Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#25042 03/04/08 01:21 AM
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
B
benito Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
Optica!!!!!
Ben T. Ito
March 3, 2008


This paper will prove that light does not have a wave structure by showing that the descriptions and derivations that support wave theory are invalid.


1. Introduction


Huygens (1690) states that light propagates by the formation of partial waves produced by the disturbance of an Ethereal matter yet Huygens’ Ethereal matter does not physically exist. In addition, the majority of Huygens’ partial waves’ structures are destroyed when the wave front is constructed. Fresnel (1818) establishes the wave theory of light by describing diffraction using a wave interference mechanism but segments of Fresnel’s interfering waves are annihilated to form the dark fringes of the diffraction pattern which violates energy conservation.

Maxwell (1864) describes an electromagnetic transverse wave structure of light. The disturbance of an elastic medium forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic transverse wave structure of light yet Maxwell’s elastic medium does not physically exist. In addition, the energy of Maxwell’s wave structure of light is dependent on the frequency and amplitude which conflicts with Lenard’s photoelectric effect (1899) that implies light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency. Lenard’s photoelectric effect contradicts Maxwell’s wave theory of light.

Planck (1901) derives an energy element that is dependent on only the frequency using resonators (standing waves) yet all of Planck’s resonators are identical which implies that Planck’s energy element is monochromatic. Planck then uses the monochromatic energy element to derive a chromatic blackbody energy distribution law which is physically invalid. Einstein (1905) describes an energy quanta using Wien’s law. Einstein’s energy quanta contains gas molecule constants N and R but a gas molecule’s energy is dependent on the mass (m) and velocity (V) that variables are not included in Einstein’s energy quanta. Light is composed of mass-less particles that cannot be represented with gas molecules that have a mass. Einstein’s energy quanta is physically invalid.

In Einstein’s electrodynamics (1905), Maxwell-Hertz equations are used yet Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is based on an elastic medium that does not physically exist. Einstein’s electric and magnetic forces act upon matter yet Einstein states that the ether matter is superfluous. Einstein’s electrodynamics is physically invalid. String theory (1970) uses an oscillating string to represent a wave-particle structure of light but using the strings’ amplitudes to form the intensity of the diffraction pattern implies that the strings’ energy is dependent on the amplitude which conflicts with Lenard’s photoelectric effect. Oscillating strings cannot be used to describe the diffraction effect of light.


2. Huygens
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14725/14725-h/14725-h.htm

Huygens describes the propagation, and transmission-reflection mechanisms of light in “Treatise on Light” (1690). According to Huygens, light propagates by the formation of waves produced by the disturbance of an Ethereal matter.

“Now if one examines what this matter may be in which the movement coming from the luminous body is propagated, which I call Ethereal matter, one will see that it is not the same that serves for the propagation of Sound.” (Huygens, p.12)


The disturbance of the Ethereal matter forms Huygens’ wave structure of light. The formation of a wave structure of light requires a medium yet light propagates in a vacuum that is empty. Huygens’ wave theory of light is based on an Ethereal matter that does not physically exist.

Huygens implies that the Ethereal matter is real and describes the Ethereal matter (ether) with spherical balls (fig 1a,b).
“And it must be known that although the particles of the ether are not ranged thus in straight lines, as in our row of spheres, but confusedly, so that one of them touches several others, this does not hinder them from transmitting their movement and from spreading it always forward.” (Huygens, p. 16).

Huygens’ spherical ball representation, of the Ethereal matter (ether), is physically invalid since Huygens’ Ethereal matter does not physically exist.

In Huygens’ propagation mechanism, the wave front forms partial waves that are used to construct a new wave front (fig 2). The formation of the new wave front is used to represents the propagation of light.

“one of those comprised within the sphere DCF, will have made its particular or partial wave KCL, which will touch the wave DCF at C at the same moment that the principal wave emanating from the point A has arrived at DCF; and it is clear that it will be only the region C of the wave KCL which will touch the wave DCF, to wit, that which is in the straight line drawn through AB.” (Huygens, p. 20).

