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

On Mon, 22 May 2006 11:36:55 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 14 May 2006 23:18:24 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"

My model of a single photon works perfectly well for both gratings and double
slits. You people don't even try to understand it.

For slits my theory goes something like this:


*A
_____|

|

_____|


Consider monochromatic photons.

A photon has an infinite cross section. If its energy central axis strikes the
slits off centre, then it will be deflected. It might end up traveling towards
point A. There will be a distribution of deflection angle depending on both the
axis offset and the phase relationship of the photon's intrinsic oscillation.

In the case of a grating, the slits are far more numerous and closer together.

Why is that?


Well if you don't know already I'm not going to tell you.

Is there a univesal law saying that the slits are closer together
if they are more numerous than two? :-)

Come on, Paul. You know that the lines on a grating are much closer together
than the slits in the double slit experiment.

A
photon's cross section is effectively much smaller than the width of the
grating so the 'axis offset' bit disappears. All such photons should be
deflected by the same amount. My photons have spatial regularities similar to
'wavecrests'. Reinforcement occurs as predicted by classical wave theory.

Could you show us the math of this theory?


no


You can start with showing the distribution from a single slit.


I could indeed.

Better still, I will fiddle with a computer program to see what kind of
diffraction patterns I can produce.

Quite.
You cannot show the math because you have no idea of what it
should be, but you can fiddle a computer program to draw
the diffraction pattern you desire.

That is the best approach.

After I find a likely way to produce the basic pattern, I can refine both the
program and the photon model to fit in with other observed phenomena.
This is how science works in the 21st century.

If I can come up with a distribution that matches the observed ones does that
mean you will finally accept that the BaTh is correct?'

If I make a computer program which can draw fairies,
will you then accept that fairies exist?

According to the Norwegian version of science, fairies are indeed possible.

Paul


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
news | On Mon, 22 May 2006 11:36:55 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:

**** that ****, you know he's a proven lying ****. Why don't you spend your
time fixing Wombat's wedge-on worbits instead of engaging in pointless
argument, troll? Let's face it, you are not getting any younger. Do
something
right and worthwhile for once in your life.
Androcles.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 11:36:55 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Sun, 14 May 2006 23:18:24 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"


My model of a single photon works perfectly well for both gratings and double
slits. You people don't even try to understand it.

For slits my theory goes something like this:


*A
_____|

|

_____|


Consider monochromatic photons.

A photon has an infinite cross section. If its energy central axis strikes the
slits off centre, then it will be deflected. It might end up traveling towards
point A. There will be a distribution of deflection angle depending on both the
axis offset and the phase relationship of the photon's intrinsic oscillation.

In the case of a grating, the slits are far more numerous and closer together.

Why is that?


Well if you don't know already I'm not going to tell you.

Is there a univesal law saying that the slits are closer together
if they are more numerous than two? :-)


Come on, Paul. You know that the lines on a grating are much closer together
than the slits in the double slit experiment.

Henri, this is but a stupid obfuscation.
You cannot defend your claim:
"This [case with grating] is a different situation
altogether [from double-slit]."
by insisting that "In the case of a grating,
the slits are far more numerous and closer together."

It is obvious that a double slit and a grating are
not "a different situation altogether". In fact
you can make a grating with any number of slits:
from two and up. If you start with two slits,
and add slits, what will happen is that the lines
gets narrower and narrower, but the angle between
the maxima remains the same: theta = arcsin(lambda/s),
where s is the distance between the slits.
At what number of slits does it become
"a different situation altogether"?

Note this:
The width of the lines are determined by the size of
the whole grating (the number of slits in the grating),
the wider the grating, the narrower the lines.

If we let one by one photon hit this grid, the
great majority will be detected on these narrow
lines, and not between them. So it appears that
each and every photon must "know" the width of
the grating.

Now I will repeat my question:
So how big is your "particle" spanning over the whole grating?
And how can this huge "particle" hit at one pixel only?

Your previous evasion was:
| This is a different situation altogether.
| One doesn't normally use a grating
| for ONE solitary photon.

Do you have an answer?


A
photon's cross section is effectively much smaller than the width of the
grating so the 'axis offset' bit disappears. All such photons should be
deflected by the same amount. My photons have spatial regularities similar to
'wavecrests'. Reinforcement occurs as predicted by classical wave theory.

Could you show us the math of this theory?


no



You can start with showing the distribution from a single slit.


I could indeed.

Better still, I will fiddle with a computer program to see what kind of
diffraction patterns I can produce.

