Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583850 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:31 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 13:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 16:04 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 09:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 10:05 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:37 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 14:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:32 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:20 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:26 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-26 12:45 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 11:47 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 20:36 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-26 13:00 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 19:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:38 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 12:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 15:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-28 01:36 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 21:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:44 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-28 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 20:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 15:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 22:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 17:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 00:41 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 18:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 22:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 12:52 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-29 10:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-29 21:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 12:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 20:01 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 13:55 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:32 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 22:00 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:12 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:50 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:18 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 23:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:51 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 22:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 18:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 15:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 06:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:35 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 10:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 19:07 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:17 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 15:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 16:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:43 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 11:58 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 12:14 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:08 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:43 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-25 10:56 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 10:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-26 12:46 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:13 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:05 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 20:33 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 19:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 15:29 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 18:13 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:26 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 19:36 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:33 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-28 11:50 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:49 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 21:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-30 13:10 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 18:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 14:52 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 10:08 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 03:01 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:17 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 13:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 20:47 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:19 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:25 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 09:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 21:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 15:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-26 10:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-23 18:07 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-23 23:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 08:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:32 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 18:36 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 15:55 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:25 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 06:03 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 15:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 09:58 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 13:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb69831f-614c-4732-88ad-8a5764f7beeen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584142 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. > What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric? > And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are > excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better. > > NONE contains a > > description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on > > page 1254; > > > > ------ Start quote ------ > > > > When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of > > electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect > > of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it > > is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called > > photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the > > radiation. > > We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle > > duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference > > and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption > > of photons demonstrate the particle behavior. > > > > ------- end quote ------ > > The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by > > Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman > It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics > textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was? It's number 3 on this list: https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/ It's number 7 on this list: https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/ It's number 1 on this list: https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/ When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t49n3v$118e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584172 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. >> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric? >> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are >> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better. >>> NONE contains a >>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on >>> page 1254; >>> >>> ------ Start quote ------ >>> >>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of >>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect >>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it >>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called >>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the >>> radiation. >>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle >>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference >>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption >>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior. >>> >>> ------- end quote ------ >>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by >>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman >> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics >> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was? > > It's number 3 on this list: > https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/ > It's number 7 on this list: > https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/ > It's number 1 on this list: > https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/ > > When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3. > > Ed > OK, so let’s take a look at your metrics. First of all, you are using votes by SINGLE REVIEWERS, which is not a metric. It’s like reading local newspaper articles for “Best Barbecue in North Carolina” or “Best Movies of Summer 2021”. Those are single opinions, not metrics. Metrics might be “copies sold in the US in 2021”, or “used by most physics departments in 4-year universities and colleges”. Those provide numbers that are quantifiable rankings. While you’re pondering that, consider that the last link was from a website for professional video gamers. Does this seem like a reliable source to you? Does this help you understand why doing Google searches is only going to pull from a vast cesspool of questionable information, and unless you examine the quality of the sources, you’re just going to be repeating sewage. While Sears, Zemansky, and Young was indeed a very popular textbook dating back to the 1960’s, I recall, it’s worth noting that the only continuous author on that franchise, Hugh Young, died in 2013 at the age of 83. The current edition of Young and Freedman carries none of the breeding of that original franchise. It has survived by loyalty alone. Again, mind your sources. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 07:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0392b6bd-6f0e-4151-869f-f0ac242cfcd5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584176 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. > >> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric? > >> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are > >> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better. > >>> NONE contains a > >>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on > >>> page 1254; > >>> > >>> ------ Start quote ------ > >>> > >>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of > >>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect > >>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it > >>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called > >>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the > >>> radiation. > >>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle > >>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference > >>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption > >>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior. > >>> > >>> ------- end quote ------ > >>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by > >>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman > >> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics > >> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was? > > > > It's number 3 on this list: > > https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/ > > It's number 7 on this list: > > https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/ > > It's number 1 on this list: > > https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/ > > > > When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3. > > > > Ed > > > OK, so let’s take a look at your metrics. First of all, you are using votes > by SINGLE REVIEWERS, which is not a metric. It’s like reading local > newspaper articles for “Best Barbecue in North Carolina” or “Best Movies of > Summer 2021”. Those are single opinions, not metrics. Metrics might be > “copies sold in the US in 2021”, or “used by most physics departments in > 4-year universities and colleges”. Those provide numbers that are > quantifiable rankings. While you’re pondering that, consider that the last > link was from a website for professional video gamers. Does this seem like > a reliable source to you? Does this help you understand why doing Google > searches is only going to pull from a vast cesspool of questionable > information, and unless you examine the quality of the sources, you’re just > going to be repeating sewage. > > While Sears, Zemansky, and Young was indeed a very popular textbook dating > back to the 1960’s, I recall, it’s worth noting that the only continuous > author on that franchise, Hugh Young, died in 2013 at the age of 83. The > current edition of Young and Freedman carries none of the breeding of that > original franchise. It has survived by loyalty alone. Again, mind your > sources. If you have a better source for a list of the best physics textbooks, why don't you provide it? You forget, I'm arguing that most physics textbooks are CRAP. Less than a month ago I started a thread here about ""REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?" It was about his article: https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4bjqc$tg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584243 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. >>>> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric? >>>> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are >>>> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better. >>>>> NONE contains a >>>>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on >>>>> page 1254; >>>>> >>>>> ------ Start quote ------ >>>>> >>>>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of >>>>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect >>>>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it >>>>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called >>>>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the >>>>> radiation. >>>>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle >>>>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference >>>>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption >>>>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior. >>>>> >>>>> ------- end quote ------ >>>>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by >>>>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman >>>> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics >>>> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was? >>> >>> It's number 3 on this list: >>> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/ >>> It's number 7 on this list: >>> https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/ >>> It's number 1 on this list: >>> https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/ >>> >>> When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3. >>> >>> Ed >>> >> OK, so let’s take a look at your metrics. First of all, you are using votes >> by SINGLE REVIEWERS, which is not a metric. It’s like reading local >> newspaper articles for “Best Barbecue in North Carolina” or “Best Movies of >> Summer 2021”. Those are single opinions, not metrics. Metrics might be >> “copies sold in the US in 2021”, or “used by most physics departments in >> 4-year universities and colleges”. Those provide numbers that are >> quantifiable rankings. While you’re pondering that, consider that the last >> link was from a website for professional video gamers. Does this seem like >> a reliable source to you? Does this help you understand why doing Google >> searches is only going to pull from a vast cesspool of questionable >> information, and unless you examine the quality of the sources, you’re just >> going to be repeating sewage. >> >> While Sears, Zemansky, and Young was indeed a very popular textbook dating >> back to the 1960’s, I recall, it’s worth noting that the only continuous >> author on that franchise, Hugh Young, died in 2013 at the age of 83. The >> current edition of Young and Freedman carries none of the breeding of that >> original franchise. It has survived by loyalty alone. Again, mind your >> sources. > > If you have a better source for a list of the best physics textbooks, why don't > you provide it? > > You forget, I'm arguing that most physics textbooks are CRAP. Less than a > month ago I started a thread here about ""REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS > TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?" Then there is absolutely no point in mischaracterizing ANY book you look at as belong to “one of the top three”, when you don’t intend to give it any credence AND your ranking is based on erroneous claims anyway. Here’s one fundamental point you seem to be ignoring. You’re looking at the wrong books. Introductory, first year books are not going to treat relativity well, not going to treat quantum mechanics well, certainly not going to give you anything but a cursory glance at what photons are or how they behave. For such specialized topics, you should be reading books that are focused on those specific topics. The downside is that you’re going to be confronted with mathematics (which is impenetrable Sanskrit to you) of even higher density than in the introductory books. The lesson is that IT IS AN EXPECTATION that you develop certain skills to learn anything substantial about physics. If you do not develop those skills, then you will end up with erroneous impressions of those more advanced topics and the concepts in them. Researching on Google will only worsen things by flooding you with information sewage. You are not going about this in a sensible way. Period. > > It was about his article: > https://www.academia.edu/keypass/VlJja0dnZk1XM29UaE5jOTY4d0FYUXdIMHVUL0VlSHp4QUg1Y1ZvWTJoST0tLVhxS2pCWDNkbWlvRkFlWCtWNDEvMHc9PQ==--9d34e8e8609733ae9d01ed83c941a6776198bbb3/t/sV7gu-QeWEppP-bdz4aD/2984508/REPEATED_ERRORS_IN_PHYSICS_TEXTBOOKS_WHAT_DO_THEY_SAY_ABOUT_THE_CULTURE_OF_TEACHING > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 09:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f055b060-837d-4a7a-935b-224882763f29n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584246 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:26:24 