Only the far points of the partial waves’ structures are used to form the new wave front. The remaining and majority of the partial waves’ structures are arbitrarily destroyed. An enormous amount of the partial waves’ structures are created then destroyed in Huygens’ propagation mechanism of light which violates energy conservation.

In Huygens' transmission-reflection mechanism, surface waves originate from the transmission-reflection boundary surface. The far points of the surface waves are used to construct the reflection wave front. When the reflection wave front is constructed, the curvatures of the surface waves vary since the surface waves are propagating different distances due to the reflection angle (fig 3). The far points of the surface waves, with varying amplitudes do not form a constant amplitude reflection wave front (B-N). The same problem occurs with the construction of Huygens' transmission wave front (fig 4). Huygens’ transmission-reflection mechanism of light is physically invalid.

3. Fresnel

Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism is describe in “Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere” (1818).

“It follows from the principle of the superposition of small motions that the vibrations produced at any point in an elastic fluid by several disturbances are equal to the resultant of all the disturbances reaching this point at the same instant from different centres of vibration, whatever be their number.” (Fresnel, section 43, translated by Henry Crew).

The superposition of the small motions formed in an elastic fluid produce Fresnel’s interference effect yet Fresnel’s elastic fluid does not physically exist. Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism is based on an elastic fluid that does not physically exist.

Fresnel states that the interference of the diffracted secondary wavelets form the diffraction pattern but segments of Fresnel’s secondary wavelets’ structures are annihilated (destroyed) to form the dark fringes of the diffraction pattern which violate energy conservation.

The amplitudes of Fresnel’s interfering secondary wavelets are used to form the intensity of the diffraction pattern which implies that the energy of Fresnel’s secondary wavelets is dependent on the amplitude which conflicts with Lenard’s photoelectric effect that implies light is composed of particle that energy is dependent on only the frequency. Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism of light conflicts with the results of Lenard’s photoelectric effect.

4. Maxwell

In Maxwell’s paper “Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” (1864), Maxwell describes the propagation of light formed by the disturbance of an elastic medium.
“At the commencement of this paper we made use of the optical hypothesis of an elastic medium through which the vibration of light are propagated” (Maxwell, part VI).

Maxwell states that the vibration of light propagates through an elastic medium yet light propagates in a vacuum that is empty. Maxwell’s wave theory of light is based on an elastic medium that does not physically exist.

Maxwell states that the motion of the elastic medium forms an electromagnetic phenomena of light.

“it assumes that in that space there is matter in motion, by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced.” (Maxwell, intro).

The motion of the elastic medium (matter) produces Maxwell’s electromagnetic phenomena yet Maxwell’s elastic medium does not physically exist. Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory of light is based on an elastic medium that does not physically exist.

Maxwell implies that the disturbance of the elastic medium forms an electric transverse wave structure of light that can describe polarization.

“the disturbance at any point is transverse to the direction of propagation, and such waves may have all the properties of polarized light.” (Maxwell, part VI).

Maxwell’s transverse wave structure of light is formed by the motion of an elastic medium that does not physically exist. There is no experimental evidence of an elastic medium which forms Maxwell’s transverse wave structure of light. Maxwell’s transverse wave structure of light that is used to describe polarization is physically invalid.

Maxwell describes the propagation of light using an equation that contains the velocity variable V.

“(108) If the equation of propagation of light is

F = A cos {[2pi/L](z – Vt)}” (Maxwell, part VI)............. 1

Maxwell’s propagation equation (equ 1) cannot be used to represent the propagation of light since z – Vt = 0. Maxwell’s propagation equation is invalid.

Lenard’s photoelectric effect (1899) implies that light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency which conflicts with the energy of Maxwell’s wave structure of light that is dependent on the frequency and amplitude. Lenard’s photoelectric effect contradicts Maxwell’s wave theory of light.

