Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
Well, David,

haven't you a breath enough? ;-)

Was on vacation...

David A. Smith

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.

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 is "aware" of geometries the size of the
Universe. The amount of diffraction is *very* small for macroscopic
distances. And photon-photon interactions (for example) do not include
reflection of one photon off the other, leaving the first unaffected.

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.

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

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.

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. 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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.


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? 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)?

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?

....
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".

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.

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?

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?

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" 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.

Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:nBYNa.119895$hd6.76587@fed1read05...
....
This does not follow. All this says is that "Here" and "There" are
connected by more than distance. To say that something is finite and
separable, is not to say that you can really establish a "size" for the
silly thing.

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

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

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

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

Its substructure would be seen in telescope, would have a
spectrum an so on.

Doesn't follow. The diffraction formula (choose one) indicates that a
particle that self-interferes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disproven by experiment.

But if particles move in a 'void' space, which is
necessary for GR postulates to be substantiated, quanta and photons
automatically become necessary, with all consequences. And you are
saying, relativism and photon theory don't 'intersect' each other!
;-)

GR says little about quanta. It says much about "signals", which are
statistically significant populations. GR is the road, and QM is the
foundation on which the road is laid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

whilst the size of photons of which this wave consists
tends to zero, as you say, then one photon contains only a part of
period!

You are discussing the distance the host of very large transverse
diameter
particles travel between changes in E & M polarization are "noted".
Different beast.

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

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

Thus, please return to the above question and soothe me -
determine, which approximately part of a period each photon carries.

All of it. Be soothed.

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

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

As close as zero distance.

Not so much exactly. Feynman determined the distance between photons
as much more than their size!

Much more than zero... is this a multiplier or an adder?

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

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

And there are weighty reasons for it. As
is known from optic experiments, we can merge a set of beams without
broadening the beam diameter. Should the between-photon distance be
negligibly small, the total beam has to broaden! Either several
photons have to be located at the same point of space and time. Could
you prompt me such particles? I would be very grateful.

Photons. Electrons (except for that danged charge). The photons do
not
show any awareness of their neighbors, allowing a very dense grouping
of
them. Yet experiments have been performed where photons have had
head-on
collisions with each other.

Again you contradict your previous answers. You said above,

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

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

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

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

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

Fine! Let us recall the Caderholm's experiment with two independent
masers [J.P. Caderholm, G.F. Bland, B.L. Havens and C.H. Townes.
Phys.
Rev. Letters, 1958, 1, 342]. The basic frequency was 23 870 MHz.
Beating of two masers was about 20 Hz and continually registered.
With
such beating Caderholm observed the interference, and we can
substantiate it in the view of classical wave optics. To your mind,
it
appears that two masers at the same time created one and the same
photon?

No. To my mind, you are observing increases and decreases in the
number of
photons detected. Fluctuations in intensity.

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

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

Varying the angle between the masers, they changed the
interference pattern - it evidences that just waves of two masers
interfered, not photons of each maser with themselves. ;-)

Not applicable. Because a model works for expediency, namely casting a
host as a wave, doesn't mean it reveals underlying truth. It would
reveal
the same result if one were to calculate 10^10 trajectories for said
number
of ballistic particles that are aware of Universal geometries, and then
multipled that by the number of such particle "groups" required to
assure
yourself that you had the phase right.

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

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

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

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

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

Wave descriptions are simply easier.

Just like electrons, neutrons, nucleii,
and bucky balls.

Okay, tell me please, how the energy is added in interaction of two
particles?

What does this have to do with self-interference?

Just the same as Caderholm experiment. ;-)

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

Right, waves in a flow do not encounter deceleration, but particles
do, as they always have a drag, and a wave hasn't. ;-) Velocity of
waves depends on the depth only in a shallow channel.

Doesn't have to be a channel, by the way. This is why waves crash onto
a
beach. The deep sea wave speed is faster than the in-shore wavespeed.
The
water "piles up", and breakers are the result.

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

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

In infinite
continuum they depend on density, elasticity and viscosity of the
medium. By a 'strange chance', velocity of EM wave is also
proportional to the dielectric and magnetic constants.

Ah, so you do believe that the Universe is the medium?

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

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

And the "bulk
parameters" to which you refer are the way the Universe handles
very-low-energy-density effects (namely the passage of distant
photons)?

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

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

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

As to my knowledge of photon theory - we will sort it out, if you
dare
to dive deeper. Still, it would be very kind of you if you are able
to
give a substantiated answers to the phenomenological questions of
this
theory. ;-)

I will probably never be able to satisfy this requirement. At least to
your satisfaction. Shall we stop now?