Quite.
You cannot show the math because you have no idea of what it
should be, but you can fiddle a computer program to draw
the diffraction pattern you desire.


That is the best approach.

After I find a likely way to produce the basic pattern, I can refine both the
program and the photon model to fit in with other observed phenomena.
This is how science works in the 21st century.

It's kind of sad that you are too dumb to understand
how hilarious this is. :-)

But of course, if you weren't, it wouldn't be.

Paul

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

Mission accomplished.
Androcles

The Sorcerer wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
|.

Mission accomplished.
Androcles.

Here is more you can accomplish to snip:

The electrical engineer with a degree in mathematics
lectures on the Lorentz transform:
| I live in the real world, and I have my own gamma
| to poke fun at you. Derive it yourself from Einstein's
| own derivation as homework, child.
| Hint. All you need do is make the reflector move
| the other way in Einstein's equation
|
| 1/2 (tau0+tau2) = tau1.
| you can find that on page 44 of Dover.
| Hint 2:
| The term t+x'/(c-v) on the right hand side has
| to be replaced with term t+x'/(c+v)
| Think, Paul, think!!! (if you can).
|
| Watch the signs, carefully.
|
| 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t + x'/(c+v) + x'/(c-v))] =
| tau(x',0,0,t+x'(c+v))
| (The mirror moves the opposite way.)
| Hence, if x' be chosen infinitesimally small,
| 1/2(1/(c+v) + 1/(c-v) ) @tau/@t = @tau/@x' + 1/(c+v) @tau/@t
| or
| @tau/@x' - v/(c^2 -v ^2)@tau/@t = 0
|
| and (ta daaaaa)
| beta = 1/sqrt(1+v^2/c^2)
|
| You understand Einstein's derivation? What a joke!
| You probably dont even know that sqrt(1) has two answers, 1 and -1.
| The correct answer to the
| question I gave, and you guessed at, is
| tau = (t + vx/c^2)/sqrt(1 (PLUS) v^2/c^2)
| xi = (x + vt/c^2)/sqrt(1 + v^2/c^2)
| eta = y
| zeta = z
| You are proven wrong.


Paul, carefully watching the signs

The Sorcerer wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Mission accomplished, I managed to snip yet again.
| Androcles
|
|
| So you did.
Yep. It's quite easy, I've found. You taught me well.
Mission accomplished.
Androcles.

Well done.
Here is more you can accomplish to snip:

The electrical engineer with a degree in mathematics
lectures on time contraction:
| First, we set w = -v, so that the "Greek frame" moves in the opposite
| direction.
| We consider a stationary clock in the "Latin frame", x = constant.
| This clock is obviously moving in the "Greek frame",
| and we can answer the question:
|
| At which rate dt/dtau is the _moving_ clock observed to run
| at in the "Greek frame"?
|
| by differentiating:
| dtau/dt = d/dt ((t+wx/c^2)/sqrt(1-w^2/c^2)) = 1/sqrt(1-w^2/c^2))
|
| then we substitute for w its value. (w2 is of course v2),
| and we note that v has a negative slope.
| Hence
| dtau/dt = d/dt ((t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) = -1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
|
| thus:
| dt/dtau = -sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| This is the infamously incomprehensible and not understood "time
| contraction".
| Need I go on?

Paul, still watching the signs

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| The Sorcerer wrote:
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| | Hexenmeister wrote:
| | "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
| | ...
| |
| | Mission accomplished, I managed to snip yet again.
| | Androcles
| |
| |
| | So you did.
| Yep. It's quite easy, I've found. You taught me well.
| Mission accomplished.
| Androcles.
|
| Well done.
Thank you.

| Here is more you can accomplish to snip:

Gladly. See if you can accomplish snip mission this to do:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...s.htm#Tusselad
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../LIAR/LIAR.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...minoEffect.gif
Which domino are you?
Androcles.

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| The Sorcerer wrote:
| "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
| ...
| |.
|
| Mission accomplished.
| Androcles.
|
| Here is more you can accomplish to snip:

Mission accomplished.
Androcles

On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:07:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2006 11:36:55 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:




Well if you don't know already I'm not going to tell you.

Is there a univesal law saying that the slits are closer together
if they are more numerous than two? :-)


Come on, Paul. You know that the lines on a grating are much closer together
than the slits in the double slit experiment.

Henri, this is but a stupid obfuscation.
You cannot defend your claim:
"This [case with grating] is a different situation
altogether [from double-slit]."
by insisting that "In the case of a grating,
the slits are far more numerous and closer together."

