Part 2 of " Ken, need help with this"... continuation of Part 1

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message om...
"Pax" wrote in message om...


2) "In classical mechanics, massless objects are an ill-defined concept, since applying any force to one would produce, via Newton's second law, an infinite acceleration - a nonsensical result."


This may sound like a cop out, but there is no way (according to relativity) to transform measurements from a FoR (Frame of Reference) moving at the velocity of light to one that is moving at vc.
So to get any measure of the floton's energy, it must be deaccelerated, so that a transformation of some part of it's momentum can be transferred to the deaccelerating mass, the photo-electric effect does that bluntly.

The photoelectric effect shows very nicely the amount of energy delivered by the impacting photon.

Re 2): First, it's far from "nonsensical", but more to the point, one must wonder how someone goes about applying force to a massless object. That's like trying to put a circle around "nothing", the minute you attempt such an exercise, it's no longer "nothing", it's "something", the area within the circle.


Ha, reminds me of Star Trek 4, "Nothing unreal exists"...

Rather like they used to say about what our universe existed within: nothing? Elementary logic overcomes that.

Force is a form of mass.


Careful...

No. Force is the ultimate form of mass. Instead of disagreeing, falsify the statement.

Mass and energy are interchangeable. Zero mass must then equal zero energy. If something has no mass, what is there to convert to energy or add energy to? Photons could very well be the bottom of the particle "food chain", the enablers of force interaction. However, this seems to already be assumed, justified, explained, and utilized to the point of being more a law than anything else.


Well, that's the basic idea behind "virtual" photons, but your description is funner, "bottom of food chain" that about sums it up. Better ask Bilge.


3) "The net force on any massless object must be zero. If a string is massless, the tension force is the same at either end (and any point in the middle)."

Re 3): Sense at last.

4) "Massless objects such as photons also carry momentum; the formula is p=E/c, where E is the energy the photon carries and c is the speed of light."

Re 4): How do they justify the above statement? Did someone just decide all the numbers were wrong where photons were concerned simply by virtue of the fact they found nothing of mass to be the medium for aether? Did no one at any time notice photons have no mass and add the two facts? An undetectable medium + a massless particle = an undetectable, massless aethereal medium composed of massless particles. Photons do not have energy, but waves are very capable of having it, in fact, all waves are a form of energy in motion.

Let's hold those questions, pending my rant above, otherwise other posters may be better able to answer, ((translation, I need to think)).

Agreed. I communicated at last, didn't I?

Let us consider the Photoelectric Effect. How can a massless object like a photon be thrown, what can interact with something that has no mass? Further, how can a massless thing be thrown against something of mass in such a manner as to cause parts of that object of mass, a metal plate, to dislodge? First, it is electrons (negatively charged leptons) that are dislodged from the metal plate. Could the Photoelectric Effect be the result of the interaction of charged forces rather than particles?


It's proven that photons may be converted to electrons and positrons, so yes the photoelectric effect may be regarded as an electromagnetic effect, thanks that's neat.



Where do quarks and gluons fit in? The number parade into the tiny seems neverending. However, the number of gluons in each of the gluon chains binding quarks together is determined by force.


I must restudy that, sorry, been awhile, let me get back.

Sure.

Einstein concluded ejected electrons take on a photon and that is what causes them to become dislodged, many even call such ejected electrons "photoelectrons", denoting the energy added to the electron when it absorbs the force of a photon. Is there a difference between force, as assigned the name "quanta", and the deliverer of that force, the photon? Yes, however the photon is incorporated into the electron, but for another reason, the electron is a particle of mass with properties immediately sympathetic to such absorption.


Yes, in analogy, your use of the term "sympathetic" is like tuning a radio antenna. But you should think in terms of a dipole. The electron "alone" cannot absorb a photon, (except in vary unusual circumstances), it is the positive nucleus together with the negative electron that forms the dipole when emission or absorption occurs, it's like a tiny antenna.

I don't agree because, so far, no monopoles have been discovered. The primary requirement for absorption is compatible resonance, which then results in the electron jumping outward a ring in the atom's shell. If the electron is already at the outermost position in the shell, it has nowhere to go but out of the atom.

There must first be mass in order for a reaction to force to occur, however, even if force could be applied, that force would result in imparting mass to the former massless object, but then, what are waves if not the results of force? It could only be that they are not waves of physical force in the sense commonly assumed (as when a bat hits a ball), they are waves composed entirely of electromagnetic force. This explains the EM pulse that accompanies an atomic blast.


As I understand it the EM pulse is *conventionally* explained by radiation reacting with the atmosphere.

Don't agree with that one.

But there is an alternative explanation...when some quantity of mass is converted to energy, there is an accompanying gravitational reduction. That gravitational reduction shakes the spacetime field, and spacetime field vibration relates as an electromagnetic disturbance, because the only wave capable of transmission in spacetime are electromagnetic.

Yes, in my opinion, that's vaguely correct. Gravitation is still applicable to each element that retains an amount of mass, but gravity's focused force is reduced due to dispersion. However, some of the mass is completely transformed into an expansive force, which is directly counter to gravity. The implosion that precedes the explosion seems indicative of a massive gravitational build-up that compresses the mass undergoing conversion beyond its minimum allowable compression limit.

I must say that my opinion is unorthodox, because GRist's have theorized the existence of gravitational radiation, and are searching for these using the LIGO apparatus.

At this time, IMHO, I think it doubtful they will ever find gravitons, but they might find waves. Seems such waves would require a constant vibratory cycling of mass between a more dense and less dense state, though.

This may be a bit technical but I find the g-waves are not covariant, i.e. they exist in one FoR but not another, aka they are CS figments, like phantoms.

Please expound, that sounds rather counterintuitive. Can understand if you said their effects would vary between FoRs, but "exist in one FoR but not another," what do you mean by that?

Secondly, applying advanced nonsymmetrical metric unified field theory to bear, the six remaining candidates within the metric able to transfer that information via the spacetime field (the asymmetric of g01 ....g12...g30), are used to transfer electromagnetic effects.