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

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

And could you point at least one 2D event in space? Maybe you would
like to say, GR metric is not 4D? A simple additional question: will
a
body having a transverse initial velocity move along geodesics? Or
geodesics 'change a lane' with the change of initial conditions? ;-)

The difference between SR and GR is to what I referred. SR is limited
to a
single line of motion, since acceleration is not "permitted".

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

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

Or SR is one
physics and GR - another physics as to the same objects?

Just as SR devolves to Newton for vc, so does GR devolve to SR
when
m-0.

I-i-i-i-nteresting conclusion! It means, for massive bodies the
constant light velocity postulate doesn't conserve, and for
non-massive bodies it conserves! The metric of non-massive bodies
varies as SR, and massive bodies on which these non-massive are
located - as GR? Non-massive body (e.g. electron), as its velocity
approaches the velocity of light, doesn't become massive? Terrific!!!

I have no idea what this paragraph says. And by the way, an electron
has
mass.

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

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

Dark Matter is an attribute of Dark Theory. This term serves to
designate all what the relativists have piled up, where both ends
don't meet - and the main, the trick serves! And project reports are
approved, and papers are accepted for publication, and these
'results'
are added to the textbooks. Why then they are surprised that there
fall Shuttles and skyscrapers, trains from bridges and so on, so on.
Irresponsibility is such as if these all are not catastrophes of real
life but only images at the TV screen. Right, David! You don't need
to
worry! You colleagues don't need to open all these mistakes and to
make corrections! A fresh example, how they have lied in their report
of 'Columbia' - well, what of it that they have lied? See, there is
already a new picture at the screen, we are flying further! Well,
people, everything is all right, calmly slumber in your chairs!

Only don't be surprised, why everything fails!

These conclusions don't follow.

I do agree, that in my opinion, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are
measures of
what we don't know. It has nothing to do with the failure of an
orbital
platform. Unless DM is what you'd like to propose damaged it?

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

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

Or GR has
been constructed not on 4D metric of SR?

Yes, it has been. The linear relations one expects no longer
applies.

Well, you would like to say that the main equation of GR is not 4D?
It's staggering!

What you are trying to say is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps we
should
stop?

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

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

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

I am a mechanical engineer.

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

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

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

Perhaps each day is an investment for both of us?

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

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

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

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

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

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:nmJPa.3141$u51.2215@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:nBYNa.119895$hd6.76587@fed1read05...
...
This does not follow. All this says is that "Here" and "There" are
connected by more than distance. To say that something is finite and
separable, is not to say that you can really establish a "size" for the
silly thing.

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

Dear David,

Sorry for late respond, I couldn't earlier.


Try the inverse, and see how you like its flavour.

I just say, this is lyrics, not physics. ;-) In physics we have
nothing to turn inside out. It's just the beauty of wave physics that
it's self-consistent, in distinction from Relativity either photon
theory.

At any point, is the
slightest hint of every other particle in the Universe. Does this sound
familiar?

When a particle accelerates to 0,9 c, it doesn't take the size of
space and doesn't inflate as Brother Rabbit's balloon. So it sounds
quite unfamiliar for me. Truly, what would sound familiar - these are
your answers to my previous questions.


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

Besides. the definition of particle has already been altered. It could
easily be a wave...

Notice, you are speaking here in a conjectural mode. When physics
escapes direct answers and applies a conjectural mode, it turns into
some kind of 'religion'. If a particle can be a wave (and it's
actually a wave of aether), then, denying the materiality of space,
you are denying this your statement/conjecture, too. ;-)

American Heritage dictionary: "A body whose spatial
extent and internal motion and structure, if any, are irrelevant in a
specific problem."

Quite clumsy definition of a material point, not a particle as an
independent material object. A particle can be divisible and can have
a definite form and structure. Only in case if we represent it as a
material point, your definition will be true. But it's not
comprehensive. ;-)


Its substructure would be seen in telescope, would have a
spectrum an so on.

Doesn't follow. The diffraction formula (choose one) indicates that a
particle that self-interferes

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

Particles *do* only interfere with themselves.

It's some inexact. Still no one observed an interference of a flow of
particles on a flow of particles, as we observe the interference of
two beams. All interference patterns have been obtained not as a
result of interference but due to diffraction on a barrier, and there
are lots of such results.

This has been shown with
photons, electrons, neutrons, and buckyballs. Trajectory of a quantum
particle is a joke.

If a photon has a size of hundreds of km (a question to which you
still didn't answered rigorously) and the between-photons distance has
to well exceed this size (I cited Feynman's statement, and you also
didn't answer this question), then the photon trajectory hasn't an
uncertainty. ;-) Furthermore, if we look into a bubble chamber, we'll
see quite clear and calculable trajectory. Should a particle or a
photon interfere with itself, such macro-trajectory would be
incalculable, because of interference at each moment of time. ;-)

Trajectories may apply to the average of a host of
particles, but not one of them is constrained to follow it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us stop here. The shadow of the Moon can show diffraction only in
case if there exists a source behind the Moon. The shadow itself says
of its presence. ;-) And I'm saying the same - that the light (photon)
can neither interfere nor diffract with itself.