5. Planck
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html


In Planck’s paper “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum” (1901), an energy element and energy distribution law are derived using electromagnetic resonators (standing waves) that are formed in a diathermic medium.

“the entropy of a resonator vibrating in
an arbitrary diathermic medium depends only on the variable U/v” (Planck, part 2).

Planck’s derivation of the energy element and energy distribution law is based on a diathermic medium that does not physically exist.

To form Planck’s resonator, Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation propagates perpendicular to the blackbody interior surfaces and resonates between the surfaces forming nodes at both surfaces. Dividing the length of a square box by the wavelength, an exact integer result represents the resonator structure that forms nodes at both surfaces. Example, a .4 mm square box can form 800nm and 500nm wavelength resonators of light. The wavelengths 421nm, 552nm, 643m, and 746nm do not form a resonator structure in a .4 mm square box. Planck’s resonator mechanism does not represent the chromatic spectrum of light emitted by the blackbody radiation effect.

In Planck’s blackbody derivation, all of Planck’s resonators are identical (fig 11).

“a large number N of identical resonators, situated in the same stationary radiation field, and which are sufficiently separated so as not to influence each other directly. It is in this sense that we shall refer to the average energy U of a single resonator. Then to the total energy


UN = NU” (Planck, part 2)........... 2


“Let us call each such part the energy element ĺ; consequently we must set


UN = Pε..................... 3


where P represents a large integer generally, while the value of ε is yet uncertain.” (Planck, Part 1).

In Planck’s derivation, all the resonators are identical which implies that Planck energy element is monochromatic yet light emitted by the blackbody radiation effect is chromatic. The derivation of Planck’s monochromatic energy element is physically invalid.

Planck derives an entropy equation that is a function of U/ε using Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy equation (Planck, Part 1),


SN = k log W + constant,............ 4


and combination theory,

S = f(U/ε) = k{(1 + U/ε) log (1 + U/ε) – (U/ε) log (U/ε)}..............5

Equating equation 2 and 3,

U/ε = P/N............... 6

Planck states that N and P are constants which implies that U/ε is a constant. Planck’s entropy equation (equ 5) that states that U/ε is a variable is invalid. The derivation of Planck energy element using the entropy equation (equ 10) is mathematically invalid.

Planck’s energy element ε is derived using Wien’s law.

§10. If we apply Wien's displacement law in the latter form to equation (10) for the entropy S, we then find that the energy element ε must be proportional to the frequency v, thus:


ε = hv” (Planck, part II)............... 7

Planck uses Wien’s law that uses thermodynamics to describe electromagnetic radiation yet a gas molecule’s energy is dependent on the mass (m) and velocity (V) that variables are not included in Planck’s energy element. Light is energy that is mass-less. A gas molecule has a mass. Gas molecules cannot be used to describe the mass-less particles that compose light. Planck’s derivation of the energy element is invalid.

Planck’s chromatic blackbody energy distribution law is derived. Inserting the energy element (equ 7) in Planck’s entropy equation ( equ 5) then differentiating using 1/T = dS/dU forms,

1/T = (k/hv)log (1 + hv/U)................. 8

Rearranging equation 8 then using the exponential (Planck, part 2),

1
U = ------------------........... 9
e^(hv/kT) - 1 .


Planck’s blackbody energy distribution law u is derived using equation 9,

1
u = kv^3 ------------------............ 10
e^(hv/kT) - 1 .


All of the resonators (standing waves), in Planck’s derivation are identical which implies that the energy element is monochromatic. Planck uses a monochromatic energy element to derive a chromatic energy distribution law which is physically invalid since the light that is emitted by the blackbody radiation effect is chromatic. The derivation of Planck’s chromatic energy distribution law using Planck’s monochromatic energy element (equ 18) is physically invalid.