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. > >>>> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric? > >>>> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are > >>>> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better. > >>>>> NONE contains a > >>>>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on > >>>>> page 1254; > >>>>> > >>>>> ------ Start quote ------ > >>>>> > >>>>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of > >>>>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect > >>>>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it > >>>>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called > >>>>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the > >>>>> radiation. > >>>>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle > >>>>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference > >>>>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption > >>>>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior. > >>>>> > >>>>> ------- end quote ------ > >>>>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by > >>>>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman > >>>> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics > >>>> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was? > >>> > >>> It's number 3 on this list: > >>> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/ > >>> It's number 7 on this list: > >>> https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/ > >>> It's number 1 on this list: > >>> https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/ > >>> > >>> When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3. > >>> > >>> Ed > >>> > >> OK, so let’s take a look at your metrics. First of all, you are using votes > >> by SINGLE REVIEWERS, which is not a metric. It’s like reading local > >> newspaper articles for “Best Barbecue in North Carolina” or “Best Movies of > >> Summer 2021”. Those are single opinions, not metrics. Metrics might be > >> “copies sold in the US in 2021”, or “used by most physics departments in > >> 4-year universities and colleges”. Those provide numbers that are > >> quantifiable rankings. While you’re pondering that, consider that the last > >> link was from a website for professional video gamers. Does this seem like > >> a reliable source to you? Does this help you understand why doing Google > >> searches is only going to pull from a vast cesspool of questionable > >> information, and unless you examine the quality of the sources, you’re just > >> going to be repeating sewage. > >> > >> While Sears, Zemansky, and Young was indeed a very popular textbook dating > >> back to the 1960’s, I recall, it’s worth noting that the only continuous > >> author on that franchise, Hugh Young, died in 2013 at the age of 83. The > >> current edition of Young and Freedman carries none of the breeding of that > >> original franchise. It has survived by loyalty alone. Again, mind your > >> sources. > > > > If you have a better source for a list of the best physics textbooks, why don't > > you provide it? > > > > You forget, I'm arguing that most physics textbooks are CRAP. Less than a > > month ago I started a thread here about ""REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS > > TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?" > Then there is absolutely no point in mischaracterizing ANY book you look at > as belong to “one of the top three”, when you don’t intend to give it any > credence AND your ranking is based on erroneous claims anyway. > > Here’s one fundamental point you seem to be ignoring. You’re looking at the > wrong books. Introductory, first year books are not going to treat > relativity well, not going to treat quantum mechanics well, certainly not > going to give you anything but a cursory glance at what photons are or how > they behave. For such specialized topics, you should be reading books that > are focused on those specific topics. The downside is that you’re going to > be confronted with mathematics (which is impenetrable Sanskrit to you) of > even higher density than in the introductory books. The lesson is that IT > IS AN EXPECTATION that you develop certain skills to learn anything > substantial about physics. If you do not develop those skills, then you > will end up with erroneous impressions of those more advanced topics and > the concepts in them. Researching on Google will only worsen things by > flooding you with information sewage. > > You are not going about this in a sensible way. Period. We seem to have irreconcilable differences, making it clear it is about time to bring this discussion to an end. If we disagree, we need to find WHERE we disagree and WHY we disagree. You stated: "It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?" In response I showed you three web sites and how they ranked the Young-Freedman textbook. You disapprove of those web sites, but you provide NO ALTERNATIVE SOURCES to back up your claims. We are arguing physics FUNDAMENTALS. You argue that I shouldn't be looking at textbooks which are about physics FUNDAMENTALS, I should be looking at more advanced textbooks. Why? You don't say. Which books? You don't say. I support my claims by citing sources, you make claims without citing sources because your claims are just your personal beliefs. And you claim that I am the one who is "not going about this in a sensible way." That makes arguing with you a total waste of time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4bun4$1fqm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584265 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 9:26:24 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. >>>>>> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric? >>>>>> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are >>>>>> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better. >>>>>>> NONE contains a >>>>>>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on >>>>>>> page 1254; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------ Start quote ------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of >>>>>>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect >>>>>>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it >>>>>>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called >>>>>>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the >>>>>>> radiation. >>>>>>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle >>>>>>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference >>>>>>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption >>>>>>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ------- end quote ------ >>>>>>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by >>>>>>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman >>>>>> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics >>>>>> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was? >>>>> >>>>> It's number 3 on this list: >>>>> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/ >>>>> It's number 7 on this list: >>>>> https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/ >>>>> It's number 1 on this list: >>>>> https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/ >>>>> >>>>> When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3. >>>>> >>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>> OK, so let’s take a look at your metrics. First of all, you are using votes >>>> by SINGLE REVIEWERS, which is not a metric. It’s like reading local >>>> newspaper articles for “Best Barbecue in North Carolina” or “Best Movies of >>>> Summer 2021”. Those are single opinions, not metrics. Metrics might be >>>> “copies sold in the US in 2021”, or “used by most physics departments in >>>> 4-year universities and colleges”. Those provide numbers that are >>>> quantifiable rankings. While you’re pondering that, consider that the last >>>> link was from a website for professional video gamers. Does this seem like >>>> a reliable source to you? Does this help you understand why doing Google >>>> searches is only going to pull from a vast cesspool of questionable >>>> information, and unless you examine the quality of the sources, you’re just >>>> going to be repeating sewage. >>>> >>>> While Sears, Zemansky, and Young was indeed a very popular textbook dating >>>> back to the 1960’s, I recall, it’s worth noting that the only continuous >>>> author on that franchise, Hugh Young, died in 2013 at the age of 83. The >>>> current edition of Young and Freedman carries none of the breeding of that >>>> original franchise. It has survived by loyalty alone. Again, mind your >>>> sources. >>> >>> If you have a better source for a list of the best physics textbooks, why don't >>> you provide it? >>> >>> You forget, I'm arguing that most physics textbooks are CRAP. Less than a >>> month ago I started a thread here about ""REPEATED ERRORS IN PHYSICS >>> TEXTBOOKS: WHAT DO THEY SAY ABOUT THE CULTURE OF TEACHING?" >> Then there is absolutely no point in mischaracterizing ANY book you look at >> as belong to “one of the top three”, when you don’t intend to give it any >> credence AND your ranking is based on erroneous claims anyway. >> >> Here’s one fundamental point you seem to be ignoring. You’re looking at the >> wrong books. Introductory, first year books are not going to treat >> relativity well, not going to treat