Mike Smith Cosmos

I do not think we should be in a hurry to rush away from visual beauty. Often beauty is at the heart of both good maths and good physics.

It is rather poetic. I suppose, if you are trying to convey something that is at the very heart of things , like light, matter, energy, gravity, electromagnetism, it is likely to be pictorially beautiful and visually stunning. Like plasma at the heart of nuclear fusion, lightning, radio frequency light generation in a galaxy lamp. You are an inspiration PP in the gloom of pure mathematics! Visually is as good if not better a medium to convey understanding. After all we are endowed with sight which seems to have been a prime sense in our arsenal of communications. If I can get my head around it , I might try to paint it! P P . Yippee! Mike

Some diagram ! Are you going to explain it ? Mike

swansont ! Thats the funny'ist thing I've heard you say EVER ! I just laughed myself into a drain ! Mike

In the book Silver Locusts by R Heinman the martians were there invisibly. ! Good Story Good read.!

Is what you are saying? That each resonant point is a distinct colour or shade that represents a distinct element on the periodic table of elements ? So. Say the spectrum is split into 92 distinct colours or shades ranging through red ,orange,yellow,green,blue,indigo,violet split 92 ways? Representing hydrogen, helium............uranium ? Is this what you are proposing photon propeller ? So that would make 13 shades of red for 13 elements , then 13 shades of orange for another set of 13 elements etc etc 13 shades of green etc etc to ....... 13 shades of violet. ( 13.something ) Is this what you mean ? Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. So to speak . (13 and stick both have bad connotations ) sorry I jest . Not minimising your theory, just trying to get my head around it. Sounds quite interesting. If that is what you mean. I think your comment that light is an amazing phenomenon , and no doubt there are all sorts of interesting features of light that we do not yet understand. Please correct me if I am going off on a wrong tangent ! Mike

Photon ! So I can try to get my head round this theory of yours, What are your 3 to 6 best points of your theory in 3 to 6 short phrases or short sentences ? say : 1........ Light is........... 2..... Photons are............ 3..... : : 6.... Say you were going to die in 3 minutes time and you wanted to leave your theory to posterity! Mike

I get that distinct feeling you are humouring me! If there were intelligent life ,even at a much lower yet intelligent order (say goat shaped but intelligent) and I found strange craft landing and roaming around. I might feel moved to build a structure that would give some indication of intelligence say a house or hut ! Perhaps for housing us goat Martians! Even though I lived underground.

I do not get where the Goats come from?

Arc is the best person to explain the detail, as it is his theory. However, it is very different from the standard convection current theory. He believes, and has a very interesting case for saying.... The whole thing starts with the sun's magnetic field which is very,very large, changes from time to time which causes a change in the electric current of the earth , at or near the outer molten core of the earth. This then due to extra expansive heat causes the mantle to change its size. This increase or decrease puts the plates to go under greater or lesser strain., say expansion or contraction. If contraction a gap appears at the mid Atlantic ridge say, which then gets filled with molten mantle. Then when the earth current down at the core goes into an opposite mode, say less current , less expansion of the mantle. Then the upper mantle contracts. The plates have no space to go , so push up mountains at the Atlantic/Pacific edges as well as subduction. This is different from the current theory that believes it is mantle plumes by convection, mid ocean doing the driving. Arc has very good comparative evidence for his theory. Mike ( hope I have explained it right Marc )

Goats don't just eat berries, they eat practically anything edible , including clothes off washing lines!

Herbage indeed !

Where did these goats come from. I did not hear anybody say anything about goats. there is not enough Herbage !

Is this a "Fake " picture ? Or are we interpreting as "what we see" ? Or am I just being Naive ?

One can't because as we know the wave function collapses. However, we have measured by detection a number of photons being aimed at the moon reflector and returning to earth. It is almost beyond comprehension , that an individual photon would have bounced around the universe to get to the moon reflector. What an experimenter could do is fire an INDIVIDUAL photon , a number of times at the moon reflector. Once having got sight line up. Then check they all come back. I think that would be evidence that individual photons travel in straight lines despite theirs probability flexibility . If some do not return , it would indicate a deviation from straight line say by probability deviation. Or some other reason , like a seagull flying by. What say you ?

Yes, I can see the probability wave allows for the photon to not necessarily, take a completely straight path. Perhaps dodging about a bit sideways as the probability wave allows. But I doubt this would be little if any away from the straight line it started off with or it would never get to its aimed for destination.

Surely a photon can in its entirety , O N L Y move off in one unique direction( all be it that the wave front on the wave packet is as wide as the probability wave /de broglie ). If this were not so the energy density of the photon would diminish by the inverse square law greater by the surface of the expanding spherical surface as r increases. The photon does not do this. It goes it's own unique single way on its way to infinity without loosing energy. A normal wave front ( non photon) would decrease in amplitude by the inverse square law. As the energy is dissipated over a larger and larger surface area of the sphere. Many photons could be present at a source . Then the density of photons at the increasing surface area would be diluted. But an individual photon from this source would continue its journey to infinity, provided it did not collide with a planet or foot or something else.

