Waves vs Particles
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:30:46 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:40:13 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a chance
to recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ


Oh, crap, Daniel. Roy did not say free space was = 1 ohm. Look back and
read:

You said:
" I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a
permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-) "

Roy said:
"I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability.

The characteristic impedance is the square root of permeability divided
by permittivity, so if both are one, the characteristic impedance would
have to be one."

Get it? He is saying that the permeability and the permittivity of space can
not = 1 because if they were, then the intrinsic impedance of space would be
= 1 because the intrinsic impedance of space is actually Zo =
sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

The correct values were posted earlier in this thread. You can verify them
for yourself using your favorite source. But don't confuse them with
relative permeability/permittivity.


John

Waves vs Particles
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"K7ITM" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 2:47 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:00:34 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you
has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this
groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms
and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm?
You still have a chance to recover your cred, bro.

Have you been reading any of this?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hahahahaha! Thanks, Richard! ;-) I'd been wondering that myself.

This, from an alleged guru who has been able to rewrite quantum theory and
disprove maxwell planc and Neils Bohr and state that a photon is not a
particle. He claims he can follow a discussion and actually follow a
thread with Richard Clark involved in it? All this is happening whilst
Richard C. is still trying to sort out how RF EM waves and acoustic sound
waves interact with each other. Of course, all this is going on with
neither knowing what the characteristic impedance of free space is or what
it implies. I need to make the following reality check: This group is
entitle rec.radio.AMATEUR.antenna so discussing technical issues with
these two is akin to discussing evolution theory with the late Jerry
Falwell. Still I find it quite amazing.
Or Jerry Springer?

Waves vs Particles
 

John KD5YI wrote:

According to "Reference Data for Radio Engineers", published by
International Telephone and Telegraph, fourth edition, page 35:

"Properties of Free Space"

Permeability = 1.257 * 10^-6 henry per meter.
Permittivity = 8.85 * 10^-12 farad per meter.

Characteristic impedance = sqrt(Permeability/Permittivity) = 376.7 ohms

John

My earlier citations of reputable sources were denounced as being an
intentional insult. I see that yours is simply being ignored. Perhaps
that's progress?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377 Ohms
and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a chance to
recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ

Earlier you implied that I was promoting the superposition of power. Now
you're saying that I claimed the intrinsic impedance of free space is
one ohm. Where are you coming up with this stuff? And why?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Waves vs Particles
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:57:50 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I assume you made a typo when you say cv; you meant vc.

He didn't. It is most common and evident (meaning you can trust your
eyes this time) in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors.

Richard, per your comment above you agree then to the possibility of a
case where the vc. Tell me, what kind of particle or wave can have a
velocity faster than the speed of light? Perhaps you are discussing
tachyons? ;-) Do you believe in universal constants such as the speed of
light?

73 de AI4QJ


It is clearly possible for certain events to happen at speeds greater than
the speed of light in a vacuum, or any other material for that matter. It is
relatively trivial to accelerate electrons and other charged atomic
particles to speeds approaching the speed of light (in a vacuum). If the
particles in two such beams are collided head on, clearly the impact
velocity will be something just below 600,000 Km per second, or just under
twice the speed of light.

The resulting atomic debris and energy generated in such collisions are
keenly studied by physicists eager to probe the limits of physical science.
Neither set of particles are exceeding the speed of light and yet any
collisions must take place at velocities greater than the speed of light.
The speed of light is a fundamental physical limit against which other
phenomena may be measured. It is not necessarily a barrier which cannot be
exceeded under any circumstances. There is ample experimental evidence to
suggest that faster than light phenomena do exist. The most compelling
evidence to date coming from experiments involving entangled particles and
quantum encryption techniques.

Mike G0ULI

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 18:33:00 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I assume you made a typo when you say cv; you meant vc.

He didn't. It is most common and evident (meaning you can trust your
eyes this time) in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors.

Richard, per your comment above you agree then to the possibility of a case
where the vc.