6. Einstein Energy Quanta
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/AeReserveArticles/eins_lq.pdf


In Einstein’s paper, “On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light” (1905), Einstein describes an energy quanta. Wien’s blackbody absorption equation,

p = af^3 e^(-[βf]/T),................... 11

is used to derive a blackbody entropy equation (Einstein, part 4),

S – S’ = [E/(βf)] ln(v/v’)................... 12

Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy equation is described (Einstein, part 5),

S – S’ = R/N ln W................ 13

Einstein states that the entropies of monochromatic radiation and perfect gas are equivalent,

“This equation shows that the entropy of a monochromatic radiation of sufficiently small density varies with volume according to the same rules as the entropy of a perfect gas or of a dilute solution.” (Einstein, part 4).

Einstein’s energy quanta is derived using Wien’s law,

“Monochromatic radiation of low density behaves--as long as Wien’s radiation formula is valid--in a thermodynamic sense, as if it consisted of mutually independent energy quanta of magnitude Rβf/N.” (Einstein, pt 6).


ε = Rβf/N.................... 14

Einstein uses Wien’s law that describes monochromatic radiation with thermodynamics. Einstein’s energy quanta Rβf/N contains gas molecule constants R and N but the energy of a gas molecule is also dependent on the mass (m) and velocity (V) which variables are not included in Einstein’s energy quanta. Light is energy that is mass-less. A gas molecule has a mass. Gas molecules that have a mass cannot be used to describe the mass-less particles that compose light. Einstein’s energy quanta is physically invalid.

7. Einstein Electrodynamics
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www


In Einstein’s electrodynamics paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905), Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is implied.
“Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations For Empty Space.

On the Nature of the Electromotive Force Occurring in a Magnetic
Field During Motion


1 dX dN dM 1 dL dY dZ
-- ---- = ----- - ----- -- ---- = ----- - ----- 15a,b
c dt dy dz c dt dz dy


1 dY dL dN 1 dM dZ dX
-- ---- = ----- - ----- -- ----- = ----- - ----- 16a,b
c dt dz dx c dt dx dz


1 dX dM dL 1 dN dX dY
-- ---- = ----- - ----- -- ----- = ----- - ----- 17a,b
c dt dx dy c dt dy dx



where (X, Y, Z) denotes the vector of the electric force, and (L, M, N) that of the magnetic force.” (Einstein*, part 6).

Einstein uses Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory that is based on an elastic medium. Einstein states that the elastic medium (ether) is superfluous,

“The introduction of a “luminiferous ether”' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.” (Einstein*, intro).

Einstein states that the electromagnetic process forms in empty space which conflicts with Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory where the motion of the elastic medium forms the electromagnetic phenomena (Maxwell, intro). Einstein’s electrodynamics conflicts with Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory of light.

Einstein’s electric and magnetic force vectors are transformed into a moving coordinate system, (X’, Y’, Z’) and (L’, M’, N’),


X’ = X,.......... Y’ = β[Y + (v/c)N], .......... Z’ = β[Z + (v/c)M], .......... 18a,b,c

L’ = L,......... M’ = β[M + (v/c)Z],.......... N’ = β[N + (v/c)Y]............. 19a,b,c

where (Einstein*, part 6),
1
β = --------------------------- 20
[1 - (v^2/c^2)]^(1/2).


Einstein states that ether matter is superfluous (obsolete) and that the electromagnetic process is formed in empty space which is physically invalid since forces act upon matter. Einstein’s moving coordinate system electric and magnetic forces are physically invalid.

8. String Theory

String theory implies a wave-particle structure of light that can be used in Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism but using the strings’ amplitudes, to form the intensity of the diffraction pattern suggests that the strings’ energy is dependent on the amplitude which conflicts with Lenard’s photoelectric effect that implies light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency. The oscillating strings’ amplitudes cannot be used to describe the diffraction effect of light which is the foundation of the wave theory of light. The string theory of light is physically invalid.