[quote name="tar" post="769414" Mike Smith Cosmos,?....................Let me say this about the current 3 rules under consideration................ Tar. I have been off this subject for a while. However not wishing to drop it as I personally believe it to be fundamental. Firstly , while having a discussion with a colleague from Florida who had done some research on identical electrons that two were faced with changing to an alternative state, stultified , as they were identical. There was no advantage one over the other. So they stultified into a meta stable state and so did nothing ! So an advantage or initiative IS required to lead into a new development. So if this IS a property of nature. Then an initiative IS required to set a new direction. So what ever the prime mover is ! One Prime mover , in some form or another , would appear necessary !. See electron states on http://www.thenatureofthecosmos.com/blue-sky-ideas.html [ Blue Sky Ideas Electron Choices By Wolfhart Willmczik ] Also is relevant to say , that the last I heard . The perimeter institute set up to explore the issues at the forefront of science . Was getting all it's resident scientists to explore " What came before the Big Bang to see what could have been necessary for the Big Bang to happen.?" Mike

Better leave that to swansont , he is the expert on all this! Mike

This has an echo of the behaviour of the electron in orbit. Electrons bound by the orbital constraints.Except now out of the atom the space occupied by the photon is more , much more than the atom size. Seems like the photon is the electron escaped ( like the genie out of the bottle ). Now that is a neat picture.

Having listened to all that has been discussed in this thread and elsewhere, i am beginning to pick up an image of roughly what a photon looks like and its nature. Due to its micro size , the de Broglie wave is significant. so whatever the photon is it can be anywhere across the de brodlie probability wave pattern previously illustrated going from a very small probability right though to a max and back down to a minimum. Let us say the wave packet represents the extent to which the photon " heart " is thought of as being. Provided this width is greater than the double slit distance , then it is possible for the photon to go through both slits. whether it does is another matter. The wave packet nonetheless can be 'seen' as being bigger than the two slits and thus going through both as a sort of wave front, thus causing interference patterns the other side of the slits. Now this wave packet looks a bit like a vibrating bubble with this dense "heart" in its middle , being the place where the photon heart mostly is. Like a bee buzzing around in a bottle. This whole thing is buzzing with the frequency given by the De Broglie equation as well as the Energy equation.. as f This is in fact the frequency of the Light photon with its constant peak amplitude. But due to the Quantum nature and Plank , this photon only lasts for its requisit time. start bzzzz stop. This whole bullet of buzzing at f ( frequency) is the wave packet or particle. Now . Try and get a hold of this photon by detection and the whole thing collapses to a point, like smashing the bottle and swatting the bee [ the heart of the photon ] Got you you B#### . It it grounded at one location only. This does quite beg the question , what quite is this bee heart that is buzzing about ? How does that sound like a visualisation ?

Unless i misunderstand you. you have come to the conclusion I mentioned much earlier in this thead. That there are in fact two waves. One the probaliity wave , which is concerned with the location of the photon. and two the sinusoidal wave of constant peak amplitude carrying the light energy. Whether these two waves are somehow one of the same but two aspects of the same wave [ maybe they are ]. i do not know. Fenyman spoke of the probability wave as well as the actual photon [ which is a sine wave of constant peak amplitude ] as an entity. what i have just said is maybe more of a muddle. please say so, as you seem to be getting your head around it , in the context of the double slit experiment. there is one of Fenyman lectures , where he reviews simple reflection. here the photon takes all possible paths to the object. but the ones that went along paths not following angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. somehow the other paths were further out the probability wave, and somehow canceled , leaving mainly i = r .MOSTLY but maybe a little elsewhere ! When you get a clear insight of what a photon actually is, PLEASE rattle my cage and tell me what you SEE . mike

It would seem to me this subject of what radiates in what medium is a constant concern to many . Times have moved on. The old ideas of nothing or something maybe does not necessary apply any more. Today 10 trillion neutrinos can pass through our hand in one second without us noticing. Goodness knows , it takes a light year of lead for one neutrino to react with ordinary matter we are told. Perhaps we in our macro world is so spaced out in distance, that all this other miniature stuff is going about a different business! If you are a photon working at plank lengths or there abouts, perhaps all this micro miniature stuff is important to its operation " not the medium that has been discarded but a sort of new medium " to us we do not even notice it ,any more than we do neutrinos. I hear the shot gun being loaded !

But surely if vacuum is NOT empty it must be a medium of some sort or another, unless you are saying that E-M waves ( photons) have absolutely NO interaction with any of these fields, particles , bits and pieces. ? Frank Wilczec ( Nobel Prize Winner ) in his book " The Lightness of Being" , seemed to say there was a " Grid " making up this mixture of fields and virtual particles which he indicated was very near to being a medium . surely he is considered fairly mainstream .

That is unless the photons carry, or participate in there own medium or work within the Higgs mechanism ( Higgs Field ) Virtual particles clouds ,quantum fluctuations etc etc There are so many Fields existing, including electro-magnetic fields, The idea of a vacuum of nothingness seems to be fading with all the recent discoveries . This would make a HUGH difference as in cases like Water , Air etc. Here, the medium, regulates the waves, so from various different winds/breezes a coherent continuous synchronous wave is generated.