More expounding requested. There is, as yet, no Unified Field Theory... at least there's been no prize ceremony and accompanying parade.

It is the transformation of mass into electromagnetism and heat (the highest forms of energy) during thermal reactions that causes displacement waves.


Yes.


Though true waves of physical force in the form of heat are released with the conversion of mass into its highest order manifestation of photons, it is the EM waves that are responsible for light. My Lord! Does that mean that Universal expansion is due to the transformation of denser forms of energy into higher forms of energy?


My Lord, I hope HE/SHE answers that question .

Personally, I think the answer's everywhere around us, we just haven't looked in the right way yet.

That is what happened at the time of the Big Bang (which is quite plausible now since the introduction of the Clashing Branes Theory). Then transformation into denser forms of energy would result, ultimately, in a return to a state of greatest density, such as in the case of Schwarzschild Radii, and this would result in a shrinking of space!

What must follow from that thought is that gravity itself is an indication of a shrinking of space, which would explain why spacetime is warped in the vicinity of mass.

Wait! It suddenly occurred to me that a supraforce "enveloped within" a supraforce could manifest as multiple dimensions and time, since the enveloping supraforce could pull in all directions "outward" from the internal supraforce!


The way I would model that is with a balloon, (condom snicker). Then analogize the "envelope" as the balloons surface with some drawings on it to see how they vary depending upon the differential pressure in the balloon wrt the atmospheric pressure.

Two balloons would be needed, one inside the other and pulling in opposite directions on a "stickiness" between them.

That last just sort of flowed from the other, so left it in.

ok

Be well - Pax

"Be well doing" == "Well be doing" =="doing, be well"

Ken S. Tucker

Thanks so much for your reply, Ken, it's truly appreciated.

Be well some more - Pax

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message om...
"Pax" wrote in message om...
"Pax" wrote in message
news:e ...

Hi Pax

Hi, Ken.

In your first reply, you would have to ask for a reference I no longer have, wouldn't you? Have looked high and low for it or one similar, going to take a bit to find, I'm afraid.

1) I read over your new post, and didn't notice where you did any specific changes, :{ ,could you mark where you would like me to comment further .

Sure. It wasn't much really, in the part about waves. Marking it "1)". Look below.

2) Each of the subjects you have touched on is itself complex, so anyone in this forum can only deal with them superficially, if there is a specific subject that you think needs a more complex treatment please advise.

Guess my answer would have to be, "All of it." It's all so darned interrelated. All of it is important, and none of it can be divorced from any other part of it without tearing apart the entire construct, that's why I'm having such a bad time. Trying to find the "bottom"; firm ground.

3) IMHO there are two (at least) mathematical theories of relativity, first a sort of noname brand that's designed to fill physics students heads with a sort of watered down simplified version that works good enough, for 99%, that's the one common in this NG and then there are more sophisticated treatments that deal with the 1% uncertainty in the first.

Actually wasn't aware of that.

4) I read the responses to your first post (to me) and the follow-ups from P. Draper and T. Roberts, and think they were good, (I might take exception to P. Draper's handling of the de Broglie wavelength), but it seems to me his reply was thoughtful, and for this NG far from a flame, on the contrary, brutal honesty is the norm! It's an opinion forum.

Draper makes my mind go numb. Perhaps I was too curt with him, but we have a bit of history. Ways of thinking and drawing conclusions are sometimes extremely incompatible, so progress can't really be made by either person.

As to Tom, I agree, appreciated his response. Want to reply to you first, then will reply to him.

5) In your last paragraph below is a very subjective description of a phenomena that I can only guess at, but it sounds so good, I hope you'll clarify a bit.

1) The paragraph directly below is my primary revision:

If wavelength equals Planck's Constant divided by momentum, then photons cannot have a wavelength. But if photons are in turn made up of even smaller particles, those smaller particles (such as gluons) very well could have wavelengths and mass. Would that mean wavelength is a requirement of mass?

Since I've worked through the final part (see below), this no longer seems logical on its face. However it could translate into "stillness", a balance that results in the semblance of a lack of wavelength. On further consideration, this would explain how still, massless particles could "wave": electromagnetism affects their internal equilibrium, perhaps causing them to oscillate charge. Could that imply that photons are possible candidates for the term monopole? No, at present monopoles are defined as unreducable, I think... not sure... However, a photon could be naturally neutral until the introduction of an electromagnetic surge which direction of impact would result in a temporary + or - charge.
Photon --
In general, a boson with spin 1 should be observed in three spin projections (-1, 0 and 1). The zero projection would require a frame where the photon is at rest, but, since photons travel at the speed of light, such a frame does not exist according to the theory of relativity, and so photons only have two spin projections. Individual photons are circularly polarized on account of their unit spin.

It is the transformation of mass into electromagnetism and heat (the highest forms of energy) during thermal reactions that causes displacement waves. Though true waves of physical force in the form of heat are released with the conversion of mass into its highest order manifestation of photons, it is the EM waves that are responsible for light. My Lord! Does that mean that Universal expansion is due to the transformation of denser forms of energy into higher forms of energy?

That is what happened at the time of the Big Bang (which is quite plausible now since the introduction of the Clashing Branes Theory). Then transformation into denser forms of energy would result, ultimately, in a return to a state of greatest density, such as in the case of Schwarzschild Radii, and this would result in a shrinking of space!

What must follow from that thought is that gravity itself is an indication of a shrinking of space, which would explain why spacetime is warped in the vicinity of mass.

Wait! It suddenly occurred to me that a supraforce "enveloped within" a supraforce could manifest as multiple dimensions and time, since the enveloping supraforce could pull in all directions "outward" from the internal supraforce!

The following is really rough, so forgive, please. A picture really is worth a thousand words.

What I see is actually only one thing composed of two opposing incompatible forces that, nonetheless, commingle in eternal repetitive cycles of simple harmonic oscillation. They interact through something I think of as the Mass Point, that simply means the point through which we are aware of the results of the interaction of the primary forces. It's similar to the Clashing Branes Theory, however one brane is external and one brane is internal.