quantum mechanics well, certainly not >> going to give you anything but a cursory glance at what photons are or how >> they behave. For such specialized topics, you should be reading books that >> are focused on those specific topics. The downside is that you’re going to >> be confronted with mathematics (which is impenetrable Sanskrit to you) of >> even higher density than in the introductory books. The lesson is that IT >> IS AN EXPECTATION that you develop certain skills to learn anything >> substantial about physics. If you do not develop those skills, then you >> will end up with erroneous impressions of those more advanced topics and >> the concepts in them. Researching on Google will only worsen things by >> flooding you with information sewage. >> >> You are not going about this in a sensible way. Period. > > We seem to have irreconcilable differences, making it clear it is about time > to bring this discussion to an end. If we’re disagreeing on whether you are wasting your time using the internet and Google as your primary information source, and you are unwilling to change your research patterns, then I concur that discussing facts is useless, because you don’t have access to them. You have access to an unfiltered cesspool of crappy data, and you are unable to do quality control. > > If we disagree, we need to find WHERE we disagree and WHY we disagree. > > You stated: "It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top > 3 physics textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was?" > > In response I showed you three web sites and how they ranked the Young-Freedman > textbook. > > You disapprove of those web sites, but you provide NO ALTERNATIVE SOURCES > to back up your claims. Right. Because good information about top ranking of textbooks IS NOT AVAILABLE on the cesspool of data on the public internet. There are industry databases, however, that are not public-facing. You are therefore making an erroneous judgement based on the assumption that you should be able to make that assessment with public internet sources. That’s a bad assumption, which is what I’ve been communicating to you broadly. > > We are arguing physics FUNDAMENTALS. You argue that I shouldn't be looking > at textbooks which are about physics FUNDAMENTALS, I should be looking at > more advanced textbooks. Why? You don't say. Which books? You don't say. That’s not true. I told you to read Feynman’s book The Character of Physical Law, IN ITS ENTIRETY. You haven’t done that. I’m happy to dive into that book with you, page by page. What we are NOT going to do constructively is do a text string search and find a paragraph that provides understanding. That’s an irrational and hopeless expectation. > > I support my claims by citing sources, you make claims without citing sources > because your claims are just your personal beliefs. And you claim that I am the > one who is "not going about this in a sensible way." That makes arguing with > you a total waste of time. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 23:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t4acp6$1mu4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584172 |
On 4/26/2022 4:37 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. >> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric? >> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are >> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better. >>> NONE contains a >>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on >>> page 1254; >>> >>> ------ Start quote ------ >>> >>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of >>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect >>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it >>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called >>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the >>> radiation. >>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle >>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference >>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption >>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior. >>> >>> ------- end quote ------ >>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by >>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman >> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics >> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was? > > It's number 3 on this list: > https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/ > It's number 7 on this list: > https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/ > It's number 1 on this list: > https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/ > > When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3. > Those lists are individual bloggers looking for affiliate sales. Not exactly indicating any expert opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 08:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7215a036-e9cc-4c1a-bbe7-47dd87e2e2d8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584198 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:20:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/26/2022 4:37 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. > >> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric? > >> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are > >> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better. > >>> NONE contains a > >>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on > >>> page 1254; > >>> > >>> ------ Start quote ------ > >>> > >>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of > >>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect > >>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it > >>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called > >>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the > >>> radiation. > >>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle > >>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference > >>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption > >>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior. > >>> > >>> ------- end quote ------ > >>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by > >>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman > >> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics > >> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was? > > > > It's number 3 on this list: > > https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/ > > It's number 7 on this list: > > https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/ > > It's number 1 on this list: > > https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/ > > > > When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3. > > > Those lists are individual bloggers looking for affiliate sales. Not > exactly indicating any expert opinions. The sites are not blogs. If you have a better source for identifying the best physics textbooks, NAME IT. Don't just state your opinions. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 13:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t4bucp$1af3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584258 |
On 4/27/2022 11:21 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:20:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/26/2022 4:37 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> I just looked through the top 3 physics textbooks. >>>> What? What do you mean “top 3”? By what metric? >>>> And if you are only including introductory physics textbooks, then you are >>>> excluding all the textbooks that deal with photons better. >>>>> NONE contains a >>>>> description of a photon. Here's what the 3rd book on the list says on >>>>> page 1254; >>>>> >>>>> ------ Start quote ------ >>>>> >>>>> When we look more closely at the emission, absorption, and scattering of >>>>> electromagnetic radiation, however, we discover a completely different aspect >>>>> of light. We find that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is quantized; it >>>>> is emitted and absorbed in particle-like packages of definite energy, called >>>>> photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the frequency of the >>>>> radiation. >>>>> We’ll find that light and other electromagnetic radiation exhibits wave–particle >>>>> duality: Light acts sometimes like waves and sometimes like particles. Interference >>>>> and diffraction demonstrate wave behavior, while emission and absorption >>>>> of photons demonstrate the particle behavior. >>>>> >>>>> ------- end quote ------ >>>>> The text book: "University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed." by >>>>> Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman >>>> It might amuse you that Young and Freedman is not one of the top 3 physics >>>> textbooks by ANY measure. Whatever gave you the idea that it was? >>> >>> It's number 3 on this list: >>> https://thecollegeapplication.com/best-physics-textbooks-for-college-today/ >>> It's number 7 on this list: >>> https://bestbookshub.com/best-physics-texbooks/ >>> It's number 1 on this list: >>> https://bestgamingpro.com/best-physics-textbooks/ >>> >>> When I combined the various lists, it seems to fit in position #3. >>> >> Those lists are individual bloggers looking for affiliate sales. Not >> exactly indicating any expert opinions. > > The sites are not blogs. Yet they are fishing for affiliate sales. At least one admits so right up front. Plus those pages are full of ads. I'd say they are a more professional version of a blogger. > If you have a better source for identifying > the best physics textbooks, NAME IT. Don't just state your opinions. > You need to stop with your own opinions that random introductory books are supportive of your own opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 12:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3MOdncXczosrsvX_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #584133 |
