Waves vs Particles
 

On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 14:00:30 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:

No, this is not correct.
"If again it was not well cut, he disabled my judgment.
This is call'd the Reply Churlish."

No, this is not correct.
"If again it was not well cut, he would answer I spake not true.
This is call'd the Reproof Valiant."

Wow. Sometimes even this newsgroup surprises me.

A Liberal Education gives one perspective.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

On Feb 2, 2:00 pm, Roy Lewallen wrote:
AI4QJ wrote:
"Roy Lewallen" wrote in message
...

AI4QJ wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife,
"Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, ...
Are you saying space is a fluid?
Maybe "an incredibly complex substance"
exhibits some characteristics of a fluid?
I should say "characteristic" impedance is 377 Ohms. It also has a
permitivity and permeability of 1 ;-)
I'm sure you mean relative permittivity and relative permeability.

No, this is not correct. The permitivities and permeabilities of all
materials are relative to free space. Free space is assumed to be 1 and the
other values are relative to it.

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.

No, this is not correct.

Wow. Sometimes even this newsgroup surprises me.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Since this thread started on the premise that a photon is a particle,
which it clearly is not, what did you expect?

Cheers,
Tom

Waves vs Particles
 

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???? Do you have a reference?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Waves vs Particles
 

Richard Clark wrote:

A Liberal Education gives one perspective.

I'll have to take your word for that.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Waves vs Particles
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
A Liberal Education gives one perspective.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

ABSOLUTELY! Having spent a lifetime in the sciences, those following
Shakespeare have always puzzled me ... grin

Indeed, leaves me feeling want to "speak the language" they are ... NOT!

Regards,
JS

Waves vs Particles
 

K7ITM wrote:

...
Since this thread started on the premise that a photon is a particle,
which it clearly is not, what did you expect?

Cheers,
Tom

Frankly, that statement stuns me! (and, maybe I have missed something)

Please explain, what is a photon?

Regards,
JS

Waves vs Particles
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:
If the photon creates a shock wave in the aether then it must be
imparting some energy into the aether and the photon should slow down
over time.

Photons cannot slow down but you could be right about
them losing energy over time. Lengthening the wavelength
of a photon is certainly a loss of energy. That could
explain the red-shift of light from distant galaxies.

"Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, Page 52:
"Photons are stable, chargeless, massless elementary
particles that *exist only at the speed of light*."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

This is a humbling discussion!

Hadn't thought about it in terms of increasing the wave-length, but you are
now messing with some of my basic assumptions about the universe with the
obvious implication being its size and age. We might be able resurrects the
steady state model!

Question: If photons are stable, chargeless, massless elementary particles,
how do they react with anything?

Cheers

Peter VK6YSF

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/main.htm

Waves vs Particles
 

John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...
A Liberal Education gives one perspective.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

ABSOLUTELY! Having spent a lifetime in the sciences, those following
Shakespeare have always puzzled me ... grin

Indeed, leaves me feeling want to "speak the language" they are ... NOT!

Regards,
JS

You mean the "creation sciences?" Having your mind programmed with
fairy tales is no education at all.

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Waves vs Particles
 

Tom Donaly wrote:

...
You mean the "creation sciences?" Having your mind programmed with
fairy tales is no education at all.

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Creation sciences? H*ll man, you know that takes a belief system
surpassing a belief it God! Indeed, if you can believe that, life came
from rock, let me tell you about the bridge I got for sale!
GRINNING-BEYOND-BELIEF-I-HAVE-FOUND-SUCH-AN-EXTRAORDINARY-IDIOT!

But, heck man, you already knew that--and, if not, everyone else did!

:-D

Regards to the IDIOT,
JS

Waves vs Particles
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Peter wrote:
If the photon creates a shock wave in the aether then it must be
imparting some energy into the aether and the photon should slow down
over time.

Photons cannot slow down but you could be right about
them losing energy over time. Lengthening the wavelength
of a photon is certainly a loss of energy. That could
explain the red-shift of light from distant galaxies.

"Optics", by Hecht, 4th edition, Page 52:
"Photons are stable, chargeless, massless elementary
particles that *exist only at the speed of light*."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Follow up.

If the energy is lost over time (Not including the effect of acceleration)
by lengthening of the wavelength and by definition lowering the frequency I
would have thought this would be one the easiest theories to test. And as
far as I know there is no observations of radio signals changing frequency
due to distance by even the slightest degree.

I was thinking about this over lunch. Thanks Cecil!


--
Peter VK6YSF

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/main.htm