What's so strange about it is it's so simple. Picture two orbs of equal and opposing force one inside the other. Start them out as actually inside each other, completely commingled into the appearance of one thing. This is equal to "singularity state", a state neither force can allow to continue. Because they are completely opposing in force, neither wants to be near the other, yet they are tied together for eternity, neither strong enough to escape from the grasp of the other.

My son asked, "Why does there have to be more than one force?" An astute question. One answer is there need not be in the sense that mass is a separate element from both and worked upon by both, or a construct of the interaction of two opposing elements of force that does not exist otherwise. The force responsible for gravity could simply be the tensile reaction of mass density to retain its basic state against the enveloping expansive force of thermal energy, but that tensile strength must be considered a force. So the final answer to his question is that there must be two forces.



However, those two forces could very well be only opposing extremes in that, ultimately, a return to maximum density results in an immediate reaction, initiating expansion, due to mass reaching a point at which its innate possible compressive force is incompatible with its innate actual properties of mass, disallowing mass to remain at its maximum density.



This consideration has only one requirement: at its lowest limit of existence, mass must have certain basic innate and inviolable properties. In plain words, mass must have a final minimum particle size. Due to this, over-compression would result in a massive counter thermal reaction that would result in the reduction of mass into plasma buffeted by waves of electromagnetism (cause by the extreme friction of over-compression and the countering thermal reaction to over-compression), unimaginable heat, and immediate, violent expansion.



There is a fly in the ointment of this elegantly simple solution: de Broglie and his particle-wave duality. If *all* particles are waves, there is theoretically no limit to possible allowable compression. Further, if there is out there somewhere a tiny particle that is *only* a particle. mass in its truest, most solid sense, that can never be a wave. then where is it and what is it? Because to date, no such particle has been found.

The solution can be found in the very thing that posed the initial problem: de Broglie's particle-wave duality. *Everything* is a wave, there are no exceptions, but those waves that comprise mass are extremely tight vortices. What would constant entanglement of opposing forces imply must be at all times? Simply that, at a primary level, there is a vortex which cannot be reduced to a smaller size, nor can it be stilled.

Spacetime as we know it is a product, an echo of the primary state. Though motion within our Universe and thus our time can be temporarily stilled, causing space, a product of motion, to disappear, the true motion between the forces in their primary state never ceases, because there is never a period when they can break free from each other. That constant primary motion of eternal opposition corresponds to what could be called a "minimum particle size". Each attempt to compress more densely than that minimum vortex diameter results in a reaction like the Big Bang. Schwarzschild radii may very well exist, however infinity density does not.

With our Universe, the end is the beginning and the beginning is the end, they are both the same state. Our Universe expands until the primary opposing forces reach a momentary balance, a point at which they can no longer pull away from each other any further. During this state Universal time stops and space disappears due to a temporary balance in primary force opposition, causing all mass to return to its maximum density. However, primary time, in the form of internal motion within the mass construct of the entangled diametrically opposed forces, never ceases because interactive motion can never cease. If there ever was a state of true balance achieved, everything would cease to exist.

Such a balance can never occur for the simple reason that we and our Universe exist, therefore it all has always existed and will always continue to exist. The positive of our existence negates the negative of nonexistence ever being a possibility.

Hope that was understandable.


Regards
Ken S. Tucker


And to you
Be well - Pax

..~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._. ~*~.

We sit inside the impossible and say the impossible
is impossible.

"Pax" wrote in message om...
"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
m...


Paul, you are still the same screwed-up mind you were 5 years ago. Go bother
someone else.

Pax


First of all, I don't recall discussing things with you 5 years ago.
If you have an archive reference, I think I'd be amused.

Secondly, I would appreciate it if you would point out where my
critique of your reasoning is incorrect, rather than simply giving a
blanket, uninformative statement about my mental statement. I treated
you with the courtesy of a detailed response, rather than just calling
you a screwed-up crank -- and I'd appreciate the same treatment in
return. You'll find it's an important attribute in gaining acceptance
of your ideas.

PD

"Pax" wrote in message om...
Part 1 of " Ken, need help with this"... this sucker's too long to
post in one piece, so cutting it in two.

Hi Pax, I'm having a problem with your format, it's
hard for anyone to know who said what!

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
news:e ...

Hi Pax, just want to preface my reply that some of the subjects below,
I'm only superficially acquainted with, also, I've read through your
complete post, and some replies will respect items in your arguments
that would follow, ok.

Got it. Thanks for replying.

Hi again. Sorry for the delay. First the weekend hit me by surprise
(never been that good at keeping track of time), then my phone went out.
Tried to use the satellite, but it was miserable, so just waited until
the phone was fixed to attempt a reply to you.

Yes, the more incisive math tool is tensor analysis, algebra is good
up to a point, but in the nitty gritty it's unreliable.

That's what I was afraid of.

p = m0v (classic statement), its checking permutations being


((never heard it put that way, interesting))

Because the m0 assumes it doesn't include kinetic energy? Guess I
colored it with m0 due to my current fixation on massless objects. The
classic statement is actually p = mv, should've just left it at that
since it's all the same in the end. Thanks!

so the equation for finding energy (E),
E2/c2 = (m02c2) + p2,

Guess this should just be E2/c2 = (m2c2) + p2, although I've seen it
written both ways (with m0 and with just m).

Well what's important is,

E = m0 c^2 /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = m0 c^2 *gamma

where E includes the contribution of the rest mass m0
and the kinetic energy from gamma.

Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is
incapable of momentum, and has no energy. If the energy carried by an
object is directly proportional to its mass and momentum, then for a
massless object it appears that would calculate to 0 energy, yet we know
light has energy. The energy must therefore be in the wave and not in
the photon. Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are
the stationary medium of transmission, better known classically as
aether, for electromagnetic waves that propagate through it?


((That's topical, pardon my rant))...

"Ranting" is what I asked for.