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

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

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

What makes you stating what you will further disprove? See, you are
writing further so:

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

[Sergey]
What a weird particle is it that can interact but cannot be reflected?
;-) Problems with charge, problems with interaction, problems with
size... Aren't there too many problems for a flat ground? ;-)


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

Disproven by experiment.

Where? When? May I see? Please refer me or send me a copy to my e-mail
box, can you?


But if particles move in a 'void' space, which is
necessary for GR postulates to be substantiated, quanta and photons
automatically become necessary, with all consequences. And you are
saying, relativism and photon theory don't 'intersect' each other!
;-)

GR says little about quanta. It says much about "signals", which are
statistically significant populations. GR is the road, and QM is the
foundation on which the road is laid.

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

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

The point is not, what particular aspects GR and QM consider. Of
course, these theories have their questions, but the matter is, both
are based on one paradigm. GR needs the idea of photon, as it's unable
to explain without it the effect of 'black holes', and QM needs the
void space to substantiate the motion of photon particles without
deceleration. This is just the strong relation and symbiosis of these
theories.


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

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

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

Well, photon cannot radiate, nor absorb. But my question was not of
applicability of Lorentz transform to GR and photons, but of the size
of photon! ;-) Please re-read above with ' '


The width of the photon, such that one photon interacts with another, is
very small... including zero width.

If photon has a finite and large length (multiple of wavelength), if
photons have to 'catch up' each other to provide the necessary large
length of coherence, if the neighbouring photons have to correlate
their phase of propagation, then at 'zero' width we automatically come
to wave theory, as this is already not a particle but some wave line.
;-) Well, what about we debate? If moreover we rerquire, such 'lines',
when interfering, to unify the intensities geometrically and to be not
reflecting from each other, this will be already a wave in material
space, and its parameters will be determined by the properties of this
space. From this point it's a short way to the aether.

That does not, in my opinion, keep it
from being aware of geometries as wide as the Universe, and being affected
by them.

Stating so, you are stating long-range interaction. ;-)


whilst the size of photons of which this wave consists
tends to zero, as you say, then one photon contains only a part of
period!

You are discussing the distance the host of very large transverse
diameter
particles travel between changes in E & M polarization are "noted".
Different beast.

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

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

First, this was not the point. The point was, which part of wave
energy a photon bears within itself. Second, if you are speaking of
orientation, photon cannot change it arbitrarily, and photon in
superposition with another photon - can. Just in superposition, not in
interaction, as intensities are added geometrically.


Thus, please return to the above question and soothe me -
determine, which approximately part of a period each photon carries.

All of it. Be soothed.

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

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

As close as zero distance.

Not so much exactly. Feynman determined the distance between photons
as much more than their size!

Much more than zero... is this a multiplier or an adder?

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

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

And there are weighty reasons for it. As
is known from optic experiments, we can merge a set of beams without
broadening the beam diameter. Should the between-photon distance be
negligibly small, the total beam has to broaden! Either several
photons have to be located at the same point of space and time. Could
you prompt me such particles? I would be very grateful.

Photons. Electrons (except for that danged charge). The photons do
not
show any awareness of their neighbors, allowing a very dense grouping
of
them. Yet experiments have been performed where photons have had
head-on
collisions with each other.

Again you contradict your previous answers. You said above,

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

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

Collision: an event where momentum is changed between two or more particles
(DAS definition).

As far as I can remember, the total momentum of ensemble of particles
does conserve, but total intensity of ensemble of photons - doesn't.
;-)

Reflection: an event where a particle has one component of its momentum
reversed in sign, normal to a surface. Commonly the surface is considered
to be unaffected.

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

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

In Russian, 'reflection' usually means some elastic interaction with
some massive obstacle, when it would be enough to consider only a body
or a wave falling onto this obstacle. And 'collision' (elastic and
non-elastic) we understand so that masses of bodies are comparable and
both (or more) bodies change their state of motion/rest. I hope, your
meaning is the same.


Fine! Let us recall the Caderholm's experiment with two independent
masers [J.P. Caderholm, G.F. Bland, B.L. Havens and C.H. Townes.
Phys.
Rev. Letters, 1958, 1, 342]. The basic frequency was 23 870 MHz.
Beating of two masers was about 20 Hz and continually registered.
With
such beating Caderholm observed the interference, and we can
substantiate it in the view of classical wave optics. To your mind,
it
appears that two masers at the same time created one and the same
photon?

No. To my mind, you are observing increases and decreases in the
number of
photons detected. Fluctuations in intensity.