When I review the content which you quote from me (complete to all my
statements), yes it appears that I said that. Those two words would
seem to be terse enough not to be equivocal. Question is, having
offered it twice now, are you going to ask me again if I said it?

And specifically, it is not a "possibility" such that it is arguable,
it is a certainty. Also within the quote above is a very common
instance cited that can be easily verified or rejected on the basis of
fact - if you check facts that is.

This topic must be in the scope of your earlier claim about taking me
head to head on Physics and emerging best. A poor fool such as I with
a simple English degree should be easy to champion over. You should
be able to re-parse your earlier question into a match draw. If not,
read more Cecil to refine your technique.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a
chance to recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ

Earlier you implied that I was promoting the superposition of power. Now
you're saying that I claimed the intrinsic impedance of free space is
one ohm. Where are you coming up with this stuff? And why?

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Hi Roy!

I've been away from the list for a few months, and I've been catching up
the last few days. Who is this new whacko? Is he Art with a different
name? I'm guessing no, since his style of attack is much more
primitive, but I had to ask. He is kind of funny in a weird way, but
I'm guessing that wears off quickly.

Hope you've been well.

tom
K0TAR

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:57:50 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I assume you made a typo when you say cv; you meant vc.
He didn't. It is most common and evident (meaning you can trust your
eyes this time) in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors.

Richard, per your comment above you agree then to the possibility of a case
where the vc. Tell me, what kind of particle or wave can have a velocity
faster than the speed of light? Perhaps you are discussing tachyons? ;-) Do
you believe in universal constants such as the speed of light?

73 de AI4QJ



The particles exit the radioactive substance at just a smidge less than
c in a vacuum, and enter water which has a value of c much lower than c
in a vacuum. They then produce a wonderful blue glow because they are
breaking the speed limit.

Here is a page with a relatively simple explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

I breathlessly await your response.

tom
K0TAR

Waves vs Particles
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Mike Kaliski" wrote in message
...

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:57:50 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I assume you made a typo when you say cv; you meant vc.

He didn't. It is most common and evident (meaning you can trust your
eyes this time) in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors.

Richard, per your comment above you agree then to the possibility of a
case where the vc. Tell me, what kind of particle or wave can have a
velocity faster than the speed of light? Perhaps you are discussing
tachyons? ;-) Do you believe in universal constants such as the speed of
light?

73 de AI4QJ


It is clearly possible for certain events to happen at speeds greater
than the speed of light in a vacuum,

True, but these "events" would not include travelling 3 X 10E8 meyers in
less than one second.

or any other material for that matter. It is relatively trivial to
accelerate electrons and other charged atomic particles to speeds
approaching the speed of light (in a vacuum).

Well, not trivial but possible. It happens in nature with mu-mesons
(cosmic rays). But you were careful to say "approaching" the speed of
light.

If the particles in two such beams are collided head on, clearly the
impact velocity will be something just below 600,000 Km per second, or
just under twice the speed of light.

Have you ever read about the theory of relativity? GONG! The speed of each
beam relative to the other is still 3 X 10E8 meters/sec. Sorry but you
just betrayed your lack of knowledge of that theory. Einstien
disprovedwhat you said in 1905 but take comfort in the fact that it was
difficult to comprehend at the time. The speed of liht relative to any
reference point is a universal constant, c = 3 X 10E8.


Well you are kind of right, but see below...

The resulting atomic debris and energy generated in such collisions are
keenly studied by physicists eager to probe the limits of physical
science. Neither set of particles are exceeding the speed of light and
yet any collisions must take place at velocities greater than the speed
of light. The speed of light is a fundamental physical limit against
which other phenomena may be measured. It is not necessarily a barrier
which cannot be exceeded under any circumstances. There is ample
experimental evidence to suggest that faster than light phenomena do
exist. The most compelling evidence to date coming from experiments
involving entangled particles and quantum encryption techniques.

Arthur, where are you????



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. 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.