IMO, the rest mass of a photon can only be measured when it leaves a
system K and takes some energy, and the rest mass of the photon appears
as a deficit to the emitting system and/or is then brought to rest by
absorption in system K' adding energy to that system.

Between K and K' a doppler shift can occur or in a g-field an Einstein
shift, so the emission deficit may not be the same as the absorption
increment.

There is really no point in discussing the "rest mass" of a "photon in
flight", (I call that a floton), because it's not at rest.

It gets complicated when a "floton" is deflected in a g-field.
Basically what happens is the floton appears to be deaccelerated by the
g-field in the process of deflection. That deacceleration from speed c
to a lesser speed C (C = speed of light in a g-field) can be regarded
as part of the floton being absorbed by the g-field, thus exhibiting a
"rest mass" absorption, and the rest whizzes by but red shifted by
momentum exchange.

It's taken me a long time to post what you're replying to because I knew
I'd have to fight through the "always moving photon" assumption... heck,
not "assumption", more "given". If you could just suspend that
assumption for a moment... I don't mean consider it to be wrong, just
suspend the notion that it *must* be right...

ok

First, every effect that is attributed to photons existing at c is based
on four things:
1) photons are massless
2) photons deliver energy
3) photons move in waves
4) photon reception --
a) resulting in absorption
b) resulting in reflection/deflection/etc.

ok

There are variables, such as interference, but no good explanation for
one photon interfering with itself (double slit) has been discovered.
The phenomenon has been noted and accepted, that's different. Of course,
some have tried to explain it, but the reasoning has more to do with
wave functions.

However, on closer examination, considering photons to be moving really
does no harm, I guess. It just precludes there being any sort of actual
"fabric" to spacetime. Quantum foam doesn't seem to be a good
alternative, unless it allows for wave displacement... but I haven't
examined it closely enough yet to actually make that sort of judgment.

What I am saying is that, rather than one photon carrying a portion
of energy separately from source to destination, photons work in tandem
like "bucket-brigades", picking up energy from the source and then
handing it off to the next photon in "line". In normal terms, photons
pass energy on through waves.

ok, assume everywhere in spacetime is a virtual photon,
corresponding to your empty bucket, then the photon energy
fills the bucket...and so on...that's interesting.

Sure a photon is a tiny oscillator, it has wave characteristics.

Every particle has wave characteristics. There is no such thing as a
"solid". But examine what you're saying:

A tiny particle, unlike every other know thing that waves, is both its
own medium and its actual wave movement. A corresponding alternative
would be to say that each molecule of water drops from the sky and
rushes in a wave outward... not *causes* waves outward, but *is* a wave
that moves outward. Yes molecules are huge in comparison to particles,
but the analogy holds.

Waves in the ocean are transferred from molecule to molecule, in other
words: the waves *propagate* through their medium of water molecules.
Water's wave action is a result of force applied at some point to the
medium as an entity. Light waves are also said to *propagate*, in fact,
c is their detectable propagation speed. [Dictionary.com -- propagate -
Physics. To cause (a wave, for example) to move in some direction or
through a medium; transmit.]

This would explain why photons seem so commonly to be "destroyed" in
tied groups.


That's over my head, do you have a ref?

I did, but I'm working crippled from memory now. Will attempt to find
the source again, think it was from some online encyclopedia-type source
concerning Einstein and his work on the particle-wave duality of light,
but it could've just as easily been from any of a number of books I have
since lost due to our house flooding. It could've been a book by
Feynman, Davies or, of course, Einstein... just can't say offhand.

I can let this part stop me cold right now until I rediscover the
reference, or make my apologies for not having one readily at hand, and
hope someone else can fill this gap. If memory serves (and it may not),
the reason the groups are connected is that all of a particular group's
photons are of the same exact kind, matching both wavelength and
frequency. If I'm wrong here, I hope someone can give the correct
reason.

Oh I understand, I was not familiar with the word "tied",
no need for a ref, your explanation was good for me.

In order for the energy carried in a wave to diminish, gravity or
friction of the medium must offer resistance, in other words, the medium
must absorb some of the energy or be inhibited by gravity, and/or both.


Yeah, that's what I figure, as I ranted above.


A massless medium is incapable of such absorption or inhibition...
or is it? What is warped by gravity in the vicinity of a gravitational
mass, is it only time or is it space as well? Most certainly it must be
both.


Yes both, recall we can convert mass to sucking 1.5 km of length
call that number m = 1.5 km.
We also suck 1.5 km of time, for a total of 2m sucked in spacetime.

Was very grateful you pointed that out to me in that other thread.
Had no idea until then there was any math that backed up my deductions.

It turns out that the deflection of light by the spacetime "warp",
(maybe we should call it spacetime suction) is

deflection = 2m / R, R = closest approach to m
(oo = R)

and that is reported to be confirmed by measuring the
deflection and retarded flight times of photons by the
sun.

Thanks. Keeping that too.

In my studies I have come across these statements ([bracketed] are

my insertions):

1) "The de Broglie wavelength of a particle equals Planck's
constant divided by its momentum [w=h/p]. The momentum of a particle
equals the square root of twice its mass times its kinetic energy
[p=sqrt(2m0)*Ek]. The kinetic energy of a particle equals the square
of its momentum divided by twice its mass [Ek=p2/2m0]."


Re 1): All of the above assertions seem to hinge upon rest mass
being greater than zero (m00), would they not all otherwise zero out?
Wavelength depends upon momentum, momentum depends upon velocity times
mass, kinetic energy depends upon momentum divided by mass. Is the
assertion that photons always move at c based on anything other than the
observation of light waves? If wavelength equals Planck's Constant
divided by momentum, then photons cannot have a wavelength.


Before discussing those questions, please see if they are altered by
my rant.

Sorry, but no. Discuss?