9. Conclusion

The wave theory is based on a medium (ether) that does not physically exist. Huygens, Fresnel, Maxwell and Planck use a medium (Ethereal matter, elastic fluid, elastic medium, diathermic medium) that do not physically exist to imply a wave structure of light that is formed by the motion of a medium yet there is no physical evidence of a medium that forms the wave structure of light. Vacuum is empty and does not contain a medium that is required in forming a wave structure of light. Modern physicists ignore the non-existence of the ether and accept the wave theory of light. This and numerous additional violations of logic are required in maintaining the wave theory of light.

Fresnel establishes the wave theory of light by describing the diffraction effect of light using a wave interference mechanism that uses the waves’ amplitudes to form the intensity of the diffraction effect of light which suggests that the energy of light is dependent on the wave amplitude which conflicts with Lenard’s photoelectric effect that implies that light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency. Lenard’s photoelectric effect conflicts with Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism which is the foundation of the wave theory of light.

Maxwell describes an electromagnetic transverse wave structure of light. The disturbance of an elastic medium forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic transverse wave structure of light yet Maxwell’s elastic medium does not physically exist. In addition, the energy of an electromagnetic wave structure of light is dependent on the frequency and amplitude which conflicts with Lenard’s photoelectric effect.

Planck derives an energy element that is dependent on only the frequency using resonators (standing waves) yet all of Planck’s resonators are identical which implies that Planck’s energy element is monochromatic. Planck then uses the monochromatic energy element to derive a chromatic blackbody energy distribution law which is physically invalid.

Einstein describes an energy quanta using Wien’s law. Einstein’s energy quanta contains gas molecule constants N and R but a gas molecule’s energy is dependent on the mass (m) and velocity (V) that variables are not included in Einstein’s energy quanta. Einstein’s energy quanta is physically invalid.

String theory implies a wave-particle structure of light that can be used in Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism but using the strings’ amplitudes, to form the intensity of the diffraction pattern implies that the strings’ energy is dependent on the amplitude which conflicts with Lenard’s photoelectric effect that implies light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency. The oscillating strings’ amplitudes cannot be used to describe the diffraction effect of light which is the foundation of the wave theory of light. Global Warming


10. References

Einstein, Albert. “On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light”. Annalen der Physik. 17: 132-148. 1905.
http://lorentz.phl.jhu.edu/AnnusMirabilis/AeReserveArticles/eins_lq.pdf

Einstein*, Albert. “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. Annalen der Physik. 17: 891-921. 1905.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www

Fresnel, Augustin. "Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere". French Academy of Science. 1818.

Huygens, Christiann. “Treatise on Light”. French Academy of Science. 1690. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14725/14725-h/14725-h.htm

Huygens, Christiann. Treatise on Light. ebook. Translated by Silvanus P. Thompson. 2005.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14725/14725-h/14725-h.htm

Lenard, Philipp. Annalen der Physik. 8: 149 – 198. 1902.

Maxwell, James. “Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field”. Royal Society Transactions. volume CLV. 1864.

Niven, W. D. "The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell". Dover Pub. 1994.

Nye, Mary Jo. “The Question of the Atom”. Tomash Pub. 1984.

Planck, Max. “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum”. Annalen der Physik. IV, 4: 553-563. 1901.
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html

Wien, Wilhelm. Proceedings of the Imperial Academy of Science, Berlin. p.55. 1893.



Judi Bari........................ Quran



.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
"This paper will prove that the wave-particle duality theory of light is invalid."

Don't you think it's folly to attempt to base 'proof' on flaws in the theories extant over 100 years ago?

"The formation of a wave structure of light requires a medium."