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

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

Mike G0ULI

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:

"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:

According to "Reference Data for Radio Engineers", published by
International Telephone and Telegraph, fourth edition, page 35:

"Properties of Free Space"

Permeability = 1.257 * 10^-6 henry per meter.
Permittivity = 8.85 * 10^-12 farad per meter.

Characteristic impedance = sqrt(Permeability/Permittivity) = 376.7 ohms

John

My earlier citations of reputable sources were denounced as being an
intentional insult. I see that yours is simply being ignored. Perhaps
that's progress?

Well, he is correct, you were wrong with your SQRT(1/1) = Zo = 1. If you use
his values, you will get the proper value (377 Ohms) so he is correct. Glad
you finally saw the light.

WTF are you talking about?

In Roy's original post were the words "if" and "then", which all the knee
jerking twits seemed to have missed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Waves vs Particles
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"John KD5YI" wrote in message
news:7Yspj.6126$M71.3@trnddc08...
"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:30:46 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:40:13 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a chance
to recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ


Oh, crap, Daniel. Roy did not say free space was = 1 ohm. Look back and
read:

You said:
" I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a
permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-) "

Roy said:
"I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability.

The characteristic impedance is the square root of permeability divided
by permittivity, so if both are one, the characteristic impedance would
have to be one."

Get it? He is saying that the permeability and the permittivity of space
can not = 1 because if they were, then the intrinsic impedance of space
would be = 1 because the intrinsic impedance of space is actually Zo =
sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

No, he said it would gave to be one, so it is one.



Oh, crap, Daniel!

No! He said, "...if both are one, the characteristic impedance would
have to be one." He is saying that, if what YOU say is true (the
permittivity and permeability of free space is one), then that would force
the Zo of free space to one because Zo = sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

Note that he said IF. Pay attention!

John

Waves vs Particles
 

"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"John KD5YI" wrote in message
news:7Yspj.6126$M71.3@trnddc08...
"AI4QJ" wrote in message
...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:30:46 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:40:13 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a chance
to recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ


Oh, crap, Daniel. Roy did not say free space was = 1 ohm. Look back and
read:

You said:
" I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a
permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-) "

Roy said:
"I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability.

The characteristic impedance is the square root of permeability divided
by permittivity, so if both are one, the characteristic impedance would
have to be one."

Get it? He is saying that the permeability and the permittivity of space
can not = 1 because if they were, then the intrinsic impedance of space
would be = 1 because the intrinsic impedance of space is actually Zo =
sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

No, he said it would gave to be one, so it is one.


No, YOU'RE the one who said it is one. You are the one who said the
permittivity and permeability of free space = 1 (go read and understand your
own post). Now plug your ones into: Zo = sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

John

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:

Hi Tom!

Welcome to my PLONK file. Suggest you do the same.
73 de AI4QJ

If he's plonking me for that, he won't be here long.

Which is a GOOD THING!

tom
K0TAR

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...
John KD5YI wrote:
According to "Reference Data for Radio Engineers", published by
International Telephone and Telegraph, fourth edition, page 35:

"Properties of Free Space"

Permeability = 1.257 * 10^-6 henry per meter.
Permittivity = 8.85 * 10^-12 farad per meter.

Characteristic impedance = sqrt(Permeability/Permittivity) = 376.7 ohms

John
My earlier citations of reputable sources were denounced as being an
intentional insult. I see that yours is simply being ignored. Perhaps
that's progress?

Well, he is correct, you were wrong with your SQRT(1/1) = Zo = 1. If you use
his values, you will get the proper value (377 Ohms) so he is correct. Glad
you finally saw the light.

Anyone reviewing the previous few postings on this topic surely must
feel he's dropped down a rabbit hole. I certainly do.

I've got to plonk this guy so I don't waste any more time on this sort
of silliness.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Waves vs Particles
 

Roy Lewallen wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377
Ohms and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm? You still have a
chance to recover your cred, bro.