Ha, ok. Let's keep our terms straight, a photon
is something that is measureable, as I ranted
above, it is defined by how it interacts with
matter. A "floton" is an "in flight flying photon",
that is supposed to be defined in the absense of
interaction.
Well, one can define a floton from some dynamics,
and it can possess frequency, in the form of
oscillating EM-fields. Electric charges are orthogonal
to x,y,z,t and so any lengths and motion within the
floton relating electric charge is also perpendicular
to x,y,z,t so the lorentz transform does not apply.

Planck's Constant is
H = 6.626*10-34J*s,
where J is Joules and s is seconds) and
J = 1 kg m2/s2,
where kg is kilograms and m is meters.

yup

On to Part 2.

Be well - Pax

You too.
Ken

"Pax" wrote in message om...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
news:e ...

Hi Pax

Hi, Ken.

In your first reply, you would have to ask for a reference I no longer
have, wouldn't you? Have looked high and low for it or one similar,
going to take a bit to find, I'm afraid.

No prob, you explained it to me well enough.

1) I read over your new post, and didn't notice where you did any
specific changes, :{ ,could you mark where you would like me to comment
further .

Sure. It wasn't much really, in the part about waves. Marking it
"1)". Look below.

2) Each of the subjects you have touched on is itself complex, so
anyone in this forum can only deal with them superficially, if there is
a specific subject that you think needs a more complex treatment please
advise.

Guess my answer would have to be, "All of it." It's all so darned
interrelated. All of it is important, and none of it can be divorced
from any other part of it without tearing apart the entire construct,
that's why I'm having such a bad time. Trying to find the "bottom"; firm
ground.

ok

3) IMHO there are two (at least) mathematical theories of relativity,
first a sort of noname brand that's designed to fill physics students
heads with a sort of watered down simplified version that works good
enough, for 99%, that's the one common in this NG and then there are
more sophisticated treatments that deal with the 1% uncertainty in the
first.

Actually wasn't aware of that.

4) I read the responses to your first post (to me) and the follow-ups
from P. Draper and T. Roberts, and think they were good, (I might take
exception to P. Draper's handling of the de Broglie wavelength), but it
seems to me his reply was thoughtful, and for this NG far from a flame,
on the contrary, brutal honesty is the norm! It's an opinion forum.

Draper makes my mind go numb. Perhaps I was too curt with him, but we
have a bit of history. Ways of thinking and drawing conclusions are
sometimes extremely incompatible, so progress can't really be made by
either person.

As to Tom, I agree, appreciated his response. Want to reply to you
first, then will reply to him.

5) In your last paragraph below is a very subjective description of a
phenomena that I can only guess at, but it sounds so good, I hope you'll
clarify a bit.

1) The paragraph directly below is my primary revision:

If wavelength equals Planck's Constant divided by momentum, then
photons cannot have a wavelength. But if photons are in turn made up of
even smaller particles, those smaller particles (such as gluons) very
well could have wavelengths and mass. Would that mean wavelength is a
requirement of mass?

Since I've worked through the final part (see below), this no longer
seems logical on its face. However it could translate into "stillness",
a balance that results in the semblance of a lack of wavelength. On
further consideration, this would explain how still, massless particles
could "wave": electromagnetism affects their internal equilibrium,
perhaps causing them to oscillate charge. Could that imply that photons
are possible candidates for the term monopole? No, at present monopoles
are defined as unreducable, I think... not sure... However, a photon
could be naturally neutral until the introduction of an electromagnetic
surge which direction of impact would result in a temporary + or -
charge.

I'm happy to regard a photon as a dipole.

Photon --
In general, a boson with spin 1 should be observed in three spin
projections (-1, 0 and 1). The zero projection would require a frame
where the photon is at rest, but, since photons travel at the speed of
light, such a frame does not exist according to the theory of
relativity, and so photons only have two spin projections. Individual
photons are circularly polarized on account of their unit spin.

It is the transformation of mass into electromagnetism and heat (the
highest forms of energy) during thermal reactions that causes
displacement waves. Though true waves of physical force in the form of
heat are released with the conversion of mass into its highest order
manifestation of photons, it is the EM waves that are responsible for
light. My Lord! Does that mean that Universal expansion is due to the
transformation of denser forms of energy into higher forms of energy?

That is what happened at the time of the Big Bang (which is quite
plausible now since the introduction of the Clashing Branes Theory).
Then transformation into denser forms of energy would result,
ultimately, in a return to a state of greatest density, such as in the
case of Schwarzschild Radii, and this would result in a shrinking of
space!

What must follow from that thought is that gravity itself is an
indication of a shrinking of space, which would explain why spacetime is
warped in the vicinity of mass.

Wait! It suddenly occurred to me that a supraforce "enveloped
within" a supraforce could manifest as multiple dimensions and time,
since the enveloping supraforce could pull in all directions "outward"
from the internal supraforce!

The following is really rough, so forgive, please. A picture really is
worth a thousand words.

What I see is actually only one thing composed of two opposing
incompatible forces that, nonetheless, commingle in eternal repetitive
cycles of simple harmonic oscillation. They interact through something I
think of as the Mass Point, that simply means the point through which we
are aware of the results of the interaction of the primary forces. It's
similar to the Clashing Branes Theory, however one brane is external and
one brane is internal.

What's so strange about it is it's so simple. Picture two orbs of equal
and opposing force one inside the other.

Start them out as actually
inside each other, completely commingled into the appearance of one
thing. This is equal to "singularity state", a state neither force can
allow to continue. Because they are completely opposing in force,
neither wants to be near the other, yet they are tied together for
eternity, neither strong enough to escape from the grasp of the other.

My son asked, "Why does there have to be more than one force?" An astute
question. One answer is there need not be in the sense that mass is a
separate element from both and worked upon by both, or a construct of
the interaction of two opposing elements of force that does not exist
otherwise. The force responsible for gravity could simply be the tensile
reaction of mass density to retain its basic state against the
enveloping expansive force of thermal energy, but that tensile strength
must be considered a force. So the final answer to his question is that
there must be two forces.