This is quite a succinct answer:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a10926.html
___

I notice that you posted a very similar copy of this two years ago on Physorg Forums

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5886

and on

http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/2092.html

Have you made any headway with it over the two years? smile

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
I'm not sure if this below originated from this Optica thread, but it is something that is the fault of the lost server stuff in Jan.
Originally Posted By: binito
-excerpted back in Dec.? P.S.
a) SRT is a right theory .
But " Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
b) Our planet Earth is home for us.
We live and act in this planet.
And " Minkowski space " is home for SRT.
All SRT particles live and act in this
" 4-D negative continuum - Minkowski space " .
But nobody knows what " Minkowski space " is.
c) These two ideas are mixed together and therefore
the interpretation of physics is paradoxical.
========= ===========
SRT has only one space - “Minkowski space “.
But in 1915 Einstein put a “ MASS “ in the
“Minkowski space “ and it curved.
In 1921 A. Freedman put “ TIME “ in the
“Minkowski space “ and it also curved.
And Einstein had to agree with Freedman’s idea.
What is the reason of “Minkowski space “ change?
==========
If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
beginning of his calculations then after some
operations it grows into a big one.
And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
then now we are surprised with its paradoxes………
……and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
but the result will be the same - paradoxical.

It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.

“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space"
- said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D,
8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it.
But the doubts still remain.
"OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem.
We must create more complex D spaces".
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But……….
But there is one problem.
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.


Then ...............
The atheist will say : " There isn’t any God. There is only
big band which destroyed all “D- spaces” and therefore
we see background radiation T=2,7K now."
And religious man will say: " The God exists.
He sits at his “ D- home” and plays with all things.
For example.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
I don’t know who is right.
But I came to conclusion:
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
I will never gather my harvest . Because if I plant ,
for example, an electron I will get ……a positron, ….
…..quark,…baryon,…boson,…..meson,…muon,…..tau,....
.....D- spaces …. and in the future centaurs and sphinxes."

What a beautifully composed, elegantly written, and comprehensively stated summary of our current understanding.

Your simple summary of the history, "It began in 1905 when Einstein created...." is perfect; and it should be mandatory for all high school students!
...also it's been several years since I've heard a reference to Minkowski space. Thanks!
Your analysis of the source of the paradox is perfect also. Over a year ago I was writing contemptuously about how we meekly accept this "400 year old Law!" It must be understood in spatial terms; not as a "force."

I'd love to say more (maybe later) and ask about one minor flaw (IMO -273 K), but for now let me just encourage others to read your post above; and realize also that your Final Truth, "If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists, I will never gather my harvest," remains true even as both the secular and sacred views that you have illustrated are shown to be "right" views (or translations) of that unifying fundamental, universal origin or basis. A choice is not needed, if you know both can be right.
wink


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
B
benito Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
redewenu: "Don't you think it's folly to attempt to base proof on flaws in the theories over 100 years old?"

Ben: Yes, if these theories are still being used today. You're heard of Planck and Einstein?

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
B
benito Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
Samwik: a) SRT is a right theory.


Ben: Einstein's electrodynamics (special relativity) forms an electric and magnetic force vectors. Force implies matter yet Einstein states that the electromagnetic processes are formed in empty space. Einstein's forces cannot affect empty space to form an electromagnetic structure. Einstein's SRT is invalid.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
B
benito Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
Dr. swdki: What a beautifully composed, elegantly written, and comprehensively stated summary of our current understanding. Your simple summary of the history, is perfect. Thanks! Your analysis of the source of the paradox is perfect also. Over a year ago I was writing contemptuously about how we meekly accept this "300 year old Law!"

I'd love to say more (maybe later) and ask about one minor flaw, but for now let me just encourage others to read your paper "Optica"; and realize also that your Final Truth, "If a farmer, thinks like modern physicists, he will never gather a harvest," remains true.

Last edited by benito; 03/28/08 10:01 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Einstein's SRT is invalid."
Spamming a lot of science-related fora on the Internet with the same message doesn't make it true.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: benito
redewenu: "Don't you think it's folly to attempt to base proof on flaws in the theories over 100 years old?"

