Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 22:13:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:42:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:


On Tue, 02 May 2006 11:29:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:




Henri Wilson wrote:



On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


YOUR classical version of the BaTh is not the modern one.

The modern one where the wave-particle duality does not exist? :-)


Paul, either you cannot read properly or you haven't been following my
messages.
My theory and calculations are based on duality. Light behaves like a particle
below the Wilson Threshold and like a wave in a dielectric medium.

Quite.
So we don't have to go on.
Your theory is falsified by the dual slit experiment.


How pathetic!!!!! You are not improving Paul...

It would be imposible to perform the double slit experiment below the Wilson
Threshold. The apparatus itself would see to that.

Definitely one of your better acrobatic manoeuvres, Henri! :-)


Paul, let me explain...
I didn't say the double slit experiment wouldn't work below the Wilson
Threshold.

In that case we agree that the double slit experiment
falsifies your theory.


Sorry, I can't see the problem.

My photons have length, cross section and waves running along them....all the
ingredients for an interference pattern.

Really, Henri?

Let's look at a conrete example of the double
slit experiment with one single photon:
|
| |
* - | |
| |
double slit |
X
|
CCD

The photon is detected at the point X.
Please explain why.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

Mission accomplished.
Androcles

On Fri, 05 May 2006 21:10:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 22:13:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Sorry, I can't see the problem.

My photons have length, cross section and waves running along them....all the
ingredients for an interference pattern.

Really, Henri?

Let's look at a conrete example of the double
slit experiment with one single photon:
|
| |
* - | |
| |
double slit |
X
|
CCD

The photon is detected at the point X.
Please explain why.

Normal rules of interference by a wave.
Each photon contains its own internal oscillation.
It has cross section and length extending to infinity but with field strengths
dropping off very rapidly with distance.


Paul


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

Schoenfeld:

Jerry wrote:
Hexenmeister wrote:

Then along come Michelson and blows the aether out of existence,
Einstein seizes his chance and it's downhill all the way now,
assumption piled on assumption, Dark Matter, Black Holes,
Expanding Universe, Big Bang, all the attendant trivia as charlatans
attempt to "prove" their assumptions and be famous.
Error accumulates error.
Oh, come on!
(Notice no naughty words :-)
Androcles.

(notice no snips ;-)

Jerry

Wake up to reality. These idiots you invoke as 'physics experts' would

Go back to your job as a corporate shill.

have people believe that buildings can in-place freefall due to a
couple of hours of minor fire damage. If they don't understand _basic_
physics, how could they understand anything more complicated? Reality
is important you know.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On 1 May 2006 21:56:44 -0700, wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 23:27:13 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Don't be ridiculous.
The wave particle duality is known by everybody.

The 'wave/particle duality' is known by everybody to be one of the great
unexplained mysteries of physics.
My model provides an answer.

As does mine (sic this):
The "particle" is the center of mass of a photon-
The "wave" is a fluctuation of the attendent field of both single
photons
considered individually, and groups of photons whose fields
combine/interfere.

..or maybe they oscillater in phase somehow...eg. an RF signal..


The frequency of an individual is an observation of its spin (field
+/- per time interval).

Basically agreed...except I say there is more than one wavelength in an
individual photon.

If we can isolate ONE photon, and "observe" it (due to the field
fluctuation as it spins, then there is _no_ wavelength. It is only when
combining a group (sic procession) of photons, that wavelength becomes
apparent.

The frequency of LIGHT (a group of photons) is a result of the number
of photons impinging a target (sic observer) per time, PLUS regards to
each individual's spin.

No we differ here.
I say the 'frequency' of light is determined by the individual photons that
make up the beam. Each one has an identical INTRINSIC oscillation.
If YOU were correct, colour would be dependent on light intensity.

No. I say that "white" light is a combination of photons of various
spin rates, but same linear velocity.
However, photons of differring velocities travelling parrallel could
exhibit the same "colour" (frequency), and viceversa. Thus photons are
emitted at source with identical velocities, but varying spins. Now,
what is the (?) mechanism which "averages/unites" the velocities of
photons travelling in the same direction, which originate from
co-moving sources?
(if any :-) )


Think upon helicopters as an analogy:
Each individual has its revs (spin), but the number, separation, and
speed of a group of helicopters flying in line (for simplicity), also
dictates the observed wave pattern.
The helicopters are the "particles"; the sound (harmonic, or otherwise)
is the wave.
(many h's at high speed, dig?)

I dig.. but I say the period of the rotors is what determines the colour....not
the number of helicopters per second.

Nope! More copters per time would blue shift as well as increased rotor
spin.
Think again.

Jim G
c'=c+v

PS: Stock up! Grape harvest was down about 30%

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 05 May 2006 21:10:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Thu, 04 May 2006 22:13:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Sorry, I can't see the problem.

My photons have length, cross section and waves running along them....all the
ingredients for an interference pattern.

Really, Henri?

Let's look at a conrete example of the double
slit experiment with one single photon:
|
| |
* - | |
| |
double slit |
X
|
CCD

The photon is detected at the point X.
Please explain why.