73 de AI4QJ

Earlier you implied that I was promoting the superposition of power. Now
you're saying that I claimed the intrinsic impedance of free space is
one ohm. Where are you coming up with this stuff? And why?

Please ignore the question. I won't see your response, or any other
postings you make.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Waves vs Particles
 

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 02:57:53 GMT, "John KD5YI"
wrote:

No! He said, "...if both are one, the characteristic impedance would
have to be one." He is saying that, if what YOU say is true (the
permittivity and permeability of free space is one), then that would force
the Zo of free space to one because Zo = sqrt(permeability/permittivity).

Note that he said IF. Pay attention!

"All these you may avoid but the Lie Direct; and you may avoid
that too with an If. I knew when seven justices could not take up
a quarrel; but when the parties were met themselves, one of them
thought but of an If, as:
'If you said so, then I said so.'
And they shook hands, and swore brothers.

"Your If is the only peace-maker; much virtue in If."

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 22:58:49 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

You
appear to agree to the possibility that the universal constant c can be
exceeded, at least in nuclear cooling pools.

So, this is the third time I have to point out that two words were
unequivocal? As one of my groupies, you are the most devoted follower
of my posts currently.

I do not believe that any wave or any particle can exceed the speed of
light.

That is clearly evident.

I am too
old and too attached to Einstein's theory of General relativity to "Check
the facts" as you suggest.

Again, clearly evident. You are standing on the wrong street corner
for this parade.

I actually minored in English. When one participates in a baccalaureate
degree program at an actual "university", the BS curriculum requires a minor
in the arts. This means I understand to some degree where you are coming
from.

20 hours on your minor are not evident - not even by degree. Let's
perform some simple deconstruction on
"You appear to agree to the possibility..."
in response to an explicit and unequivocal:
"It is most common and evident
(meaning you can trust your eyes this time)
in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors."
Parentheticals aside, my two sentences and fifteen words are re-cast
into terms of "appear" and "possibility" where your ambiguous
interpretative paragraph (not completely quoted above) is longer than
the direct statement.

I never made an ad hominem attack on your arts capabilities as you did
my physics capabilities.

Yes, I know and it keeps me awake on these long winter nights. As you
yourself put it, I disappoint my groupies, don't I? You can add your
minor as a victim of ad hominem atrocities - I will have to make up
for it by sleeping in later in the mornings.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:

I actually minored in English. When one participates in a baccalaureate
degree program at an actual "university", the BS curriculum requires a minor
in the arts. This means I understand to some degree where you are coming
from. I never made an ad hominem attack on your arts capabilities as you did
my physics capabilities. I contend that you were not qualified to make that
judgement based only upon my being an engineer and not knowing which
university issued the degree or indeed if it was a university that issued
the degree (as opposed to an engineering "college").

English literarure was fun; it was a nice form of recreation and an easy ACE
for 20 of my 140 credits.

73 de AI4QJ



He sure knows how to pat himself on the back. It would have been more
convincing if he could spell literature.

tom
K0TAR

Waves vs Particles
 

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.

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

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

"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 :-)

For an observer travelling at the speed of light, all distances effectively
disappear and become equal. For that observer it appears to take the same
time to travel to Alpha Centuri or to the Andromeda Galaxy. In fact the
observer would have no sensation of time whatsoever. From our external view
point, the respective journeys would take four years and several million
years. This is one of the crucial failures when interpreting Einstein's
theory. Time for something or someone travelling at the speed of light
ceases to exist as does the concept of distance. In order for the theory of
relativity to work it is necessary to have some constant against which to
guage the effects. The speed of light in a vacuum is a very reliable and
convenient constant. It does vary considerably in other mediums though which
implies it is not the gold standard of velocity measurement, just the best
we have at the moment. In fact, the theory of relativity implies that there
cannot ever be an absolute standard against which to measure anything.