On 4/26/22 11:56 AM, Stan Fultoni wrote: > [... lots of correct statements] > you are taking the isotropic CMBR frame as absolute rest. But there is no such "frame". Right here in the solar system there is one such locally-inertial frame, but at the locations of other galaxies, their locally-inertial isotropic CMBR frame is moving relative to ours. The key is these are LOCALLY inertial frames, not global ones. There are no globally-inertial frames in the universe we inhabit, and the locally-inertial isotropic CMBR frames differ throughout the cosmos. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 11:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8db0db1f-ff6f-4486-8bce-291767acc37en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584146 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:45:33 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > you are taking the isotropic CMBR frame as absolute rest. > But there is no such "frame". That was explained in detail previously, i.e., the reference is to the union of world lines that are each at rest in the local inertial coordinates in which the CMBR and distant galaxies are maximally isotropic. This gives a unique foliation that is the cosmological absolute rest system of coordinates. This is what Ed tacitly has in mind when he considers how Andromeda is "actually" moving. The point is that this doesn't conflict with local Lorentz invariance, which is what Ed is trying to overthrow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t499gn$vrf$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584132 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:11 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:45:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ed Lake wrote: > > (snip) > >>>> I gave you a good reference, a book for layman. I don’t think it’s good for >>>> me to replicate the book here. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law. Read >>>> the WHOLE THING because the whole thing is relevant. >>> >>> I have a hardback copy of "The Character of Physical Law," and I read the whole >>> thing years ago. About half the pages have passages that I have highlighted or >>> underlined. >>> >>> I also have a copy in digital format. Using that copy, I just did a search for the >>> word "photon" and found this on page 142 (it's on page 134 in my hardcover copy): >>> >>> ------- start quote ------ >>> But of course light is not like a wave of water. Light also comes >>> in particle-like character, called photons, and as you turn >>> down the intensity of the light you are not turning down the >>> effect, you are turning down the number of photons that >>> are coming out of the source. As I turn down the light I am >>> getting fewer and fewer photons. >>> -------- end quote --------- >>> >> Again, the WHOLE book is about the behavior of particles. Grabbing one >> little sound bite out of it is not going to capture the message. >> >> What did you learn from the book about what Feynman says about the behavior >> of particles? What did he say about the paths of particles? > > We're not discussing particles, we're discussing PHOTONS. Doesn’t matter. Feynman, recall, said that photons behave like PARTICLES. So then the question is, how do PARTICLES behave (including photons)? That’s what he spends the book discussing, how particles behave (including photons). > Particles > come in various forms, like protons, neutrons and electrons. Most of them > contain MASS. Most of them move in orbits or cling to other particles. > Photons have no mass, they travel in straight lines, and they do not cling to > other particles. Photons do not travel in straight lines. That is the point. And neutrinos (also particles) do not cling to other particles. So it’s important that you do not attach attributes to particles that do not pertain. > >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are imagining photons are like little balls or bullets of energy fired >>>>>> along a trajectory. They are not. It’s helpful to first learn some DETAILS >>>>>> (not just a one-sentence synopsis) of how photons really behave. >>>>> >>>>> No, I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of oscillating >>>>> electric and magnetic fields. >>>> And that’s not what a photon is. >>> >>> It is what virtually every source says it is. Do you have your own personal definition? >> Heck no, not a personal definition. And “virtually every source” must not >> include any textbooks, because that’s not what a photon is. > > Yeah, that's what got me interested in this subject in the first place. Many > physics textbooks do not even MENTION photons, and very few describe them. Then you’re not looking at the right textbooks. I have whole textbooks that are about photons. > Instead, they MORONICALLY just tell you to use one mathematical model when > a photon seems to acts like a wave and another mathematical model when a > photon seems to act like a particle. And if you ask your teacher how a photon > can do both things, you will probably be told to shut up if you do not want to > flunk the course. That’s actually straightforward. A photon is neither a classical wave nor a classical particle. It is a new thing, a field quantum (what Feynman calls a particle, which is much different than a classical particle). Field quanta have some properties of particles and some properties of waves, while not being either one. There’s nothing wrong with that. The erroneous assumption is that EVERYTHING is either a particle or a wave and it must be one or the other. That’s simply not true. There is a new kind of thing not imagined in the 19th century — a field quantum. Now, to understand what a field quantum is and how it behaves, you’re going to find books with some mathematics in them. Finding books without any mathematics that gives you a clear idea what a field quantum is — that’s going to be a struggle. > > (snip arguments about mathematical nonsense and not about what happens in reality) > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba96fe19-a90e-4b52-948e-a523bd68162fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584140 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:11 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:45:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ed Lake wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > >>>> I gave you a good reference, a book for layman. I don’t think it’s good for > >>>> me to replicate the book here. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law. Read > >>>> the WHOLE THING because the whole thing is relevant. > >>> > >>> I have a hardback copy of "The Character of Physical Law," and I read the whole > >>> thing years ago. About half the pages have passages that I have highlighted or > >>> underlined. > >>> > >>> I also have a copy in digital format. Using that copy, I just did a search for the > >>> word "photon" and found this on page 142 (it's on page 134 in my hardcover copy): > >>> > >>> ------- start quote ------ > >>> But of course light is not like a wave of water. Light also comes > >>> in particle-like character, called photons, and as you turn > >>> down the intensity of the light you are not turning down the > >>> effect, you are turning down the number of photons that > >>> are coming out of the source. As I turn down the light I am > >>> getting fewer and fewer photons. > >>> -------- end quote --------- > >>> > >> Again, the WHOLE book is about the behavior of particles. Grabbing one > >> little sound bite out of it is not going to capture the message. > >> > >> What did you learn from the book about what Feynman says about the behavior > >> of particles? What did he say about the paths of particles? > > > > We're not discussing particles, we're discussing PHOTONS. > Doesn’t matter. Feynman, recall, said that photons behave like PARTICLES. Actually, what he said was that photons are NOT WAVES, they are particles. His definition of a particle was simply that you can COUNT the particles as they hit a photomultiplier, and the brighter the light, the more particles that hit the photomultiplier. > So then the question is, how do PARTICLES behave (including photons)? > That’s what he spends the book discussing, how particles behave (including > photons). Yes, but there are many different kinds of particles, and they behave in different ways. So, you cannot generalize "particles" other than to say they are individual bits of something, they are NOT WAVES. > > Particles > > come in various forms, like protons, neutrons and electrons. Most of them > > contain MASS. Most of them move in orbits or cling to other particles. > > Photons have no mass, they travel in straight lines, and they do not cling to > > other particles. > Photons do not travel in straight lines. That is the point. PHOTONS DO TRAVEL IN STRAIGHT LINES. That is one attribute that distinguishes photons from some other "particles." > And neutrinos (also particles) do not cling to other particles. So it’s > important that you do not attach attributes to particles that do not > pertain. Right. I didn't do that. Different types of "particles" have different attributes. The only difference between photon types is how much energy they contain. > > > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You are imagining photons are like little balls or bullets of energy fired > >>>>>> along a trajectory. They are not. It’s helpful to first learn some DETAILS > >>>>>> (not just a one-sentence synopsis) of how photons really behave. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of oscillating > >>>>> electric and magnetic fields. > >>>> And that’s not what a photon is. > >>> > >>> It is what virtually every source says it is. Do you have your own personal definition? > >> Heck no, not a personal definition. And “virtually every source” must not > >> include any textbooks, because that’s not what a photon is. > > > > Yeah, that's what got me interested in this subject in the first place. Many > > physics textbooks do not even MENTION photons, and very few describe them. > Then you’re not looking at the right textbooks. I have whole textbooks that > are about photons. > > Instead, they MORONICALLY just tell you to use one mathematical model when > > a photon seems to acts like a wave and another mathematical model when a > > photon seems to act like a particle. And if you ask your teacher how a photon > > can do both things, you will probably be told to shut up if you do not want to > > flunk the course. > That’s actually straightforward. A photon is neither a classical wave nor a > classical particle. It is a new thing, a field quantum (what Feynman calls > a particle, which is much different than a classical particle). Field > quanta have some properties of particles and some properties of waves, > while not being either one. There’s nothing wrong with that. The erroneous > assumption is that EVERYTHING is either a particle or a wave and it must be > one or the other. That’s simply not true. There is a new kind of thing not > imagined in the 19th century — a field quantum. If you are going to give a photon a name, call it a "photon" and do not call it a particle. AND DEFINE exactly what a photon is. "Field Quantum" is a name given to lots of different objects, including objects with mass, and objects which cannot travel at the speed of light. > > Now, to understand what a field quantum is and how it behaves, you’re going > to find books with some mathematics in them. Finding books without any > mathematics that gives you a clear idea what a field quantum is — that’s > going to be a struggle. It's easier to just Google "What is a Field Quantum?" https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+field+quantum Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 21:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t49mj9$q82$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584170 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:18:18 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:04:11 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:45:22 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>>>>> I gave you a good reference, a book for layman. I don’t think it’s good for >>>>>> me to replicate the book here. Feynman, The Character of Physical Law. Read >>>>>> the WHOLE THING because the whole thing is relevant. >>>>> >>>>> I have a hardback copy of "The Character of Physical Law," and I read the whole >>>>> thing years ago. About half the pages have passages that I have highlighted or >>>>> underlined. >>>>> >>>>> I also have a copy in digital format. Using that copy, I just did a search for the >>>>> word "photon" and found this on page 142 (it's on page 134 in my hardcover copy): >>>>> >>>>> ------- start quote ------ >>>>> But of course light is not like a wave of water. Light also comes >>>>> in particle-like character, called photons, and as you turn >>>>> down the intensity of the light you are not turning down the >>>>> effect, you are turning down the number of photons that >>>>> are coming out of the source. As I turn down the light I am >>>>> getting fewer and fewer photons. >>>>> -------- end quote --------- >>>>> >>>> Again, the WHOLE book is about the behavior of particles. Grabbing one >>>> little sound bite out of it is not going to capture the message. >>>> >>>> What did you learn from the book about what Feynman says about the behavior >>>> of particles? What did he say about the paths of particles? >>> >>> We're not discussing particles, we're discussing PHOTONS. >> Doesn’t matter. Feynman, recall, said that photons behave like PARTICLES. > > Actually, what he said was that photons are NOT WAVES, they are particles. > His definition of a particle was simply that you can COUNT the particles as > they hit a photomultiplier, and the brighter the light, the more particles that > hit the photomultiplier. No, that is NOT his definition of a particle. It is a SINGLE attribute that distinguishes particle behavior from classical waves, but there are many others. AND you have not plumbed out particles behave, because you obviously have not absorbed what is said in the rest of the book. > >> So then the question is, how do PARTICLES behave (including photons)? >> That’s what he spends the book discussing, how particles behave (including >> photons). > > Yes, but there are many different kinds of particles, and they behave in > different ways. So, you cannot generalize "particles" other than to say > they are individual bits of something, they are NOT WAVES. No, that is not true. There are certain behaviors (other than the one you mention above) that are common to ALL particles, which is precisely the kind of thing he goes to great length to describe in the book. These behaviors are common to protons, photons, electrons, neutrinos, and even molecules. And one of those common behaviors for ALL particles is that they cannot be said to travel in straight lines. And in fact, in his greatest achievement, quantum electrodynamics, he uses the fact that this behavior is true for both photons and electrons (and other charged particles relevant to the theory; neutrinos, for example, are not covered by quantum electrodynamics). > >>> Particles >>> come in various forms, like protons, neutrons and electrons. Most of them >>> contain MASS. Most of them move in orbits or cling to other particles. >>> Photons have no mass, they travel in straight lines, and they do not cling to >>> other particles. >> Photons do not travel in straight lines. That is the point. > > PHOTONS DO TRAVEL IN STRAIGHT LINES. That is one attribute that > distinguishes photons from some other "particles." No, sorry, that is counter to what Feynman says in his book, and just because you just made that statement up does not make it so. > >> And neutrinos (also particles) do not cling to other particles. So it’s >> important that you do not attach attributes to particles that do not >> pertain. > > Right. I didn't do that. Different types of "particles" have different attributes. > The only difference between photon types is how much energy they contain. > >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are imagining photons are like little balls or bullets of energy fired >>>>>>>> along a trajectory. They are not. It’s helpful to first learn some DETAILS >>>>>>>> (not just a one-sentence synopsis) of how photons really behave. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of oscillating >>>>>>> electric and magnetic fields. >>>>>> And that’s not what a photon is. >>>>> >>>>> It is what virtually every source says it is. Do you have your own >>>>> personal definition? >>>> Heck no, not a personal definition. And >>>>> “virtually every source” must not >>>> include any textbooks, because that’s not what a photon is. >>> >>> Yeah, that's what got me interested in this subject in the first place. Many >>> physics textbooks do not even MENTION photons, and very few describe them. >> Then you’re not looking at the right textbooks. I have whole textbooks that >> are about photons. >>> Instead, they MORONICALLY just tell you to use one mathematical model when >>> a photon seems to acts like a wave and another mathematical model when a >>> photon seems to act like a particle. And if you ask your teacher how a photon >>> can do both things, you will probably be told to shut up if you do not want to >>> flunk the course. >> That’s actually straightforward. A photon is neither a classical wave nor a >> classical particle. It is a new thing, a field quantum (what Feynman calls >> a particle, which is much different than a classical particle). Field >> quanta have some properties of particles and some properties of waves, >> while not being either one. There’s nothing wrong with that. The erroneous >> assumption is that EVERYTHING is either a particle or a wave and it must be >> one or the other. That’s simply not true. There is a new kind of thing not >> imagined in the 19th century — a field quantum. > > If you