It is obvious that a double slit and a grating are
not "a different situation altogether". In fact
you can make a grating with any number of slits:
from two and up. If you start with two slits,
and add slits, what will happen is that the lines
gets narrower and narrower, but the angle between
the maxima remains the same: theta = arcsin(lambda/s),
where s is the distance between the slits.
At what number of slits does it become
"a different situation altogether"?

Note this:
The width of the lines are determined by the size of
the whole grating (the number of slits in the grating),
the wider the grating, the narrower the lines.

If we let one by one photon hit this grid, the
great majority will be detected on these narrow
lines, and not between them. So it appears that
each and every photon must "know" the width of
the grating.

This is all 'classical' speculation.
For a grating, all photons of the same intrinsic wavelength will be deflected
by the same amount.

In a double slit, there is a probability that they willl go off in different
directions.

My ballistic model, when complete, will explain why.

Now I will repeat my question:
So how big is your "particle" spanning over the whole grating?
And how can this huge "particle" hit at one pixel only?

Your previous evasion was:
| This is a different situation altogether.
| One doesn't normally use a grating
| for ONE solitary photon.

Do you have an answer?

Do you know of any experiment in which ONE single photon was used to illuminate
a grating?



Quite.
You cannot show the math because you have no idea of what it
should be, but you can fiddle a computer program to draw
the diffraction pattern you desire.


That is the best approach.

After I find a likely way to produce the basic pattern, I can refine both the
program and the photon model to fit in with other observed phenomena.
This is how science works in the 21st century.

It's kind of sad that you are too dumb to understand
how hilarious this is. :-)

But of course, if you weren't, it wouldn't be.

One day Norway might catch up with the rest of the advanced world.

Paul


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

Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless.

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2006 13:07:11 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Mon, 22 May 2006 11:36:55 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:




Well if you don't know already I'm not going to tell you.

Is there a univesal law saying that the slits are closer together
if they are more numerous than two? :-)


Come on, Paul. You know that the lines on a grating are much closer together
than the slits in the double slit experiment.

Henri, this is but a stupid obfuscation.
You cannot defend your claim:
"This [case with grating] is a different situation
altogether [from double-slit]."
by insisting that "In the case of a grating,
the slits are far more numerous and closer together."

It is obvious that a double slit and a grating are
not "a different situation altogether". In fact
you can make a grating with any number of slits:

from two and up. If you start with two slits,

and add slits, what will happen is that the lines
gets narrower and narrower, but the angle between
the maxima remains the same: theta = arcsin(lambda/s),
where s is the distance between the slits.
At what number of slits does it become
"a different situation altogether"?

Note this:
The width of the lines are determined by the size of
the whole grating (the number of slits in the grating),
the wider the grating, the narrower the lines.

If we let one by one photon hit this grid, the
great majority will be detected on these narrow
lines, and not between them. So it appears that
each and every photon must "know" the width of
the grating.


This is all 'classical' speculation.

Speculation?
It is the result of a lot of experiments.

For a grating, all photons of the same intrinsic wavelength will be deflected
by the same amount.

No.
The lines are not infinitely narrow,
and there are a number of them.

There is no fundamental difference between
a grating an a double slit.

In a double slit, there is a probability that they willl go off in different
directions.

Right. Just like for a grating.


My ballistic model, when complete, will explain why.

Quite.
"One day I will make a great invention which will
make me famous. Just you wait! "

BTW, have you read/seen "Vildanden" ("Wild Duck") by Ibsen?
You remind me of Hjalmar Ekdal. :-)
http://www.pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/...WildDuck06.asp



Now I will repeat my question:
So how big is your "particle" spanning over the whole grating?
And how can this huge "particle" hit at one pixel only?

Your previous evasion was:
| This is a different situation altogether.
| One doesn't normally use a grating
| for ONE solitary photon.

Do you have an answer?


Do you know of any experiment in which ONE single photon was used to illuminate
a grating?

Still no answer?
The question was:
So how big is your "particle" spanning over the whole grating?
And how can this huge "particle" hit at one pixel only?

Quite.
You cannot show the math because you have no idea of what it
should be, but you can fiddle a computer program to draw
the diffraction pattern you desire.


That is the best approach.

After I find a likely way to produce the basic pattern, I can refine both the
program and the photon model to fit in with other observed phenomena.
This is how science works in the 21st century.

It's kind of sad that you are too dumb to understand
how hilarious this is. :-)

But of course, if you weren't, it wouldn't be.


One day Norway might catch up with the rest of the advanced world.

I can understand your envy.
http://www.norway.org.au/policy/orga...portnorway.htm

Paul