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

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

Yes - if we change the nature of inclination. But if your photon has
zero width... No, wave theory is not "only the words". QM compares its
results with the wave theory, not vice versa. ;-)


Varying the angle between the masers, they changed the
interference pattern - it evidences that just waves of two masers
interfered, not photons of each maser with themselves. ;-)

Not applicable. Because a model works for expediency, namely casting a
host as a wave, doesn't mean it reveals underlying truth. It would
reveal
the same result if one were to calculate 10^10 trajectories for said
number
of ballistic particles that are aware of Universal geometries, and then
multipled that by the number of such particle "groups" required to
assure
yourself that you had the phase right.

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

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

David, you should'n! When you want - you say so, when want opposite -
you say opposite! Photons in your interpretation already cannot
interact as electrons and buckyballs, as they have to have the shape
of boot laces. ;-) And the result of addition will be not
arithmetical, as in case of buckyballs, and no one observed photons
reflected one from another, and never will observe.


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

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

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

I multiply said in different threads and you also have read that
photoelectric effect results from EM wave interaction with the
resonance system of atom, and you cannot describe refraction with the
help of material particles of non-zero width. And what concern at all
the width has to refraction? ;-)


Wave descriptions are simply easier.

Not simply easier, it is consistent with experiments without any
'ifs'. ;-)


Just like electrons, neutrons, nucleii,
and bucky balls.

Okay, tell me please, how the energy is added in interaction of two
particles?

What does this have to do with self-interference?

Just the same as Caderholm experiment. ;-)

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

Sorry, David, in Caderholm experiment two independent masers
interfere, and their frequencies differ in Hertzs


Right, waves in a flow do not encounter deceleration, but particles
do, as they always have a drag, and a wave hasn't. ;-) Velocity of
waves depends on the depth only in a shallow channel.

Doesn't have to be a channel, by the way. This is why waves crash onto
a
beach. The deep sea wave speed is faster than the in-shore wavespeed.
The
water "piles up", and breakers are the result.

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

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

If you are standing on the QM position, this will be not so. In view
of wave theory this is not so, too.


In infinite
continuum they depend on density, elasticity and viscosity of the
medium. By a 'strange chance', velocity of EM wave is also
proportional to the dielectric and magnetic constants.

Ah, so you do believe that the Universe is the medium?

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

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

Oh, why so rude! ;-) Don't forget, Einsteinian ether is
phenomenological-virtual-mathematical entity. Perhaps you were
confused. ;-)


And the "bulk
parameters" to which you refer are the way the Universe handles
very-low-energy-density effects (namely the passage of distant
photons)?

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

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

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

No, it wouldn't be. Don't forget, here we have to add geometrically.
If you average so, you will yield zero intensity. Lest to yield zero,
your photons have to correlate their phase. And with large distance
between them, you would never obtain coherent radiation. ;-)


As to my knowledge of photon theory - we will sort it out, if you
dare
to dive deeper. Still, it would be very kind of you if you are able
to
give a substantiated answers to the phenomenological questions of
this
theory. ;-)

I will probably never be able to satisfy this requirement. At least to
your satisfaction. Shall we stop now?

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

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

I'm speaking not of courses but of phenomenology which you permanently
try to put aside. Mathematics 'works' in physics only in case if your
phenomenology has been substantiated correctly.


And could you point at least one 2D event in space? Maybe you would
like to say, GR metric is not 4D? A simple additional question: will
a
body having a transverse initial velocity move along geodesics? Or
geodesics 'change a lane' with the change of initial conditions? ;-)

The difference between SR and GR is to what I referred. SR is limited
to a
single line of motion, since acceleration is not "permitted".

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

Not true. E and H, for waves, are field "strength",

Hey, isn't the field strength a force affecting a single charge?
Moreover, we are speaking in this paragraph not of photons but that SR
has to describe accelerated motions, and such attempts were
undertaken. But the fact that they were unsuccessful evidences SR
wrong. A theory cannot describe only a part of process and think it
sufficient. By the way, mechanical interaction of material bodies also
has EM nature. ;-)

and do not apply to
the acceleration of charged particles, unless you want to make the issue
more complex. A photon interferes with itself, not with its EM field.

David, dear, you again!


Or SR is one
physics and GR - another physics as to the same objects?

Just as SR devolves to Newton for vc, so does GR devolve to SR
when
m-0.

I-i-i-i-nteresting conclusion! It means, for massive bodies the
constant light velocity postulate doesn't conserve, and for
non-massive bodies it conserves! The metric of non-massive bodies
varies as SR, and massive bodies on which these non-massive are
located - as GR? Non-massive body (e.g. electron), as its velocity
approaches the velocity of light, doesn't become massive? Terrific!!!

I have no idea what this paragraph says. And by the way, an electron
has
mass.