are going to give a photon a name, call it a "photon" and do not call it > a particle. AND DEFINE exactly what a photon is. "Field Quantum" is a name > given to lots of different objects, including objects with mass, and objects > which cannot travel at the speed of light. A photon is a type of field quantum. But so is an electron. So is a Higgs boson. So is a quark. These ALL exhibit behaviors that are common to all field quanta. I am FULLY AWARE that you got confused by the Feynman’s use of the word “particle” and you took that word to mean something he did not intend. Do not blame Feynman for that. He wrote a whole book to elaborate on what “particles” do, which is MUCH DIFFERENT than what you are expecting. He expects you to read the WHOLE BOOK, not just search it for keywords. > >> >> Now, to understand what a field quantum is and how it behaves, you’re going >> to find books with some mathematics in them. Finding books without any >> mathematics that gives you a clear idea what a field quantum is — that’s >> going to be a struggle. > > It's easier to just Google "What is a Field Quantum?" > https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+field+quantum Yes, lots of internet searching is easier than reading a book. But unfortunately, the internet is a cesspool of data, most of which is rotten and unreliable. The adage “you get what you pay for” applies here and the internet is free. Would you fill your house with furniture placed on the curb with “Free” signs on them? No, you would go to places where you know there is quality assurance, even though there is more effort and cost to obtain it. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-25 20:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BOSdnVJE8Lo90fr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #584057 |
On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of > oscillating electric and magnetic fields. No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics, you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously incorrect statements. Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to the physical situation in which there are trillions and trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be used to model a situation in which there is just a single photon, or even when there are just a few million of them. [#] This physical situation is quite different from that of a light beam containing trillions and trillions of photons -- the photon configurations are very different. > I've been experimenting with a radar gun for years. So, do you still claim that a radar gun inside a closed truck moving along a street, will measure anything other than zero? In all your "experimenting" have you actually done this? > If there are coordinates for the "emission event," then there is a "point of emission" > at those coordinates. It is not a "thing." It is just a location in space. And that > location is evidently STATIONARY. Nope. That point of emission has a duration of ZERO, so "stationary" cannot be applied to it. You cannot ascribe a "location" to it with nonzero duration. But you can do so to a location RELATIVE TO THOSE COORDINATES -- but that has little to do with the emission, and everything to do with the way you selected/defined the coordinates. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 08:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f55fd80-3760-4b22-9a9e-003c6c2b5a3bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584086 |
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > > I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of > > oscillating electric and magnetic fields. > No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually > is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics, > you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously > incorrect statements. Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. Just do a Google search for 'what is a photon made of': https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+photon+made+of& > > Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to > the physical situation in which there are trillions and > trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration > to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be > used to model a situation in which there is just a single > photon, or even when there are just a few million of them. It's done every day with radio telescopes and radar guns. > > [#] This physical situation is quite different from that > of a light beam containing trillions and trillions of > photons -- the photon configurations are very different. > > I've been experimenting with a radar gun for years. > So, do you still claim that a radar gun inside a closed truck moving > along a street, will measure anything other than zero? In all your > "experimenting" have you actually done this? I deleted the paper where I said that. Further experiments showed me that a moving radar gun detects ITS OWN movement when it is pointed at the earth. I didn't realize a radar gun could do that. > > If there are coordinates for the "emission event," then there is a "point of emission" > > at those coordinates. It is not a "thing." It is just a location in space. And that > > location is evidently STATIONARY. > Nope. That point of emission has a duration of ZERO, so "stationary" > cannot be applied to it. You cannot ascribe a "location" to it with > nonzero duration. But you can do so to a location RELATIVE TO THOSE > COORDINATES -- but that has little to do with the emission, and > everything to do with the way you selected/defined the coordinates. We know that light travels in straight lines, so we can trace a photon back to its point of origin. It is a stationary point in space where some ATOM was located when it emitted the photon. "Duration" has nothing to do with anything, since a photon is emitted instantaneously from a stationary point in space that is left behind when the emitter moves. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 13:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jcqqalFrqfqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #584125 |
On 4/26/2022 10:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: <snip> >> So, do you still claim that a radar gun inside a closed truck moving >> along a street, will measure anything other than zero? In all your >> "experimenting" have you actually done this? > > I deleted the paper where I said that. Further experiments showed > me that a moving radar gun detects ITS OWN movement when it is > pointed at the earth. I didn't realize a radar gun could do that. Taken as a general word and ignoring physics for a moment do you know and understand what the word "relativity" or "relative notion" mean? Years of playing with a radar gun have taught you nothing worthwhile. >>> If there are coordinates for the "emission event," then there is a "point of emission" >>> at those coordinates. It is not a "thing." It is just a location in space. And that >>> location is evidently STATIONARY. >> Nope. That point of emission has a duration of ZERO, so "stationary" >> cannot be applied to it. You cannot ascribe a "location" to it with >> nonzero duration. But you can do so to a location RELATIVE TO THOSE >> COORDINATES -- but that has little to do with the emission, and >> everything to do with the way you selected/defined the coordinates. > > We know that light travels in straight lines, so we can trace a photon back > to its point of origin. How can I make this clearer? No. We know that light thinks (if it could think) it moves in straight lines, but the realities of space-time show that with curved space, what you think (and a photon would think if it could) is a straight line is not. (Inside the context of space-time it appears to be a straight line, but viewed from the outside it is not. So where you think light came from it didn't. > It is a stationary point in space where some ATOM was > located when it emitted the photon. (skip) > "Duration" has nothing to do with anything, > since a photon is emitted instantaneously Well there's "duration" if I ever saw it.... > from a stationary point in space > that is left behind when the emitter moves. And there you have it, duration plays a significant role. One second later the apparent source has moved. A point of light coming from a star appears to you to be stationary because it is so far away. That source might not even exist any more after the millions of years it took for the light to get to you. I asked earlier what's the point, in other words what's the value, of knowing where something that might not even exist any more might have been some millions of years ago? It appears to me that you are attempting to create a category of points that are stationary *because* of some instantaneous event that occurred at a particular point in space-time but there's nothing else significant about that point. Given that definition the sky is full of such stationary points that have no significance to humanity or for any reason worth mentioning. This, Odd Bodkin, is closer to an example similar to angels dancing on the head of a pin so we're in agreement on that point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t49gek$75m$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584150 