My interpretation is that the speed of light is not some insurmountable
barrier, just a point at which conventional theory hits a brick wall and is
unable to deal with what lies beyond. The same was true of aerodynamic
theory up to the 1940's with respect to the sound barrier, even though
projectiles fired from rifles and large artillery pieces were known to
exceed the speed of sound. Once Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier,
aerodynamic theory had to be expanded. It didn't mean that everything that
went before was wrong, just that it could not be used to make predictions
for flight at speeds greater than the speed of sound.

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.

It may well be that wave-particle duality breaks down at the speed of light
and that only a particle can exceed light speed. The absence of waves means
that it's presence cannot be detected and it effectively drops out of our
perception until the speed drops back to sub-light velocities.

Mike G0ULI

Waves vs Particles
 

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

Waves vs Particles
 

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 :-)

Waves vs Particles
 

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 -

Waves vs Particles
 

"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

Waves vs Particles
 

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

Waves vs Particles
 

"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

Waves vs Particles
 

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

Waves vs Particles
 

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

Waves vs Particles
 

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...)

Waves vs Particles
 

"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

Waves vs Particles
 

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


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



Sometimes I wonder if there is any intelligent life on earth. Some of the
discussions in this news group are an example. The good news is its worse
in other news groups.


John W3JXP

Waves vs Particles
 

K7ITM wrote:
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:

In Feynman's introductory lecture number 1, he
says: "I want to emphasize that light comes in
this form - *particles*." Also: "... light is
made of *particles*." emphasis mine

Feynman's lecture number 2 is titled
"Photons" *Particles* of Light" He says:
"Quantum electrodynamics 'resolves' this wave-
particle duality by saying that light is made
of *particles*, ..." emphasis mine

If I understand it correctly, a cornerstone
concept of QED is that nothing exists except
particles.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Waves vs Particles
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
K7ITM wrote:
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:

In Feynman's introductory lecture number 1, he
says: "I want to emphasize that light comes in
this form - *particles*." Also: "... light is
made of *particles*." emphasis mine

Feynman's lecture number 2 is titled
"Photons" *Particles* of Light" He says:
"Quantum electrodynamics 'resolves' this wave-
particle duality by saying that light is made
of *particles*, ..." emphasis mine

If I understand it correctly, a cornerstone
concept of QED is that nothing exists except
particles.

Cecil, get Feynman's _Lectures on Physics_ Volume I, and
read the entirety of Chapter 38, "The Relation of Wave and
Particle Viewpoints." Quantum mechanics is a very successful attempt,
using statistical methods, to explain the behavior of very small things.
In order to do that, it has to look at those things in very strange
ways. If you want to read about the philosophical underpinnings
you should read chapter 8 of _Quantum Theory_
by David Bohm (a Dover reprint).
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Waves vs Particles
 

Tom Donaly wrote:
Cecil, get Feynman's _Lectures on Physics_ Volume I, and
read the entirety of Chapter 38, "The Relation of Wave and
Particle Viewpoints." Quantum mechanics is a very successful attempt,
using statistical methods, to explain the behavior of very small things.
In order to do that, it has to look at those things in very strange
ways. If you want to read about the philosophical underpinnings
you should read chapter 8 of _Quantum Theory_
by David Bohm (a Dover reprint).

Thanks Tom, I will do that as time permits.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Waves vs Particles
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil, get Feynman's _Lectures on Physics_ Volume I, and
read the entirety of Chapter 38, "The Relation of Wave and
Particle Viewpoints." Quantum mechanics is a very successful attempt,
using statistical methods, to explain the behavior of very small things.
In order to do that, it has to look at those things in very strange
ways. If you want to read about the philosophical underpinnings
you should read chapter 8 of _Quantum Theory_
by David Bohm (a Dover reprint).