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

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

Momentum and mass are different concepts. We see in the equations the
mass as the measure of inertia, not the momentum. Do you feel again
uncomfortable in your 'dress'? Does 'nothing' chafe you corns? ;-)


Dark Matter is an attribute of Dark Theory. This term serves to
designate all what the relativists have piled up, where both ends
don't meet - and the main, the trick serves! And project reports are
approved, and papers are accepted for publication, and these
'results'
are added to the textbooks. Why then they are surprised that there
fall Shuttles and skyscrapers, trains from bridges and so on, so on.
Irresponsibility is such as if these all are not catastrophes of real
life but only images at the TV screen. Right, David! You don't need
to
worry! You colleagues don't need to open all these mistakes and to
make corrections! A fresh example, how they have lied in their report
of 'Columbia' - well, what of it that they have lied? See, there is
already a new picture at the screen, we are flying further! Well,
people, everything is all right, calmly slumber in your chairs!

Only don't be surprised, why everything fails!

These conclusions don't follow.

I do agree, that in my opinion, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are
measures of
what we don't know. It has nothing to do with the failure of an
orbital
platform. Unless DM is what you'd like to propose damaged it?

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

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

Your dear habit. The problem is, not he decides but the consultants
which play not with cigars but with ambitions.


Or GR has
been constructed not on 4D metric of SR?

Yes, it has been. The linear relations one expects no longer
applies.

Well, you would like to say that the main equation of GR is not 4D?
It's staggering!

What you are trying to say is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps we
should
stop?

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

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

Both GR and SR are 4D. Please don't debate this, or I will open the
textbooks.


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

I am a mechanical engineer.

Very nice. And I am an electrophysical engineer.


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

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

I said not of vacations but of solving the problems. It's very good
that you had vacations, especially if you enjoyed that time. I say, we
can achieve understanding only if we will attentively answer both
convenient and inconvenient questions.


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

Perhaps each day is an investment for both of us?

One each day has an investment, another one each day is beaten up...


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

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

Really, if we ignore experimental results, it would be too close to
insanity.


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

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

Yes, actually, I'm permanently shifting. I solve new problems, obtain
new experimental corroborations and shift where they lead me. Do you
understand, what I'm saying? All what I say is based on rigorous
computations and corroborated by scrupulous experiments which we have
conducted in our laboratory. And you are saying what your teachers
told you. But in this thread I hadn't to shift a least, because I
still didn't hear from you convincing, substantiated answers. ;-) But
I would like much. Believe me, my wish is not to win or lose, as the
majority here thinks. I'm not striving to win and am not afraid to
lose, my wish is *to get to know*. For this sake I do what many people
don't like. But I don't see other way, as other way doesn't exist.


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

David A. Smith

However it would be very kind of you if you took more strongly the
thread of questions when answering. It appears that I'm saying of one
thing, and you are shunting the rails just under the locomotive. ;-)

Good luck,

Sergey.

Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
m...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:nmJPa.3141$u51.2215@fed1read05...
....
Sorry for late respond, I couldn't earlier.

No problem. I didn't think you'd given up...

Try the inverse, and see how you like its flavour.

I just say, this is lyrics, not physics. ;-) In physics we have
nothing to turn inside out. It's just the beauty of wave physics that
it's self-consistent, in distinction from Relativity either photon
theory.

This is not true. All of physics is based on logic. You can and should
invert the logic, as necessary, to see what you have *disproven*.

At any point, is the
slightest hint of every other particle in the Universe. Does this
sound
familiar?

When a particle accelerates to 0,9 c, it doesn't take the size of
space and doesn't inflate as Brother Rabbit's balloon. So it sounds
quite unfamiliar for me. Truly, what would sound familiar - these are
your answers to my previous questions.

These are what you get for answers. To (mis)quote "Einstein's Universe" by
Nigel Calder, at any point in the depths of interstellar space, is the hint
of everything that could possibly exist there. My spin on this is, at any
point is the hint of the entire Universe.

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

Besides. the definition of particle has already been altered. It could
easily be a wave...

Notice, you are speaking here in a conjectural mode. When physics
escapes direct answers and applies a conjectural mode, it turns into
some kind of 'religion'. If a particle can be a wave (and it's
actually a wave of aether), then, denying the materiality of space,
you are denying this your statement/conjecture, too. ;-)

There is no fundamental wave property the light has that other particles do
not also reveal. So are neutrons, electrons, nucleii, and buckyballs
aether waves? If you believe that light is aether waves, please describe
the photoelectric effect using only a wave model.

American Heritage dictionary: "A body whose spatial
extent and internal motion and structure, if any, are irrelevant in a
specific problem."

Quite clumsy definition of a material point, not a particle as an
independent material object. A particle can be divisible and can have
a definite form and structure. Only in case if we represent it as a
material point, your definition will be true. But it's not
comprehensive. ;-)

It is a lame ass definition, IMHO. But with this definition, it is no
longer necessary to say "it is a wave and a particle". Because saying it
is a particle with this definition isn't saying much at all.