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 4/26/2022 10:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > <snip> > >>> So, do you still claim that a radar gun inside a closed truck moving >>> along a street, will measure anything other than zero? In all your >>> "experimenting" have you actually done this? >> >> I deleted the paper where I said that. Further experiments showed >> me that a moving radar gun detects ITS OWN movement when it is >> pointed at the earth. I didn't realize a radar gun could do that. > > Taken as a general word and ignoring physics for a moment do you know > and understand what the word "relativity" or "relative notion" mean? > > Years of playing with a radar gun have taught you nothing worthwhile. > >>>> If there are coordinates for the "emission event," then there is a "point of emission" >>>> at those coordinates. It is not a "thing." It is just a location in space. And that >>>> location is evidently STATIONARY. > >>> Nope. That point of emission has a duration of ZERO, so "stationary" >>> cannot be applied to it. You cannot ascribe a "location" to it with >>> nonzero duration. But you can do so to a location RELATIVE TO THOSE >>> COORDINATES -- but that has little to do with the emission, and >>> everything to do with the way you selected/defined the coordinates. >> >> We know that light travels in straight lines, so we can trace a photon back >> to its point of origin. > > How can I make this clearer? No. We know that light thinks (if it could > think) it moves in straight lines, but the realities of space-time show > that with curved space, what you think (and a photon would think if it > could) is a straight line is not. (Inside the context of space-time it > appears to be a straight line, but viewed from the outside it is not. So > where you think light came from it didn't. > Well that’s true, but even aside from that there is the matter that photons do not move in straight lines even in flat spacetime. That’s one of the key revelations of the double slit experiment. There IS no straight line path that takes the photon from the source to a one of the bright spots on the diffraction pattern. Now, I know that Ed has opined that it is possible that these interference patterns come from a photon hitting the left edge of one of the slits and being re-radiated toward the right, to account for a bright spot to the right of the slit. This however does not explain why there are multiple peaks and not just two broad ones. Nor does it explain how a single edge (like the edge of a razor blade) can manage to get light BEHIND the obstruction. These are details that he’s not thought about, nor probably has not even been exposed to, which is why I suggested the FULL reading of the book i did. >> It is a stationary point in space where some ATOM was >> located when it emitted the photon. > > (skip) > >> "Duration" has nothing to do with anything, >> since a photon is emitted instantaneously > > Well there's "duration" if I ever saw it.... > >> from a stationary point in space >> that is left behind when the emitter moves. > > And there you have it, duration plays a significant role. One second > later the apparent source has moved. A point of light coming from a star > appears to you to be stationary because it is so far away. That source > might not even exist any more after the millions of years it took for > the light to get to you. > > I asked earlier what's the point, in other words what's the value, of > knowing where something that might not even exist any more might have > been some millions of years ago? > > It appears to me that you are attempting to create a category of points > that are stationary *because* of some instantaneous event that occurred > at a particular point in space-time but there's nothing else significant > about that point. > > Given that definition the sky is full of such stationary points that > have no significance to humanity or for any reason worth mentioning. > > This, Odd Bodkin, is closer to an example similar to angels dancing on > the head of a pin so we're in agreement on that point. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 23:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t4adqu$1vbg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584125 |
On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of >>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields. >> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually >> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics, >> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously >> incorrect statements. > > Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually > every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric > and magnetic fields. NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields. The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic field WAVES at right angles to each other. >> Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to >> the physical situation in which there are trillions and >> trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration >> to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be >> used to model a situation in which there is just a single >> photon, or even when there are just a few million of them. > > It's done every day with radio telescopes and radar guns. Nope. Radio/microwave photons are so low in energy they aren't individually detectable. It is the mass behavior of trillions of photons which make radio/microwaves behave so much like the classic wave model of light. > >> >> [#] This physical situation is quite different from that >> of a light beam containing trillions and trillions of >> photons -- the photon configurations are very different. >>> I've been experimenting with a radar gun for years. >> So, do you still claim that a radar gun inside a closed truck moving >> along a street, will measure anything other than zero? In all your >> "experimenting" have you actually done this? > > I deleted the paper where I said that. Further experiments showed > me that a moving radar gun detects ITS OWN movement when it is > pointed at the earth. I didn't realize a radar gun could do that. There were several people, including myself, who tried to explain how Doppler radar guns worked. Did you listen? Nnnooooo..... > We know Who is "we"? A pet mouse is in your pocket? > We know that light travels in straight lines, Light actually travels along geodesics. > so we can trace a photon back > to its point of origin. Approximately. > It is a stationary point in space Something Einstein said was not possible. > where some ATOM was > located when it emitted the photon. > "Duration" has nothing to do with anything, Without a duration, no velocity can exist, so "stationary" (zero velocity) can't either. > since a photon is emitted instantaneously from a stationary point in space Again, no such thing. Get rid of "stationary" and replace "point in space" with x,y,z coordinates in your frame of reference. > that is left behind when the emitter moves. Moves relative to what? The emitter is stationary relative to the rest of the supernova remnant. (insert solipsistic whine here)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 08:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a086ab1a-8569-42c8-b23b-b3e69db76c13n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584201 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of > >>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields. > >> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually > >> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics, > >> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously > >> incorrect statements. > > > > Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually > > every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric > > and magnetic fields. > > NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields. > The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic > field WAVES at right angles to each other. You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. > > >> Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to > >> the physical situation in which there are trillions and > >> trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration > >> to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be > >> used to model a situation in which there is just a single > >> photon, or even when there are just a few million of them. > > > > It's done every day with radio telescopes and radar guns. > > Nope. Radio/microwave photons are so low in energy they aren't > individually detectable. It is the mass behavior of trillions of photons > which make radio/microwaves behave so much like the classic wave model > of light. Radio telescopes are dish shaped so they can FOCUS MORE PHOTONS onto a specific point just as regular telescopes focus photons on your eye. The more photons you can focus on a screen, the clearer the object that emitted the photons will appear on that screen. The bigger the dish, the more photons you can collect. WAVES are NOT involved. All that is involved is collecting more PHOTONS so that you can convert them into an IMAGE. The "wave-like properties" of a photon will define the type of photon. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web