However, those two forces could very well be only opposing extremes in
that, ultimately, a return to maximum density results in an immediate
reaction, initiating expansion, due to mass reaching a point at which
its innate possible compressive force is incompatible with its innate
actual properties of mass, disallowing mass to remain at its maximum
density.

This consideration has only one requirement: at its lowest limit of
existence, mass must have certain basic innate and inviolable
properties. In plain words, mass must have a final minimum particle
size. Due to this, over-compression would result in a massive counter
thermal reaction that would result in the reduction of mass into plasma
buffeted by waves of electromagnetism (cause by the extreme friction of
over-compression and the countering thermal reaction to
over-compression), unimaginable heat, and immediate, violent expansion.

There is a fly in the ointment of this elegantly simple solution: de
Broglie and his particle-wave duality. If *all* particles are waves,
there is theoretically no limit to possible allowable compression.
Further, if there is out there somewhere a tiny particle that is *only*
a particle. mass in its truest, most solid sense, that can never be a
wave. then where is it and what is it? Because to date, no such particle
has been found.

The solution can be found in the very thing that posed the initial
problem: de Broglie's particle-wave duality. *Everything* is a wave,
there are no exceptions, but those waves that comprise mass are
extremely tight vortices. What would constant entanglement of opposing
forces imply must be at all times? Simply that, at a primary level,
there is a vortex which cannot be reduced to a smaller size, nor can it
be stilled.

Spacetime as we know it is a product, an echo of the primary state.
Though motion within our Universe and thus our time can be temporarily
stilled, causing space, a product of motion, to disappear, the true
motion between the forces in their primary state never ceases, because
there is never a period when they can break free from each other. That
constant primary motion of eternal opposition corresponds to what could
be called a "minimum particle size". Each attempt to compress more
densely than that minimum vortex diameter results in a reaction like the
Big Bang. Schwarzschild radii may very well exist, however infinity
density does not.

With our Universe, the end is the beginning and the beginning is the
end, they are both the same state. Our Universe expands until the
primary opposing forces reach a momentary balance, a point at which they
can no longer pull away from each other any further. During this state
Universal time stops and space disappears due to a temporary balance in
primary force opposition, causing all mass to return to its maximum
density. However, primary time, in the form of internal motion within
the mass construct of the entangled diametrically opposed forces, never
ceases because interactive motion can never cease. If there ever was a
state of true balance achieved, everything would cease to exist.

Such a balance can never occur for the simple reason that we and our
Universe exist, therefore it all has always existed and will always
continue to exist. The positive of our existence negates the negative of
nonexistence ever being a possibility.

Agreed, (I believe the universe is immortal, and
there was no Big Bang, that mere mortals wish for).

Hope that was understandable.

Well, I had to return to my Zen mind (Id & Od).

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

And to you
Be well - Pax

.~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~. .~*~.

We sit inside the impossible and say the impossible
is impossible.

Ha, Ken

"Pax" wrote in message om...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...

[snip]

4) I read the responses to your first post (to me) and the follow-ups
from P. Draper and T. Roberts, and think they were good, (I might take
exception to P. Draper's handling of the de Broglie wavelength), but it
seems to me his reply was thoughtful, and for this NG far from a flame,
on the contrary, brutal honesty is the norm! It's an opinion forum.

Draper makes my mind go numb. Perhaps I was too curt with him, but we
have a bit of history. Ways of thinking and drawing conclusions are
sometimes extremely incompatible, so progress can't really be made by
either person.

As to Tom, I agree, appreciated his response. Want to reply to you
first, then will reply to him.


Pax, if we have a history, you'll have to remind me of it. A search of
news archives doesn't reveal any conversation you and I have had,
unless you've changed you moniker. (I haven't.)

As for "ways of thinking", you haven't responded in any constructive
way to the response I gave to your post on this subject, where I tried
to point out your series of mistakes and on which Tom largely
concured.

[snip]

Sorry, I couldn't make head nor tails of the rest of what you had to
say. Let's see if anyone else can explain it to me.

PD

"Paul Draper" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...

[PD]
Pax, if we have a history, you'll have to remind me of it. A search of
news archives doesn't reveal any conversation you and I have had, unless
you've changed you moniker. (I haven't.)

As for "ways of thinking", you haven't responded in any constructive way
to the response I gave to your post on this subject, where I tried to point
out your series of mistakes and on which Tom largely concured.


[Pax]
Please forgive my unnecessary and unwarranted rudeness, Paul. You gave me no
reason to react as I did to you, and I should not have.


PD


Be well - Pax

..~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._. ~*~.

May people say of you:
"The world is a better place because you are in it."

From Andromeda:
"Dillon Hunt, there are three kinds of people in this
universe, those who can count, and those who can't."

We sit inside the impossible and say the impossible
is impossible.

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
m...


[Pax]
[...]
Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is incapable
of momentum, and has no energy.


[Tom]
When you assume Newtonian mechanics, and apply it to massless particles,
you get nonsense.


[Pax]
Yes. True. But was my crippled attempt at math assuming anything
different where photons are concerned? Zero mass is zero mass. If mass is
used as foundational, a prerequisite from which further assertions are
deduced, then it must be considered to be a deciding factor.

Please see article:
What is the Mass of a Photon?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...oton_mass.html


[Tom]
Had you assumed SR instead, you would get indeterminate values (either 0/0
or 0*infinity) using your approach. That just means that SR cannot exclude
particles with zero mass. And, in fact, QED relies on this and uses massless
photons.


[Pax]
Of course. It was not my assumption, however, that was a quoted
statement.


[Pax]
This would seem on the surface to be a ridiculous assertion, since
photons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon were first described by Max
Planck by their virtue of being packets of energy (See Planck’s Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law). If you examine that you might
notice the word “packets”. A packet is a container, a carrier, something
that is capable of containing and, one would assume, delivering something
else. I am asserting nothing different from that.


[Tom]
Your problem is assuming Newtonian mechanics rather than SR.


[Pax]
No. Your problem is assuming that's what I assume. However, Newton didn't
go in the trashcan when Einstein trumped some of his basic assumptions.