Thanks Tom, I will do that as time permits.
Now consider this! When a quantum of energy, of any wavelength is
emitted from an atom or a nucleus then time and space ceases to exist
for that "wave packet" until it is absorbed again, or passes through a
medium where the velocity of light is less than c (glass for example, or
coaxial cable!!!). Since it is always travelling at c in "space" then
time ceases to pass for the quantum and/or the universe appears to be a
single point from the quantum's point of view.
A possible corrollary of this might perhaps be that there is only one
"real" quantum of a particular energy in the universe at a time!!!
This is pretty well where Relativity leaves Quantum Mechanics I reckon.
Now this may be philosophy but what is the answer that both quantum
mechanics and relativity have for this apparent absurdity?
If it perhaps not so absurd, perhaps this explains some of the results
of the famous single quantum slit experiment?
BTW surely FTL communication only destroys causality if the speed of
information is infinite. Just faster than light by say 1,000 times would
simply mean that it got there faster not before it was transmitted?
Cliff Wright ZL1BDA.

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:41:22 +1300, cliff wright
wrote:

Now consider this! When a quantum of energy, of any wavelength is
emitted from an atom or a nucleus then time and space ceases to exist
for that "wave packet" until it is absorbed again, or passes through a
medium where the velocity of light is less than c (glass for example, or
coaxial cable!!!). Since it is always travelling at c in "space" then
time ceases to pass for the quantum and/or the universe appears to be a
single point from the quantum's point of view.
A possible corrollary of this might perhaps be that there is only one
"real" quantum of a particular energy in the universe at a time!!!

Hi Cliff,

You have contradicted yourself. Your second sentence above has the
premise there is no time. Your last sentence ends with time
explicitly allowed.

This is pretty well where Relativity leaves Quantum Mechanics I reckon.

How so?

Now this may be philosophy but what is the answer that both quantum
mechanics and relativity have for this apparent absurdity?

The contradiction offered.

If it perhaps not so absurd, perhaps this explains some of the results
of the famous single quantum slit experiment?

Dismissing absurdities, the single slit experiment has its own
explanation.

BTW surely FTL communication only destroys causality if the speed of
information is infinite.

As the lawyers would say "FTL communication" is a fact not shown in
the evidence offered here; so the rest of the statement does not
logically follow.

Just faster than light by say 1,000 times would
simply mean that it got there faster not before it was transmitted?

It would be more meaningful to demonstrate it got there 1.00000000001
times faster. If you cannot establish this mark, 1000 time faster
isn't on the horizon.

As one other poster was abashed to discover, you probably could
witness that first demonstration if you were a fish. A fish swimming
in the cooling pond of a nuclear reactor would be hit by a neutron
(one bit of information) before the radiation (light, the other same
bit of information) that catapulted it from the pile. Now, getting
that neutron up to 1000 times faster (in terms of information flow) is
unlikely; but if you were to choose to inhabit a pool of somewhat
greater density (1000 times more so?) - then perhaps arguably so. I
don't think we need hold our breaths and wait for AT&T stock to mature
into Billion$ on that idea.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:04:42 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

What happens in the cooling pond is that the neutrons only move faster than
light can move in the medium (water). If "c" is the speed on light in a
vacuum, then even light moves slower than "c" in water. What does not happen
is the neutrons moving in the cooling pond water faster than "c" in a
vacuum. The equations that present causality dilemmas all involve "c" being
the speed of light in a vacuum, which NOTHING can exceed.

Hi Don,

This has been pointed out by me in my own quote - so nothing new here.
However, the distinction of faster than light is simply that, and it
has been demonstrated. Instead, what you are arguing is NO-THING
travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second. I will leave that
to others.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:58:31 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message

(cut)
Instead, what you are arguing is NO-THING
travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second. I will leave that
to others.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Correct. However, why don't you just leave it to Einstein who has confirmed
this, rather than leaving it to others, particularly a bunch of ham radio
operators who sometimes have their own 'theories' ;-)


Do you have some reference for Einstein's personal confirmation?
Something distinct from his having presented a theory? The truth of
the matter is for Einstein's, "light" went slower than "the speed of
light" which historically, and following his major work, was 299,796
kilometers per second. This too, illustrates a speed at which
NO-THING travels faster than (not even light).