Ben: Yes, if these theories are still being used today. You're heard of Planck and Einstein?

Such rhetoric, Ben? Be that as it may, TFF has stated the issue adequately.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
B
benito Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
TheFall: "Einstein's SRT is invalid." Spamming a lot of science-related fora on the Internet with the same message doesn't make it true.

Ben: Einstein's electrodynamics (special relativity) forms an electric and magnetic force vectors. Force implies matter yet Einstein states that the electromagnetic processes are formed in empty space. Einstein's forces cannot affect empty space to form an electromagnetic structure.

Can you make the preceeding statement untrue? Big Guy (superstar).

Last edited by benito; 03/30/08 01:17 AM.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
B
benito Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
Ben: Sorry, redewenur, for being dumb but whats TFF. I looked on the internet search and I cannot find anything. Thanks.

Last edited by benito; 03/30/08 01:06 AM.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
It's common practice on SAGG to use initials rather than full names. TFF = TheFallibleFiend smile

I don't wish to come across as offensive in my criticism. It's just not clear to me why you are so opposed to the concept of electromagnetic radiation propagating through empty space.

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
B
benito Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
Ben: Einstein states that the electromagnetic processes form in empty space which is different from electromagnetic radiation propagating through empty space. Forming an electromagnetic field structure using forces that affect empty space is illogical. I am opposed to illogical theory. I hope that it is also true with someone as intelligent as yourself.

Last edited by benito; 03/30/08 01:34 AM.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Well thank you, Ben...but seriously, the logic of an issue is dependent upon an adequate grasp of all the relevant facts. Clearly, you are convinced that you have that grasp. It's quite possible, given time and effort, that you could even convince people like me - but can you convince a first rate physicist? Indeed, have you managed to do so?

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
B
benito Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
B
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 22
A First rate physicist, in the last 100 years, has to have said something about.

Einstein's electrodynamics (special relativity) forms an electric and magnetic force vectors. Force implies matter yet Einstein states that the electromagnetic processes are formed in empty space. Einstein's forces cannot affect empty space to form an electromagnetic structure.

Last edited by benito; 03/31/08 03:56 AM.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 97
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 97
such a long 'proof' yet the double slit experiment wasn't mentioned even once. shame, thats one of the most controversial experiments in my opinion, feel that if one wants to prove what light is/isn't, this experiment should be at least mentioned.


seize the day
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
The double slit experiment for light is controversial? I hadn't realised. Tell us more, bfp.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 97
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 97
double slit experiment:
in support of the wave theory for light, when you shine a beam of light on the two slits, you get a wave interference pattern(multiple lines, varying in intensity away from the center) so the photons interferes with themselves, behaving as waves...

when they ejected a single photon toward the slits at a time, repetitively, the SAME pattern(wave interference) was made; so if indeed light was composed of particles, then the pattern made in this experiment would be just two lines, instead, there was a wave interference pattern, nobody(as far as i've seen) can explain this

...this isn't all though, when they set up measurement equipment to determine which slit the photon went through, the pattern changes, you dont get the wave interference pattern anymore, the photons act as particles and a pattern of two stripes is made...

so you see... what is it that determines when photons behave as particles or as waves?


seize the day
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Yes, bfp, the act of observing collapses the probability wave.

But you haven't described a controversy.

Are you, perhaps, referring not to the experiment itself but rather to the multiverse explanation of David Deutch, by which he accounts for superposition?

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 97
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 97
if light was it should behave like a particle, and i wasn't referring to the multi-verse theory

could you explain more about how the act of observing would collapse the probability wave; cause light to behave as a particle rather than a wave


seize the day
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
No, bfp, I can't explain more about that. No one knows how the act of observing causes the collapse. In other words, although they know about the law of quantum complementarity, they don't know why it exists. The experiment itself is not controversial, yet there is no explanation for the results in terms of classical physics.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂţ»­ľW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5