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

Particles *do* only interfere with themselves.

It's some inexact. Still no one observed an interference of a flow of
particles on a flow of particles, as we observe the interference of
two beams. All interference patterns have been obtained not as a
result of interference but due to diffraction on a barrier, and there
are lots of such results.

When the particles interfering are material (electrons, etc.) there are two
streams of particles. Thos that make up the slits and the particle stream.
So we know exactly how two streams will behave.

This has been shown with
photons, electrons, neutrons, and buckyballs. Trajectory of a quantum
particle is a joke.

If a photon has a size of hundreds of km (a question to which you
still didn't answered rigorously)

The size of any particle is the width of the Universe, perpendicular to its
motion wrt that Unvierse. The ability to interact with that matter drops
off very near to the "particle center". Noting that "particle" is
dereferenced...

and the between-photons distance has
to well exceed this size (I cited Feynman's statement, and you also
didn't answer this question),

The distance between two photons co-moving (or counter-moving) is
unimportant, until the two "particle centers" are coincident. The
definition of the "particle center" is still vague.

then the photon trajectory hasn't an
uncertainty. ;-)

It does have uncertainty, since the "photon trajectory" only exists for a
large population of such particles.

Furthermore, if we look into a bubble chamber, we'll
see quite clear and calculable trajectory.

Of charged particles, not photons. And even then the bubbles are not
necessarily centered on the trajectory, but merely contain it. And can you
say at what instant the particle was at any particular point in space, or
are you in fact limited by Heisenberg?

Should a particle or a
photon interfere with itself, such macro-trajectory would be
incalculable, because of interference at each moment of time. ;-)

I see no problem here. Existence of any particle may well be a
self-reinforcing feedback that spans the Universe. Maybe this is what spin
really is.

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

Let us stop here. The shadow of the Moon can show diffraction only in
case if there exists a source behind the Moon. The shadow itself says
of its presence. ;-) And I'm saying the same - that the light (photon)
can neither interfere nor diffract with itself.

The wave model of the photon says that it can. The experimental truth of
single particle diffraction says that it does. I think you are standing in
the air, and need to come back down to Earth.

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

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

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

What makes you stating what you will further disprove? See, you are
writing further so:

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

[Sergey]
What a weird particle is it that can interact but cannot be reflected?
;-) Problems with charge, problems with interaction, problems with
size... Aren't there too many problems for a flat ground? ;-)

To have one photon react with another photon is to transfer some momentum.
Since this deflects both photons, you don't call this "reflection", but
"collision". You cannot "reflect" yet another photon off the original
target, because its path is much changed.

Reflection is a word game, since absorption and reemission is required to
"reflect" light. This requires "fixed" charges, and light has none.

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

Disproven by experiment.

Where? When? May I see? Please refer me or send me a copy to my e-mail
box, can you?

I have provided a series of document numbers that can be found he
http://xxx.lanl.gov/
use the search and the document number.
0012132, 9807017, 9908315, 9912049, 0010012, 9708006, 0102019, 0111052,
0112020, 0205301, 0207181, 0210059

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

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

The point is not, what particular aspects GR and QM consider. Of
course, these theories have their questions, but the matter is, both
are based on one paradigm. GR needs the idea of photon, as it's unable
to explain without it the effect of 'black holes', and QM needs the
void space to substantiate the motion of photon particles without
deceleration. This is just the strong relation and symbiosis of these
theories.

GR does not require photons. Given photons, black holes can be said to
exist. Far from a black hole, space is expected to be unsurprising, curved
only by the mass distribution around an area of interest.

GR is a theory of mass/energy, space, and integration.

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

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

Well, photon cannot radiate, nor absorb. But my question was not of
applicability of Lorentz transform to GR and photons, but of the size
of photon! ;-) Please re-read above with ' '

I believe what the photon interactions that I provided links for shows is
that photons can absorb... each other.

The size to which I have been referring is the size perpendicular to its
line of motion. These "two axes" are not applicable to the Lorentz
transforms. What is in front of the photon it will not know until it is
there. What is behind the photon, it no longer cares. What is *here* (in
some sense) is what it cares about.

The width of the photon, such that one photon interacts with another,
is
very small... including zero width.

If photon has a finite and large length (multiple of wavelength),

No evidence this is the case.

if
photons have to 'catch up' each other to provide the necessary large
length of coherence,

No requirement of which I am aware that this is the case. Coherence is
created by the space the host of photons travel through until released.
The photons seem to be perfectly capable of becoming diffuse after release.

if the neighbouring photons have to correlate
their phase of propagation, then at 'zero' width we automatically come
to wave theory, as this is already not a particle but some wave line.
;-) Well, what about we debate?