Normal rules of interference by a wave.
Each photon contains its own internal oscillation.
It has cross section and length extending to infinity but with field strengths
dropping off very rapidly with distance.

You didn't get it did, you?
The point is - why did it hit off axis?
And why only on a small point?
It is detected by one pixel on the CCD only.
That pixel is smaller that the distance between the slits.
How can a photon with "cross section and length extending to infinity"
hit in such a small pixel? And why off axis?

Paul

On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:05:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 05 May 2006 21:10:16 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Sorry, I can't see the problem.

My photons have length, cross section and waves running along them....all the
ingredients for an interference pattern.

Really, Henri?

Let's look at a conrete example of the double
slit experiment with one single photon:
|
| |
* - | |
| |
double slit |
X
|
CCD

The photon is detected at the point X.
Please explain why.


Normal rules of interference by a wave.
Each photon contains its own internal oscillation.
It has cross section and length extending to infinity but with field strengths
dropping off very rapidly with distance.

You didn't get it did, you?
The point is - why did it hit off axis?
And why only on a small point?
It is detected by one pixel on the CCD only.
That pixel is smaller that the distance between the slits.
How can a photon with "cross section and length extending to infinity"
hit in such a small pixel? And why off axis?

First let's get the picture straight Paul.

Each individual photon will go to a different point X. ...Why?
An interference pattern will be formed across the screen.

As you know, the maths describing such a pattern involves probability and tems
like Bessel functions etc.

Although I cannot say I have really thought much about the problem, I would
consider that the photon's diffracted angle is linked to its 'energy offset' as
it arrives at the slits. It could also have something to do with the phasing of
the intrinsic standing wave as the photons hits.

....but you will say I am merely speculating...


Paul


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

Mission accomplished.
Androcles

Hexenmeister wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

Mission accomplished.
Androcles


Indeed.

The electrical engineer with a degree in mathematics
lectures on "a plane electromagnetic wave":
| The B-field is not in the same "plane" as the E-field.
| Both occupy a volume, but alternately.
| It can be sectioned with a plane, like this:
| http://www.indigo.com/magnets/gphmgn...sk-viewer.html
| Hence I do not understand what you mean by "a plane, electromagnetic wave",
| no such animal exists.
| I'm not even sure what YOU mean by a wave of any description.
| You are probably frame hopping.
|
| This moving road can be considered a "plane wave". We know roads move, we
| can feel the wind in our hair and see that it does.
| http://tinyurl.com/ghtm8
| The road has no frequency, only the car has frequency.
| Frame hopping from the car to the road is a popular pastime of ****heads.

The electrical engineer with a degree in mathematics
lectures on "how to solve the equation: curl H = @D/@t":
| No 'c', huh? Ok, I'll go along with that, Faraday and Gauss knew what they were doing.
| The solution to that differential equation is a function, of course.
| d(cos(t))/dt = -sin(t)
|
| I didn't need reminding. Perhaps you do.
| http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/~igc/tch...ff/node27.html
|
| Does your hair have curls, Tusselad? Or are you bald?

Curl?
http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/maths/res...X/div_curl.pdf


Mission accomplished!

Paul, still laughing

On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:33:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 08 May 2006 23:05:01 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

First let's get the picture straight Paul.

Each individual photon will go to a different point X. ...Why?
An interference pattern will be formed across the screen.

Right.

As you know, the maths describing such a pattern involves probability and tems
like Bessel functions etc.

Right. It is an interference pattern.

Although I cannot say I have really thought much about the problem, I would
consider that the photon's diffracted angle is linked to its 'energy offset' as
it arrives at the slits. It could also have something to do with the phasing of
the intrinsic standing wave as the photons hits.

...but you will say I am merely speculating...

The point is not that you are speculating,
the point is that you are contradicting yourself.

You are claiming that light behaves as a particle and NOT like
a wave in vacuum.
But the double slit experiment demonstrates that it behaves as a wave
(the interference pattern) AND as a particle (it is absorbed by one pixel only.)

IF it is a "particle" with "cross section and length extending to infinity",
then that "particle" must be so big that half of it goes through each
slit. If it is this big, why is it then only absorbed by one pixel?
And if the wave pattern is within this "particle", why is then the
result not the same every time?

It simply doesn't add up, Henri.
You are inventing nonsense.

You don't listen do you Paul. My photons have 'intrinsic waves'....and these
will obey normal diffraction rules...more or less.

I suggested that each photon has a 'cross section' that is considerably greater
than the slit spacing. If the photon hits the slits symmetrically, its image
will appear directly behind the slits.
If it hits slightly off centre, it will be deflected at an angle determined by
its own intrinsic wavelength.
This concept is perfectly in order.

Whatever light is, the wavelength measured in a spectrometer
is the wavelength of a wave which behaves as a wave.

You must draw a distinction between a single photon and a large group.

I said that single photons possess intrinsic waves. Groups can possess an
additional 'phase related' wave.

I have shown how this wave MUST behave according to
the ballistic theory. The predicted Doppler shift is not
observed. Ballistic theory falsified.

You are refusing to discuss anything outside your religion.


Paul


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.