🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 6, 1:36 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >John Kennaugh wrote:
> >> The idea that a photon 'interferes' with itself is absurd in the
> >>classic  sense of the word 'interfere'.
>
> >Sure. But the QUANTUM meaning of the word is what applies. The photon
> >is NOT a "classical" object.
>
> That is the modern view certainly but physics has now embraced mysticism
> to such an extent that the phrase "quantum particle" is used almost as
> an incantation forbidding anyone from trying to make sense of it.
>
> >> If two waves of unity amplitude interfere  the result is an amplitude
> >>which can vary between 0 and 2 depending on  the phase and can have
> >>every value in between. e.g. At some phase  difference there will be
> >>an amplitude of say 0.345.
>
> >Yes. Remember, however, that in QM the waves do not propagate in the
> >same direction; indeed, they normally propagate in all possible
> >directions....
>
> As I say physics has embraced mysticism big time.
>
>
>
> >> If you think about the photon model it may well conform
> >>mathematically  to the concept of interference but physically it just
> >>is not  interference.
>
> >Nonsense. No other word comes close to describing the phenomenon.
>
> Interference by definition means two things interfere. A null is caused
> by two thing cancelling. A peak is two things reinforcing. You don't
> have two things to interfere, two things do not reach the detector and
> cancel and two things do not reach the detector and reinforce and
> certainly two things of arbitrary phase do not arrive at the detector
> and partially cancel. A null is where no photons arrive because no (or
> very few) photons leave the double slits travelling in that direction. A
> peak is where a lot of photons arrive because that is the direction
> which has the highest probability.
>
>
>
> >> Two things do not arrive at a point and partially cancel  out.
>
> >That's your problem -- this is not at all "two things". You need to
> >LEARN about quantum mechanics before attempting to discuss it.
>
> >> [... remainder displays utter ignorance of modern physics]
>
> No I reject the mysticism of modern physics. A photon is a perfectly
> ordinary particle not some mystical mathematical object. A photon has
> mass and therefore shows that SR is wrong because SR says it cannot
> travel at c if it has mass - and it does.
>
> A photon has mass because:
>
> 1/ Its direction is affected by gravity as with any projectile with
> mass.
> 2/ Its energy increases if it falls under gravity just like any other
> object with mass.
> 3/ Its energy is reduced when it escapes from a gravity field just like
> any other projectile.
> 4/ If photons hit a surface they produce pressure just as any other
> particles with mass will.
> 5/ It is hard to show that if you stop a photon it has rest mass but If
> you take a very high energy photon (massive) and near stop it you end up
> with an electron and a positron - which have mass - and a low energy
> photon to take away any excess mass.
> 6/ If you combine an electron and a positron then you get two photons
> each of who's mass is equal to that of an electron (or a positron)
>
> The equations Waldron produces show that a photon with a given energy
> has a given mass and that one value gives the correct answer in all the
> above. The mass equations all balance.

Tom Roberts and his superior brothers Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond and Jong-
Ping Hsu have already solved this problem: Divine Albert's Divine
Special Relativity "would be unaffected" even if "it is ultimately
discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum
does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform)":

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

> SR is Einstein's attempt to rescue Maxwell's wave in aether theory from
> experimental evidence which disproved it. Even then it is only a 'fix'
> for the MMX. The fact that light physically isn't waves and is
> particulate he simply ignored despite having got a Nobel prize for
> establishing the fact. Having ditched 3 perfectly reasonable and
> sensible axioms of physics to save Maxwell's wave in aether theory
> physics then, a couple of decades later rejected the aether Einstein had
> made physics pay such a high price to save, effectively sawing off the
> intellectual branch it was supported by. Einstein's aether - the aether
> without the immobility of Lorentz's - was rejected. The aether was
> removed from physics not as the result of any experiment, nor through
> some theoretical wizardry but by the totally arbitrary decision made by
> physicists, on behalf of physicists, that physical interpretation was no
> longer considered a necessary part of physics. Thus saving physics from
> the embarrassing position it had accepted. It left the way open to
> today's mysticism where there is no quality assurance. Once having
> accepted that it is nature which is weird (rather than that physics is
> totally cocked up) nothing can be rejected. You cannot reject something
> on the grounds that "nature may be weird but it cannot be *that* weird".
>
> --
> John Kennaugh
> "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
> strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."  Dr Scott Murray