If photons "hold on to each other" to become coherent, then why do laser
beams disperse?

If moreover we rerquire, such 'lines',
when interfering, to unify the intensities geometrically and to be not
reflecting from each other, this will be already a wave in material
space, and its parameters will be determined by the properties of this
space. From this point it's a short way to the aether.

The Universe is the aether, should one be required for an antiquated model.
And it is a rigid aether, since no photon or particle passing though it has
a marked effect beyond some arbitrary distance.

That does not, in my opinion, keep it
from being aware of geometries as wide as the Universe, and being
affected
by them.

Stating so, you are stating long-range interaction. ;-)

Actually, I am hinting that distance is a game invented by mass that we are
not required to play. "Long" range is not a requirement if the entire
Universe is represented at any particular point.

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

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

First, this was not the point. The point was, which part of wave
energy a photon bears within itself.

All of it. At each "point" along it "trajectory", it can be said to have
all of its energy located at its "center". As long as we speak of the
average member of a host.

Second, if you are speaking of
orientation, photon cannot change it arbitrarily, and photon in
superposition with another photon - can.

E is oriented one way for a half wavelength, then its magnitude is reversed
for the other half. I perhaps confused the issue using the word
"orientation". I don't like negative magnitudes, but math does not care.

....
Collision: an event where momentum is changed between two or more
particles
(DAS definition).

As far as I can remember, the total momentum of ensemble of particles
does conserve, but total intensity of ensemble of photons - doesn't.
;-)

Reflection: an event where a particle has one component of its momentum
reversed in sign, normal to a surface. Commonly the surface is
considered
to be unaffected.

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

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

In Russian, 'reflection' usually means some elastic interaction with
some massive obstacle, when it would be enough to consider only a body
or a wave falling onto this obstacle. And 'collision' (elastic and
non-elastic) we understand so that masses of bodies are comparable and
both (or more) bodies change their state of motion/rest. I hope, your
meaning is the same.

Roughly.

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

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

Yes - if we change the nature of inclination. But if your photon has
zero width... No, wave theory is not "only the words". QM compares its
results with the wave theory, not vice versa. ;-)

"My" photon does not have zero width. Nor does any other propagating
particle.

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

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

David, you should'n! When you want - you say so, when want opposite -
you say opposite! Photons in your interpretation already cannot
interact as electrons and buckyballs, as they have to have the shape
of boot laces. ;-) And the result of addition will be not
arithmetical, as in case of buckyballs, and no one observed photons
reflected one from another, and never will observe.

All particles have the same approximate shape. A tight "nucleus" beyond
which any interactions are reduced based on distance. For a photon,
"tight" is *really* tight.

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

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

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

I multiply said in different threads and you also have read that
photoelectric effect results from EM wave interaction with the
resonance system of atom,

You cannot describe the photoelectric effect *correctly* with resonance.
The electron energies are incorrect, the cutoff is not sharp, and the
electrons do not stop coming off when you significantly exceed resonance.
Therefore resonance, as classically defined, does not work. What you are
imagining might be convenient to a wave-only person, but you have no theory
behind your imaginaings.

and you cannot describe refraction with the
help of material particles of non-zero width. And what concern at all
the width has to refraction? ;-)

A billiard ball can be made to refract. So a particle can be made to
refract. If a particle can be made to refract, then the wave model is only
an abstraction applied to the behaviour of a host of particles which you
are too resource-challenged to calculate the "trajectories" for.


Wave descriptions are simply easier.

Not simply easier, it is consistent with experiments without any
'ifs'. ;-)

Except for the photoelectric effect. And the same experiments you mention
do not disallow a particle model.

....
Just the same as Caderholm experiment. ;-)

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

Sorry, David, in Caderholm experiment two independent masers
interfere, and their frequencies differ in Hertzs

The question to which you responded with "Caderholm" had to do with
self-interference. Caderholm is not an example of this.

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

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

If you are standing on the QM position, this will be not so. In view
of wave theory this is not so, too.

Any analogy will break down, if carried too far.

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

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

Oh, why so rude! ;-) Don't forget, Einsteinian ether is
phenomenological-virtual-mathematical entity. Perhaps you were
confused. ;-)

Einstein has no aether. SR has no aether. GR has no aether. LET has
aether. Maxwell started out with aether, but ended up not needing it.

....
And the "bulk
parameters" to which you refer are the way the Universe handles
very-low-energy-density effects (namely the passage of distant
photons)?

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

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

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

No, it wouldn't be. Don't forget, here we have to add geometrically.
If you average so, you will yield zero intensity.

They do at minima.

