particles of matter are simply 'different sorts of stable knots
: in the aether' - my description - I'm sure they put it more
: scientifically. It has some attractions. If you think of things like
: experiments done at CERN one can think of the resultant short lived
: particles as 'unstable knots in the aether' and one does not need to
: categorise them assume that they have any particular significance. At
: one time the list of particles was absurdly long until they decided to
: re-classify some interactions as 'resonances' to prune it down to the
: 'standard model'.
:
: One of the big unanswered questions is, "what makes a field?"...or more
: precisely..."what makes space in which a field exists different from space
: devoid of fields?"
: So far, physics has not made any progress in answering this question.
: Like all scientists of the day, Einstein was aware that fields must be
: associated with some kind of 'stuff', for want of a better word.
:
: My idea

Hear we go... ego all the ****ing way.

is that each photon carries its own little bit of 'stuff' along with
: it.

Oh yeah, magnetic and electric fields are stuff now.


: Since photons are everywhere, the whole universe is virtually filled with
: it to varying degrees.

Little balls of aether stuff.


: This does in no way resemble the classical absolute
: aether concept since each portion is moving in a particular direction and
there
: are vast density variations. I suppose it could be likened to a typical
gas,
: with the whole photon capsule constituting something like a thermally
moving
: molecule. I have previously put forward the idea that fields could be made
of
: 'matter of a second mass dimension'.
:

I have previously put forward the idea that matter could be made of
fields of a first field dimension.


:
:
:
: I was hoping my model might explain this.
: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photonsnapshot.jpg
: The thing is oscilating. The diffracted angle depends on the phase of
the
: intrinsic field on arrival at the slits. A small portion of the
individual
: photon is deflected to an angle that somehow depends on that phase.....I
don't
: know how 'wavelength' comes into the picture though.
:
: OK now here is my question. If a single photons will produce
: 'interference' fringes how come incoherent light prevents interference
: fringes?
:
: CMIIW but I don't think that's true for incoherent MONOCHROMATIC light.
:
: I think you will find it is. My understanding is that there is a
: parameter called coherent length. Imagine an interferometer - the MMX
: apparatus will do. Now suppose you lengthen one arm. The fringes move
: obviously but at some point you stop getting interference patterns
: because the light which sets out later has no fixed phase relationship
: with that which sets out earlier. They even quote a coherence length for
: lasers so even laser light is not completely coherent although the very
: best are as near as damn-it. Coherence length is related to temporal
: coherence - how long it remains coherent. Spatial coherence relates to
: how far apart light from two parts of a source can be before you lose
: interference fringes.
: Anyway that is my understanding and if so my question is a valid one.
:
: Yes, what you say is probably correct for interferometers or anything that
: involves fringes...but I was thinking in terms of broader aspects of
: interference, including gratings, thin films etc. In fact there are plenty
of
: examples of interference involving only sunlight. But that's another
: matter.....
:
: To get back to your question, it is fair to say that in experiments where
: single photons are used, the idea of coherence is not relevant anyway for
: obvious reasons. My theory explains why interference patterns produced by
: single monochromatic photons passing through double slits are the same as
those
: of a whole beam. It doesn't matter if the beam is coherent or not.
:
:
:
: I don't think you need to worry about that.
: A single photon has a finite cross section. Some of it passes through
each slit
: and presumably disperses a little. The amount of reinforcement and hence
: diffracted angle depends on the relationship between the (phase?)
properties of
: the 'two bits' as they meet.
:
: Maybe.
:
: It's a theory anyway.... that appears to explain what is still a mystery.
:
: Two questions arise. Is there a relationship between photon
oscillation
: frequency and the fact that it initially travels at c wrt its
: source?....and....is the oscillation perfectly lossless or does it
: slowly lose
: energy with time? (which would explain the galactic redshift).
:
: If it wasn't lossless what would become of the energy lost?
:
: Part of the CMBR
:
: Ok. So a light photon would be giving off low frequency, low energy
: radio photons. It might work. Continuously or whenever it contacts a
: charged particle? Extinction is based on the estimate that there are
: sufficient charged particles in space for a photon to interact with one
: every 3 light years (or something like that). If each such interaction
: was not totally loss free that would produce red shift even if the
: oscillator itself was loss free. I read somewhere that red shift is
: quantized.
:
: There is a problem though. The radiated EM would have to be emiited in
: approximately the same direction as the original photon or the latter
would be
: sent off course and all distant images would be blurred.
:
: This has given ME a thought....maybe the red shift is caused by an
internal
: arrangement of the harmonics of the intrinsic wave itself. ....but I wont
go
: into that till I think more about it..
:
:
: A thought occurred to me as follows.
: Suppose we are somewhere near the centre of the universe.
: The radius of the universe is 14billion light year so I am told
: i.e radius = 1.4 ^10 light years
: = 1.23^14 light seconds
: = 3.68^22 m
: Circumference = 2.3^23 m
: 1 degree of arc = 6.4^20 m
:
: If the universe was as a whole rotating at a rate of 1 degree every
: 68,500 years the periferal speed would be 0.99c redshifting anything at
: that distance down to radio frequency.
:
: ...a transverse doppler shift...maybe...I haven't really thought much
about
: transverse doppler in BaTh.
:
: Why should we assume the universe isn't rotating? Rotation is the norm
: for just about everything within it. If the universe as a whole isn't
: rotating about its centre of gravity it is the only thing which isn't.
:
: That's a very reasonable theory. However would it mean that redshift is
exactly
: proportional to distance (something that has never been proved anyway)? I
don't
: think so because the angular rotation rate would probably fall of with
: distance.

Coriolis effect makes it an unreasonable theory.


:
: I am trying to get my hands on an article by Waldron:
:
:
:
:
: Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
:
: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:42:00 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:


**** off


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

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