[Pax]
What I am saying is that, rather than one photon carrying a portion of
energy separately from source to destination, photons work in tandem like
“bucket-brigades”, picking up energy from the source and then handing it off
to the next photon in “line”. In normal terms, photons pass energy on
through waves. This would explain why photons seem so commonly to be
“destroyed” in tied groups.


[Tom]
This does not explain the basic phenomena observed. Specifically the
photon effect. The discrepancy is most strongly illustrated by experiments
that count individual photons (which can now be done for visible light
through gamma rays of many GeV).


[Pax]
The simultaneous destruction/absorption of a group of identical photons is
something Einstein could never figure out, though he tried. What can cause a
group to react simultaneously? The conclusion was that they were somehow
tied due to their being created at exactly the same time and possessing
exactly the same characteristics. (Boy! Do I ever need to rediscover that
reference! I don't like to trust to memory.)

In double slit, with both slits open, one photon interferes with itself;
with one slit open and one closed, it does not. Both slits open or one slit
open, a true single particle will take one path or the other. That is
Newtonian. The interference-like pattern build-up with electrons is
different, since electrons are fermions (though they're also waves, of
course).

Please see hotly debated article (and its reference links):
Copenhagen interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation


[Pax]
In order for the energy carried in a wave to diminish, gravity or
friction of the medium must offer resistance,


[Tom]
Or, perhaps, the waves in question are not classical waves. That's how
modern physical theories treat this....


[Pax]
Yes, I said that. But they are considered to have all of the
characteristics of classic waves. The primary way modern theories disagree
with classic theories is in their assertion that the photon itself exists at
c, has no medium and is, instead, its own medium. They have taken the energy
and insisted it is the particle. This works in application, just as calling
a water wave water works in application. Both assertions are true.

Explain the propagation method of the photon. What causes it to travel in
wave form? Without the addition of a medium, the wave characteristics of the
photon in flight are nothing short of voodoo assertions. However, if you
consider photons as the medium, and return their full -1, 0, +1 spin
possibilities to them... which 0 state has been *accepted* in the special
case of photons... the propagation of electromagnetic waves through them
might become explanatory. Even though spin is not a real vector, it could be
an indication of a possible tendency for travel in a real vector.

Where photons are concerned there are so many "this is how it is *except* in
the case of the photon" statements it's rather ridiculous. Einstein never
said there was no medium for light, all he said was the utilization of such
a medium wasn't necessary in order for GR to work.

I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else I'm right, Tom, I'm here
to work through a mystery. This is an exercise for my own pleasure to
satisfy my own questions. So many exceptions concerning the photon are
unacceptable to me, since they fly in the face of logic. Most are happy to
live with "that's just the way it is," unfortunately for me, I'm not one of
those.

In Physics today, assumptions are drawn that directly counter Relativity, at
least the founding assertions of Einstein's Relativity, and then those
assumptions are defended as if they were theology rather than science. If
you don't agree with my conclusions, that's fine with me... truly. I'm
here to gather more complete information, not to be "indoctrinated". Such
attempts are unnecessary where I'm concerned, since I already agree with
Einstein... even though it might not seem to some that I do.


Tom Roberts


Be well - Pax

..~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._.~*~._. ~*~.

May people say of you:
"The world is a better place because you are in it."

From Andromeda:
"Dillon Hunt, there are three kinds of people in this
universe, those who can count, and those who can't."

We sit inside the impossible and say the impossible
is impossible.

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
om...

[Pax]
Part 1 of " Ken, need help with this"... this sucker's too long to
post in one piece, so cutting it in two.


[Ken]
Hi Pax, I'm having a problem with your format, it's hard for anyone to
know who said what!


[Pax]
Sorry for the confusing formatting, trying to fix it here.


"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
om...
"Pax" wrote in message
news:e ...


[Pax]
p = m_0v (classic statement), its checking permutations being


[Ken]
((never heard it put that way, interesting))


[Pax]
Because the m_0 assumes it doesn't include kinetic energy? Guess I
colored it with m0 due to my current fixation on massless objects. The
classic statement is actually p = mv, should've just left it at that since
it's all the same in the end. Thanks!


[Pax]
so the equation for finding energy (E),
E^2/c^2 = (m_0^2c^2) + p^2,


[Pax]
Guess this should just be E^2/c^2 = (m^2c^2) + p^2, although I've seen
it
written both ways (with m_0 and with just m).


[Ken]
Well what's important is,

E = m_0 c^2 /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = m_0 c^2 *gamma

where E includes the contribution of the rest mass m_0 and the kinetic
energy from gamma.


[Pax]
The problem is that mass is a determining factor for finding kinetic energy
as well.


[Pax]
Strange, it seems a massless particle can have no velocity, is
incapable of momentum, and has no energy. If the energy carried by an object
is directly proportional to its mass and momentum, then for a massless
object it appears that would calculate to 0 energy, yet we know light has
energy. The energy must therefore be in the wave and not in the photon. Can
we then go the final step and conclude that photons are the stationary
medium of transmission, better known classically as aether, for
electromagnetic waves that propagate through it?


[Ken]
((That's topical, pardon my rant))...


[Pax]
"Ranting" is what I asked for.


[Ken]
IMO, the rest mass of a photon can only be measured when it leaves a
system K and takes some energy, and the rest mass of the photon appears as a
deficit to the emitting system and/or is then brought to rest by absorption
in system K' adding energy to that system.

Between K and K' a doppler shift can occur or in a g-field an Einstein
shift, so the emission deficit may not be the same as the absorption
increment.

There is really no point in discussing the "rest mass" of a "photon in
flight", (I call that a floton), because it's not at rest.

It gets complicated when a "floton" is deflected in a g-field.
Basically what happens is the floton appears to be deaccelerated by the
g-field in the process of deflection. That deacceleration from speed c to a
lesser speed C (C = speed of light in a g-field) can be regarded as part of
the floton being absorbed by the g-field, thus exhibiting a "rest mass"
absorption, and the rest whizzes by but red shifted by momentum exchange.