Lest to yield zero,
your photons have to correlate their phase. And with large distance
between them, you would never obtain coherent radiation. ;-)

You do not get coherence. You do get random distribution, which is why
"trajectory" of a quantum particle is a joke. The result of the host is a
pattern (perhaps what you mean by coherence in this case). So if the host
is aware of the geometry, then the individual members must be also.

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

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

I'm speaking not of courses but of phenomenology which you permanently
try to put aside. Mathematics 'works' in physics only in case if your
phenomenology has been substantiated correctly.

Then put your phenomenology to work and explain the photoelectric effect
using a wave model, and "resonance" if you wish.

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

Not true. E and H, for waves, are field "strength",

Hey, isn't the field strength a force affecting a single charge?

For a photon, it does affect a single charge... at emission and absorption.

Moreover, we are speaking in this paragraph not of photons but that SR
has to describe accelerated motions, and such attempts were
undertaken. But the fact that they were unsuccessful evidences SR
wrong.

SR is limited to frames where acceleration does not occur. So to apply it
to such situations, when it does not apply is "wrong".

A theory cannot describe only a part of process and think it
sufficient. By the way, mechanical interaction of material bodies also
has EM nature. ;-)

Use your wave model and describe the photoelectric effect. Else your
theory will be ascribed as being wrong.

and do not apply to
the acceleration of charged particles, unless you want to make the
issue
more complex. A photon interferes with itself, not with its EM field.

David, dear, you again!

And you wish to say?

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

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

Momentum and mass are different concepts. We see in the equations the
mass as the measure of inertia, not the momentum. Do you feel again
uncomfortable in your 'dress'? Does 'nothing' chafe you corns? ;-)

I suggest that the "volume" of any equipotential surface around a moving
charge is decreased as the charge's velocity is increased. Couldn't it be
possible that *this* is the reason a charge does not deflect as much?

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

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

Your dear habit. The problem is, not he decides but the consultants
which play not with cigars but with ambitions.

I have distrust of the system of politicians, and you distrust
"consultants". It amounts to the same, foolishness is what we have now.

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

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

Both GR and SR are 4D. Please don't debate this, or I will open the
textbooks.

If you assign x and t to the axes of motion, little effect is seen to the
axes y and z. Yes there are some situations where offsets in y and z can
amount to importance in x and t (multi-body problems). For the most part,
in the simplest ideas, it is limited to 2D. Argue if you feel you must.
Passage along x in SR ends up when done to passage along x. In curved
space, GR, passage along x and t can and must end up on axes x, t, and y
(and/or z).

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

I am a mechanical engineer.

Very nice. And I am an electrophysical engineer.

So you should be well capable of proving "resonance" capable of completely
describing the "photoelectric effect". I used resonance in school, and it
doesn't work. But you, out of thousands who have tried, might pull it off.

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

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

I said not of vacations but of solving the problems. It's very good
that you had vacations, especially if you enjoyed that time. I say, we
can achieve understanding only if we will attentively answer both
convenient and inconvenient questions.

The physicist then stops because he has made, according to Uncle Al, his
"Least Publishable Unit". I'm guessing then a physicists work is to make
bricks, that others can construct an edifice.

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

Perhaps each day is an investment for both of us?

One each day has an investment, another one each day is beaten up...

We are at the beach. I have not turned away. You say you can bridge with
resonance. I will see if your bridge keeps you dry. If you cannot swim I
will try and save you. I know you will get wet.

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

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

Really, if we ignore experimental results, it would be too close to
insanity.

Photoelectric effect. Resonance doesn't work. Ignore that, as you have
been.

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

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

Yes, actually, I'm permanently shifting. I solve new problems, obtain
new experimental corroborations and shift where they lead me. Do you
understand, what I'm saying? All what I say is based on rigorous
computations and corroborated by scrupulous experiments which we have
conducted in our laboratory. And you are saying what your teachers
told you. But in this thread I hadn't to shift a least, because I
still didn't hear from you convincing, substantiated answers. ;-) But
I would like much. Believe me, my wish is not to win or lose, as the
majority here thinks. I'm not striving to win and am not afraid to
lose, my wish is *to get to know*. For this sake I do what many people
don't like. But I don't see other way, as other way doesn't exist.

Good. We should work on shorter posts. Perhaps we need to start a smaller
more focussed one? Perhaps a different title. Just drop "dlzc" in there
(anywhere in the body) and I'll see it.

....
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.

However it would be very kind of you if you took more strongly the
thread of questions when answering. It appears that I'm saying of one
thing, and you are shunting the rails just under the locomotive. ;-)

Aikido.

If we were conversing on our ability to drive mathematics, you would be
conversing with someone other than me. I have not been able to use more
than a financial calculator in more than a year. So I discuss, or choose,
only those points you raise to which I have some contribution to make.
They are small and feeble, but they seem to make you very shaky. Perhaps
your foundation is weak?

David A. Smith