No doubt you have some reference to Einstein's later lab work (new
theory?) that eclipsed the accuracy of measurements by Michelson in
1926. Cherenkov's observation in the late 30s would further move the
goal post.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

AI4QJ wrote:
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:58:31 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
(cut)
Instead, what you are arguing is NO-THING
travels faster than 299,792,458 meters per second. I will leave that
to others.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
Correct. However, why don't you just leave it to Einstein who has
confirmed
this, rather than leaving it to others, particularly a bunch of ham radio
operators who sometimes have their own 'theories' ;-)

Do you have some reference for Einstein's personal confirmation?
Something distinct from his having presented a theory? The truth of
the matter is for Einstein's, "light" went slower than "the speed of
light" which historically, and following his major work, was 299,796
kilometers per second. This too, illustrates a speed at which
NO-THING travels faster than (not even light).

No doubt you have some reference to Einstein's later lab work (new
theory?) that eclipsed the accuracy of measurements by Michelson in
1926. Cherenkov's observation in the late 30s would further move the
goal post.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard, all you have to do is look ar the lorentz transformation, SQRT(1 -
v**2/c**2). The lorentz transformation is the basic for the special theory
of relativity. This "theory" has been confirmed by many experiments of which
I definitely could give many examples. I hope you are not challenging the
scientific credence of this "theory" which is really thought of as fact. If
I give you one example, then will you require two, then three and so on
(similar to the 'prove a negative' technique)? I don't think so. I think you
really do believe that the special theory is in fact, a fact accomplii.

Now, if I am to assume that you give high credibility to the special theory
of relativity, then you give credibility to the loretz transformation that
forms its basis (and which Michelson used himself). So let me take a big
leap and assume that you believe the lorentz transfromation has a high
probability of defining time dilation. If we can get that far, then by
simple examination, velocities greater than "c" cause the nummerical value
under the square root radical to become a negative number. As you know, this
is an impossibility because the square of any number must be a positive, in
the real world.

One experiment I will mention is an easy one, conducted at MIT. It was well
known that cosmic rays were mu mesons that have a defined decay rate when
resting still in a laboratory setting. When traveling they should have the
same decay rate.Therefore, if you know the velocity of the mu mesons and you
measure the density at the top of a high mountain, you should know how long
it takes them to reach the bottom of a mountain and by knowing the time it
takes, you should know the density (a smaller number) that you should
measure at the bottom. However, the measurements of the mu meson densities
at the bottom were nearly the same as at the top. When perhaps 40% less
should have been measured as decayed, only a very small percentage had
decayed, EXACTLY in accordance with the lorentz transformation as described
above.

By virtue of the impossibility of having a real situation of the square root
of a negative number, or time multiplied by "j" (SQRT -1), it is impossible
for v to exceed c in the real world. I will admit that it could "true" in
the "imaginary" world of "j". which is the same world as power that is not
dissipated etc. etc.. Nobody in the business really believes in tacghyons or
other such particles that allegedly exceed "c"....that is all X-files stuff
and to be dismissed by real world scientists.

AI4QJ


"...a fact accomplii." Look that one up in the dictionary.

"As you know, this
is an impossibility because the square of any number must be a positive,
in the real world." (O + j1)^2 is -1. (0 + j1) is part of the set of
complex numbers.

Anyone who won't use complex numbers in physical analysis is
going to have a hard time understanding physics texts, or, for that
matter, simple network theory.

73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:45:25 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Correct. However, why don't you just leave it to Einstein who has
confirmed
this

By virtue of the impossibility of having a real situation of the square root
of a negative number, or time multiplied by "j" (SQRT -1), it is impossible
for v to exceed c in the real world.

Hi Dan,

Well, this is not confirmation merely exposition - and not even unique
to Einstein. It is demonstrated that v can exceed c (you have
replicated my observations there, so that cannot be in dispute), but
it cannot exceed 299,792,458 meters per second (which bares scant
relationship to complex numbers). This is not a remarkable
observation because neither can v exceed 300,000,000 meters per
second, nor 300,000,001 meters per second and so on.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC