Mike Kaliski wrote:
The speed of light in a vacuum is currently the constant at which
present theory breaks down and yet particles have been observed
travelling in a manner that can only be explained if it is assumed they
have moved from one point to another at speeds greater than the speed of
light.

How does non-locality fit into the picture?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Feb 4, 7:13*am, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"AI4QJ" wrote in message

...







"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message
news:zPydneCHE5PB4TvanZ2dnUVZ8u-

While the speed of each beam relative to a stationary observer is 300,000
Km/s with both beams travelling in opposite directions, the combined
velocity relative to that stationary observer is 600,000 Km/s. Einstein
did state that from the point of view of someone or something travelling
with the beam the combined velocity of the two beams approaching
collision would appear to be 300,000 Km/s. Einstein was wrong on this
point because for a wavefront or beam propagating at the speed of light,
no time passes and therefore no velocity measurement is possible or has
any meaning in conventional terms.

Not true. The observer on light beam 1 is experiencing time in his own
frame of reference. As far as he is concerned, he is not moving. He
experiences normal time in his frame of reference. And, *he sees light
beam 2 coming to him at 3 X 10E8 meters/sec.

Clearly we are wasting a lot of time, effort and money in bothering to
build bigger particle accelerators (like at CERN) if the combined
collision velocities can never exceed 300,000 Km/s.

They are NOT attempting to exceed 3 X 10E8 meters/second!

Einstein (who is greatly over rated in my opinion) got a lot of stuff
right,

For the purpose of this discussion he got EVERYTHING right and his
theories have been proven time and time again.

but there are some pretty huge gaps in the theory, particularly where
values tend towards infinity. Hence the inability to deal with gravity, a
failure of the theory in dealing with black holes and an inability to
deal with super luminal velocities. Richard Feynman was a far better
theoretical physicist who actually invented ways of reconciling and
sidestepping some of the paradoxes inherent in Einstein's equations.

A black hole is not a paradox. It is simply enough mass such that its
escape velocity from its huge gravitational filed is greater than the
speed of light. What is so paradoxical about that? The only paradoxes that
arise in Einstein's equations occur when people make assumptions that
certain universal constants like the speed of light can become variables
and then the ridiculous paradoxes start to occur. If we try to change the
constant pi, wouldn't we get a lot of unrealistic calculations? Changing
the value of c is the same as trying to change pi.

Just as Einstein refined Newton's ideas, future physicists will regard
Einstein's theories the way we regard Newton's; a good approximation for
everyday use, but not a true description of the processes.

Maybe in 100 years or so. We are not even close to such a refinement right
now. Maybe we never will be.

How on earth did NASA get astronauts to the moon using just Newtonian
*mechanics? The mind boggles. *:-)

The moon is only 450,000 miles away. All velocities, distances and times
involved in a trip to the moon, or Mars, are as Newtonian as a trip on a
jet from London to New York. :-)

Last time I checked the moon was somewhat nearer to 250,000 miles away :-)


You're right. I was thinking of the round trip :-)

Richard Clark wrote:
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 01:02:43 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

but I doubt it really affects your somnolence after all these years.

Of course it doesn't. And the bulk of lurking readers, few-to-none
having sat through a literature course, could figure that out easily.
Dan, this is not a remarkable insight.

Dan's a nice enough guy, Richard, but some times a little slow on the
uptake (witness the consternation over my "speed of dark comment a while
back - honest, it was a joke 8^) I think it causes some misunderstanding
at times. Maybe if we just gave a little extra time?


Yes, I know, I disappoint my groupies, and with most of them absent
your disappointment is magnified out of proportion.


I'm still here! alleged 110 IQ and non-technical "degreed" in all my glory!

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Mike Kaliski wrote:
The speed of light in a vacuum is currently the constant at which present
theory breaks down and yet particles have been observed travelling in a
manner that can only be explained if it is assumed they have moved from
one point to another at speeds greater than the speed of light.

How does non-locality fit into the picture?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Hi Cecil

Non locality is another description of the phenomenon, or 'spooky action at
a distance' is another term that has been used. The instantaneous
interaction of entangled particles, no matter what the distance, follows as
a mathematical consequence of quantum theory.

These actions have been observed in laboratories but to date no one has come
up with an entirely satisfactory explanation for what is going on. Similar
weird observations in particle accelerators show particle tracks
disappearing and reappearing at some distance away. Richard Feynman touched
upon the possibilities of these events happening when he came up with
Feynman diagrams to describe the interaction of particles with photons.
Certainly at sub atomic scales, time appears to be somewhat elastic and
reversible under particular conditions.

I personally feel (with very little justification) that wave particle
duality breaks down if velocities exceed the speed of light and in the
absence of one or the other, an object effectively disappears from our
perception (and perhaps in effect from our universe).

Mike G0ULI

Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith wrote:
While I cannot dismiss the existence of the photons, I am not aware of
any experiments which have been able to measure them.

Hecht says: "... researchers ... have conducted experiments
in which they literally counted individual photons".

Hecht is quite correct. This is a standard technique in several areas of
physics research. I personally spent several years in my relative youth
designing, building, and using photon counting apparatus.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message
...

I personally feel (with very little justification) that wave particle
duality breaks down if velocities exceed the speed of light and in the
absence of one or the other, an object effectively disappears from our
perception (and perhaps in effect from our universe).

I believe that attempting to use FTL particles to explain certain
phenomena, or more likely, using certain phenomena to theorize FTL paricle
travel, is generally a practice reserved for non-physicists, science
fiction writers and the like. Almost any true, practicing physicist will
tell you that they and their colleagues don't believe in that stuff.
Sorry, the universe may be interesting but it isn't THAT interesting. Too
bad. The whole concept falls apart when causality comes into play. It is
not even a paradox; it is worse than that. If I initiate an event to cause
tachyons (or whatever you choose to call these FTL particles) to exist,
then the particles must have existed (and must be observed) before that
causation event which produced them was initiated. So what if you fully
intend to cause the event and then change your mind at the last moment and
decide not to cause it. How does your FTL particle know that you will not
push the button so it knows to refrain from existing? So, although there
is room in the special relativity theory for particles than can go no
slower than light (the other side of the hyperbola), causation prohibits
them from existing in the real world. If you were to believe in some
supreme controlling authoritiy who could predict whenever you would push
the button and make the particle appear, then it could be true. I am a bit
too agnostic for that, however...it would be the only expalantion for the
effect occuring prior to causation . This is reminiscent of the
faith-based science that certain English majors use here when saying "just
believe me, it's true; RF and acoustic waves interact. Why, it's a matter
of public knowledge!".

73 de AI4QJ

Sadly true!

The problem with FTL is that causality is a big issue. Some would have us
believe that the universe splits into two at every such event so that both
alternatives exist. That really does make the mind boggle.

My only suggestion to the causality problem is that time does not
necessarily progress in the same manner at quantum scales as it appears to
do for macro objects. It having been proven that the space time continuum is
warped by gravitation, with even the earth having a measurable effect, it
seems logical that time reversal or suspension at quantum scales would not
be beyond probability.

We just do not have the tools at present to prove any hypothesis, hence all
the theories... :-)

Cheers

Mike G0ULI

Gene Fuller wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Hecht says: "... researchers ... have conducted experiments
in which they literally counted individual photons".

Hecht is quite correct. This is a standard technique in several areas of
physics research. I personally spent several years in my relative youth
designing, building, and using photon counting apparatus.

Feynman talks a lot about when the waves get weaker,
the clicks from the detectors get farther apart, but
the intensity of each click doesn't get any weaker.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:20:27 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote:

Hecht says: "... researchers ... have conducted experiments
in which they literally counted individual photons".

Hecht is quite correct. This is a standard technique in several areas of
physics research. I personally spent several years in my relative youth
designing, building, and using photon counting apparatus.

Hi Gene,

I cannot ascribe its construction to my youth (having built it only 4
or 5 years ago), but I've got one sitting at my elbow that I use as a
random number (AKA white noise) generator. I'm using a Burle (nee
RCA) 931A, which isn't optimal, but still pumps out a flat spectrum to
at least 30MHz. It certainly works fine into my Audio Card.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Feb 2, 2:56 pm, K7ITM wrote:
....
Since this thread started on the premise that a photon is a particle,
which it clearly is not, what did you expect?


"A photon is not a particle."

For those who might seriously wonder why I would make such an
outrageous--some may say idiotic or insane--statement... For those
that haven't dismissed it as lunacy... Let me first point out that I
did NOT say that a photon isn't a quantum. Indeed, I believe that
everything physical in our universe is quantized. But I also believe
that until you really get to know photons (and electrons and neutrons
and various other things we can only sense and never see directly),
you are doing yourself a disservice by calling them by names like
"particle" or "wave." That is because, by thinking of them in that
way, as particles or as waves, you will miss seeing what they really
are. On the other hand, if you call a photon a "quantum of
electromagnetic energy," then you may wonder just what THAT is, and
may get interested enough to study it in the language that describes
it more accurately: the language of quantum theory or the language of
quantum electrodynamics.

I was asked for references. I would suggest as a starting point
Richard P. Feynman's lecture of April 3, 1962, which was an
introduction to quantum behavior. I think the whole of the lecture is
worthwhile, but especially the following paragraph:

" 'Quantum mechanics' is the description of the behavior of matter in
all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic
scale. Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have
any direct experience about. They do not behave like waves, they do
not behave like particles, they do not behave like clouds, or billiard
balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you have ever
seen."

In the lecture, he offers an example of an experiment that, he says,
you can NOT explain by using either waves or particles, but it's
explained completely and accurately through quantum mechanics. So why
talk about photons as if they are particles or as if they are waves,
when they behave in total like neither? Why not talk about them as if
they are quanta of electromagnetic radiation, which I believe they
are?

There's more about this in other Feynman lectures; there's lots more
about it in the many quantum mechanics texts that are available.
Although the word 'particle' may be used, I believe it's only through
something like quantum mechanics that we can hope to get an accurate
picture of how these entities (photons, electrons, mesons, pions,
etc.) behave.

The question gave me an excuse to refresh my memory about some books
on my own bookshelf:
V. Kondratyev, "The Structure of Atoms and Molecules."
M. W. Hanna, "Quantum Mechanics in Chemistry."
H. A. Kramers, "Quantum Mechanics."
H. G. Kuhn, "Atomic Spectra."
R. E. Dodd, "Chemical Spectroscopy."
In the context of this posting, I did not find in these books a
disagreement with the thought that a photon is not a particle.

You may notice a slight interest in photons there among those titles,
typically photons of shorter wavelength than we generally use on the
ham bands. If you're going to accuse me of not knowing anything about
them, perhaps you should get to know me a bit better first.

I'm quite sure I don't really completely know a photon, on its own
turf. Feynman in that same lecture told us that HE didn't either.
But I do know better than to claim it's either a "wave" OR a
"particle." There are plenty of times I don't have to deal with or
think about its quantized nature to get valid practical answers to
questions dealing with electromagnetic radiation, but there's also no
need to waste time discussing whether a photon is something or other
when it's clear that it's neither.

Cheers,
Tom
(aargh! no! they're coming to take me back to the asylum! HELP!
Now I won't be able to check if there are any responses to this
posting...)

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"K7ITM" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 2:56 pm, K7ITM wrote:
...
Since this thread started on the premise that a photon
is a particle,
which it clearly is not, what did you expect?


"A photon is not a particle."

For those who might seriously wonder why I would make
such an
outrageous--some may say idiotic or insane--statement...
For those
that haven't dismissed it as lunacy... Let me first
point out that I
did NOT say that a photon isn't a quantum. Indeed, I
believe that
everything physical in our universe is quantized. But I
also believe
that until you really get to know photons (and electrons
and neutrons
and various other things we can only sense and never see
directly),
you are doing yourself a disservice by calling them by
names like
"particle" or "wave." That is because, by thinking of
them in that
way, as particles or as waves, you will miss seeing what
they really
are. On the other hand, if you call a photon a "quantum
of
electromagnetic energy," then you may wonder just what
THAT is, and
may get interested enough to study it in the language
that describes
it more accurately: the language of quantum theory or
the language of
quantum electrodynamics.

I was asked for references. I would suggest as a
starting point
Richard P. Feynman's lecture of April 3, 1962, which was
an
introduction to quantum behavior. I think the whole of
the lecture is
worthwhile, but especially the following paragraph:

" 'Quantum mechanics' is the description of the behavior
of matter in
all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on
an atomic
scale. Things on a very small scale behave like nothing
that you have
any direct experience about. They do not behave like
waves, they do
not behave like particles, they do not behave like
clouds, or billiard
balls, or weights on springs, or like anything that you
have ever
seen."

In the lecture, he offers an example of an experiment
that, he says,
you can NOT explain by using either waves or particles,
but it's
explained completely and accurately through quantum
mechanics. So why
talk about photons as if they are particles or as if they
are waves,
when they behave in total like neither? Why not talk
about them as if
they are quanta of electromagnetic radiation, which I
believe they
are?

There's more about this in other Feynman lectures;
there's lots more
about it in the many quantum mechanics texts that are
available.
Although the word 'particle' may be used, I believe it's
only through
something like quantum mechanics that we can hope to get
an accurate
picture of how these entities (photons, electrons,
mesons, pions,
etc.) behave.

The question gave me an excuse to refresh my memory about
some books
on my own bookshelf:
V. Kondratyev, "The Structure of Atoms and Molecules."
M. W. Hanna, "Quantum Mechanics in Chemistry."
H. A. Kramers, "Quantum Mechanics."
H. G. Kuhn, "Atomic Spectra."
R. E. Dodd, "Chemical Spectroscopy."
In the context of this posting, I did not find in these
books a
disagreement with the thought that a photon is not a
particle.

You may notice a slight interest in photons there among
those titles,
typically photons of shorter wavelength than we generally
use on the
ham bands. If you're going to accuse me of not knowing
anything about
them, perhaps you should get to know me a bit better
first.

I'm quite sure I don't really completely know a photon,
on its own
turf. Feynman in that same lecture told us that HE
didn't either.
But I do know better than to claim it's either a "wave"
OR a
"particle." There are plenty of times I don't have to
deal with or
think about its quantized nature to get valid practical
answers to
questions dealing with electromagnetic radiation, but
there's also no
need to waste time discussing whether a photon is
something or other
when it's clear that it's neither.

Cheers,
Tom

Yes, it is a quantum that contains mass and energy.

If you want to call it a particle, you can make a
measurement that shows it behaves as a particle
(photoelectric effect).

If you want to call it a wave, you can make a measurement
that shows it behaves as a wave.

It is either or both, depending upon how you measure it. I
agree, it is really up for grabs.

Certainly there are many experiments that will prove it is
a quanta.

AI4QJ


-------------


I sometimes wonder if other species exist elsewhere that can
experience, through their own sensory receptors, what
quanta/quantum phenomenon really and truly are? Think of the
advantage they would have, assuming they had at least equal
intelligence to the human species.

Ed, NM2K