Re: Radiation langauge


"Purl Gurl" <purlgurl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Js-dnfJY5I5yYCDenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Chess One wrote:

>> potential increase or decrease in speed by (a) galactic lensing [or
>> gravity, if you like]
>
> No, no, as best we know we cannot change the speed of light. We
> can bend light, we can split light into a color spectrum, we can
> shift frequency and modulation, but not change speed.

I see that Skitt has reported on a rather weird slowing down of coherent
energy. My question relates to speeding it up. Conditions for both are the
same, almost absolute zero.

The issue - not that I specifically wish to contend the issue in physics, is
that what was once assumed a universal constant, no matter what the
conditions, is now being challenged by empiric experiments we do not know
the math nor physic thereof, nor have a suitable paradigm to explain as
particle/wave. So the paradigm shifts from this previous dualism, but
doesn't currently know where to go. As you have noted elsewhere, efforts on
Chaos and complex systems seem most likely to provoke some resolutions [I
hope you don't mind my paraphrase]

> Can we modulate light? I am not sure on this. I don't mean like
> turn light on, turn light off, but rather add a modulation with
> light acting as a carrier? Frequency modulation, I think is
> possible through repeating "color" shifting.
>
>> and (b) by Fabry-Perot barrier effect?

> I suspect, though, you are trying to lure readers into a
> resonance and amplitude trap.

Another experiment, this time in USA, superfroze a material, a barrier with
the usual surface of sympathetic wavefront to the source wavelength.

In one path (a) there is no barrier between source and sensor, and in the
other (b) there is a moderated barrier. 6 our of 10 times the path (b)
records the photon arriving before the other photon (a) which was emitted
simultaneously. The remaining 4 times have the photons arriving
simultaneously.

This is indeed a trick question, since its resolution lies in the shape of
the photon envelope being changed after the barrier, and which then makes
'better contact' with the sensor.

> A laser better. Light is both blocked and reflected with a lot of energy
> being absorbed. If we could measure, a material struck by laser light
> would exhibit the frequency (particle / wave) nature of the laser light.

And, if we attentuate the laser wavelength [signal], then there is something
else going on, the object develops a measurable florescence, albeit as a
faint emission at a different wavelength compared with the signal.

There are many applications of this; especially in forensic sciences, when a
microscopic sample can be tested for calcium emisions, eg, [for bone] - and
besides, there is no need to section the sample, and a 'probe' is used to
stimulate floresence. It also detects other organic substances such as
blood, but in fact all substances floresce.

The paradigm in these practicle applications is to ignore wave and use
particle ideas, except for the optics, which need wavefronts sympathetic to
the signal and the emission, otherwise signal to noise is too great, and the
emission lost in noise, some of which incidentally of the same wavelength as
the emission, thus poluting the sample.

> This is a nasty one to discuss. Hmm, if we could not displace an electron
> in
> a tube with an electron shoved in, ultimately domino effecting a fall out
> electron
> at the other end, we would not have electricity.

An odd thing about electro-optics is that it does not model easily for
slower physics = and in your electron transmission comment, there is only
relatively slow particle considerations, and no 'broadcast energy' as if you
could broadcast electricity.

>> and (d) if one photon is emitted, and contacts a beam/splitter which
>> passes
>> 50% energy and reflects 50% energy, how many photons arrive at receptors
>> for
>> each respective path?
>
> One-hundred percent of expected or greater. Good bet more than expected.
> Why?

Yes, do you get one or two photons as result? :) Or do you have one photon
in two places simultaneously?

The practical answer to that question differs from the theoretical idea of
particle physics, even though we respect the result in mathematics of
quanta, where a particle can be, in fact needs to be, in two places at once
:)

I started writing this to contrast something very far from word usage, but
to illustrate that both wave and particle ideas exist in radiation physics,
or electro optics, and the paradigm we use is of both, but as a
convenience - particle paradigm explains this, but not that. Wave paradgim
that not this. Neither of them individually, nor both in combination are
adequate to explain all cases, and practical rather than theoretical physics
does not proceed from any need to do so!

According to Einstein's special theorum, some 9/10ths of the mass of the
universe is missing!

Anyway, that's enough parallelism for a few days - it only remains to be
seen if people are as passionate about 'light' as they are about politics or
what 'what' means.

Cordially, Phil

> Hey, if you can ask a trick question, I can provide a trick answer.
>
>
> Purl Gurl


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: mass of the photon
    ... Introduction to High Energy Physics, by Donald Perkins, especially ... the energy required for pair production of teh positron and electron. ... 'Balmer-like' analytic solution to the spectroscopy of the photon ... is based on collisions, many collisions to and fro between the photon- ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Physics wrong turns - nearly everything learned over the past 100 years is wrong
    ... What is with the Alice in Wonderland state of physics? ... There is no way this particle exchange can work! ... We are all familiar with the model of the atom as an extremely compact ... from blobs of electron clouds. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... electron was nothing else than a mass particle building atoms of all ... are allegedly particle physics based on the philosophy of materialism ... impossible to subdivide into final subunits, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... electron was nothing else than a mass particle building atoms of all ... are allegedly particle physics based on the philosophy of materialism ... impossible to subdivide into final subunits, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... electron was nothing else than a mass particle building atoms of all ... are allegedly particle physics based on the philosophy of materialism ... impossible to subdivide into final subunits, ...
    (sci.cognitive)