[Pax]
It's taken me a long time to post what you're replying to because I knew
I'd have to fight through the "always moving photon" assumption... heck, not
"assumption", more "given". If you could just suspend that assumption for a
moment... I don't mean consider it to be wrong, just suspend the notion that
it *must* be right...


[Ken]
ok


[Pax]
First, every effect that is attributed to photons existing at c is based
on four things:
1) photons are massless
2) photons deliver energy
3) photons move in waves
4) photon reception --
a) resulting in absorption
b) resulting in reflection/deflection/etc.


[Ken]
ok


[Pax]
There are variables, such as interference, but no good explanation for
one photon interfering with itself (double slit) has been discovered. The
phenomenon has been noted and accepted, that's different. Of course, some
have tried to explain it, but the reasoning has more to do with wave
functions.

However, on closer examination, considering photons to be moving really
does no harm, I guess. It just precludes there being any sort of actual
"fabric" to spacetime. Quantum foam doesn't seem to be a good alternative,
unless it allows for wave displacement... but I haven't examined it closely
enough yet to actually make that sort of judgment.


[Pax]
What I am saying is that, rather than one photon carrying a portion
of energy separately from source to destination, photons work in tandem like
"bucket-brigades", picking up energy from the source and then handing it off
to the next photon in "line". In normal terms, photons pass energy on
through waves.


[Ken]
ok, assume everywhere in spacetime is a virtual photon, corresponding to
your empty bucket, then the photon energy fills the bucket...and so
on...that's interesting.


[Pax]
Exactly! That's why I can't get it out of my mind, especially due to all the
special-case exceptions applied for photons. The only things we know about
light are through interception. In vacuo, we can't see it going away from
us, we can't watch it going sideways, we can't detect it until at least some
of it is redirected toward us or a collector.

Visualize a true bucket brigade, but everything is invisible... men,
buckets, and water... until the line is intercepted somewhere. Now, what if,
no matter where you intercepted that line of moving water, a bucket
materialized to deliver the water, but you only knew the bucket and water
were there because, as the bucket delivered its load of water, the bucket
hit at a definite point of impact in such a way that you knew it had to be
an object? Would it be easy to draw the conclusion that the bucket was
actually the water and only one bucket was being used from source to
interceptor?


[Ken]
Sure a photon is a tiny oscillator, it has wave characteristics.


[Pax]
Every particle has wave characteristics. There is no such thing as a
"solid". But examine what you're saying:

A tiny particle, unlike every other know thing that waves, is both its
own medium and its actual wave movement. A corresponding alternative would
be to say that each molecule of water drops from the sky and rushes in a
wave outward... not *causes* waves outward, but *is* a wave that moves
outward. Yes molecules are huge in comparison to particles, but the analogy
holds.

Waves in the ocean are transferred from molecule to molecule, in other
words: the waves *propagate* through their medium of water molecules.
Water's wave action is a result of force applied at some point to the medium
as an entity. Light waves are also said to *propagate*, in fact, c is their
detectable propagation speed. [Dictionary.com -- propagate - Physics. To
cause (a wave, for example) to move in some direction or through a medium;
transmit.]


[Pax]
This would explain why photons seem so commonly to be "destroyed" in
tied groups.


[Ken]
Oh I understand, I was not familiar with the word "tied", no need for a
ref, your explanation was good for me.


[Pax]
Thanks. Wish it was good enough for me, too. I really hate trusting
completely to memory.


[Ken]
Yes both, recall we can convert mass to sucking 1.5 km of length call
that number m = 1.5 km.We also suck 1.5 km of time, for a total of 2m sucked
in spacetime.


[Pax]
Was very grateful you pointed that out to me in that other thread.
Had no idea until then there was any math that backed up my deductions.


[Ken]
It turns out that the deflection of light by the spacetime "warp",
(maybe we should call it spacetime suction) is

deflection = 2m / R, R = closest approach to m
(oo = R)

and that is reported to be confirmed by measuring the deflection and
retarded flight times of photons by the sun.


[Pax]
Thanks. Keeping that too.


[Pax]
In my studies I have come across these statements ([bracketed] are
my insertions):

1) "The de Broglie wavelength of a particle equals Planck's constant
divided by its momentum [w=h/p]. The momentum of a particle equals the
square root of twice its mass times its kinetic energy [p=sqrt(2m0)*Ek]. The
kinetic energy of a particle equals the square of its momentum divided by
twice its mass [Ek=p2/2m0]."

Re 1): All of the above assertions seem to hinge upon rest mass
being greater than zero (m00), would they not all otherwise zero out?
Wavelength depends upon momentum, momentum depends upon velocity times mass,
kinetic energy depends upon momentum divided by mass. Is the assertion that
photons always move at c based on anything other than the observation of
light waves? If wavelength equals Planck's Constant divided by momentum,
then photons cannot have a wavelength.


[Ken]
Before discussing those questions, please see if they are altered by
my rant.


[Pax]
Sorry, but no. Discuss?


[Ken]
Ha, ok. Let's keep our terms straight, a photon is something that is
measurable, as I ranted above, it is defined by how it interacts with
matter. A "floton" is an "in flight flying photon", that is supposed to be
defined in the absence of interaction.


[Pax]
So you've divided the energy from the particle that delivers it as a matter
of course in the past.


[Ken]
Well, one can define a floton from some dynamics, and it can possess
frequency, in the form of oscillating EM-fields. Electric charges are
orthogonal to x,y,z,t and so any lengths and motion within the floton
relating electric charge is also perpendicular to x,y,z,t so the lorentz
transform does not apply.


[Pax]
It seems you're describing the transverse nature of lightwaves, but your
terminology is strange to me. The Lorentz Transformation applies to
lightwaves, since Lorentz is based on the velocity of a light emitting
object. But perhaps you mean the Lorentz Transformation doesn't apply to the
strength of the electromagnetism making up the wave.

Need some clarification here. Afraid to comment at present.


[Pax]
Plan