Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457197
| From | Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR |
| Date | 2018-04-30 10:14 +0200 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <pc6j9f$m5h$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (17 earlier) <pc0270$qkm$2@gioia.aioe.org> <pc1q32$197b$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fkkvusFs97fU1@mid.individual.net> <pc4p3r$1vq7$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fkn0jhFbk0lU1@mid.individual.net> |
Il 30/04/2018 00:51, Sylvia Else ha scritto: > On 30/04/2018 1:41 AM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >> Il 29/04/2018 06:28, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>> On 28/04/2018 10:40 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>> Il 27/04/2018 22:46, Jim Emile ha scritto: >>>>> Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Il 27/04/2018 01:07, Sylvia Else ha scritto: >>>>>>> On 26/04/2018 8:59 PM, Dino Bruniera wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now I try to be rational. >>>>>>>> Light waves need a medium to manifest themselves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Light consists of photons. No medium required. Sylvia >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the photon? A photon is the smallest discrete amount or >>>>>> quantum >>>>>> of electromagnetic radiation. It is the basic unit of all light. >>>>> >>>>> Actually that's wrong. Smallest amount of _energy_, not >>>>> electromagnetic. >>>>> An electromagnetic would require two separate and distinct sinus >>>>> components. A _photon_ is nothing like that. It can't be. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sylvia has practically claimed that the photon is not a wave and, >>>> therefore, does not need of a medium to manifest itself. >>>> To contest his claim, I could have cited the double-slit experiment, >>>> which shows that the photon also has a wave-like nature. >>>> But I wanted to be more precise and, therefore, I mentioned the >>>> statements, with the related sources, which state that the photon >>>> has the characteristics of an electromagnetic manifestation and, >>>> therefore, is a wave phenomenon. >>> >>> Quantum mechanics correctly predicts the result of the double slit >>> experiment without treating light as a wave. >>> >> >> Could you mention the source of your statement? >> Because to me the opposite is true. >> >> "The double-slit experiment is an experiment in quantum mechanics and >> optics demonstrating the wave-particle duality of electrons, photons, >> and other fundamental objects in physics. >> When streams of particles such as electrons or photons pass through >> two narrow adjacent slits to hit a detector screen on the other side, >> they don't form clusters based on whether they passed through one slit >> or the other. Instead, they interfere: simultaneously passing through >> both slits, and producing a pattern of interference bands on the >> screen. This phenomenon occurs even if the particles are fired one at >> a time, showing that the particles demonstrate some wave behavior by >> interfering with themselves as if they were a wave passing through >> both slits." >> >> From: >> https://brilliant.org/wiki/double-slit-experiment/ >> >> "Matter waves are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, >> being an example of wave–particle duality. All matter can exhibit >> wave-like behavior. For example, a beam of electrons can be diffracted >> just like a beam of light or a water wave. The concept that matter >> behaves like a wave was proposed by Louis de Broglie (/dəˈbrɔɪ/) in >> 1924. It is also referred to as the de Broglie hypothesis.[1] Matter >> waves are referred to as de Broglie waves." >> >> From wikipedia. >> >>> Indeed, the double slit experiment can be performed using electrons, >>> which also produces an interference pattern. Yet there can be little >>> doubt that electrons are not waves. >>> >> >> "De Broglie, in his 1924 PhD thesis, proposed that just as light has >> both wave-like and particle-like properties, electrons also have >> wave-like properties." >> >> From wikipedia >> >>> Consequently the results of the double slit experiment cannot be used >>> to demonstrate that light is a wave. >>> >> >> Consequently the results of the double slit experiment can be used to >> demonstrate that light have wave-like properties. >> >> However I await your possible quotes from sources contrary to the above. >> >> Dino Bruniera >> > > Now you're conflating wave with wave-like. Wave-like does not mean that > it's a wave. Remember what you're trying to prove, which is that light > is a wave in a medium, so that you can prove that the medium exists. > We aren't able to see a photon, because obviously it is too small to be observed. We can only deduce its conformation, based on its behavior. And if the photon behaves like a wave, it means that it is at least a wave phenomenon. And if it is a wave phenomenon, it needs of a medium. Even Einstein admitted it. Here is what he wrote in 1920, in paragraph 13 of the "Morgan manuscript": "in 1905, I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical [...]. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states." > The waves are in the math, but the result is a description of the > behaviour of a particle, whether it's an electron, proton, neutron etc, > or indeed a photon. Any argument use to show that a photon is a wave > would apply equally to those other particles. > Personally I am convinced that the Universe is composed of a single imponderable substance, in which all the so-called ponderable matter is manifested, through wave-like phenomena. In my two articles I called this substance as "space", but it could also be called as "ether". But a better name, in my opinion, is that of "apeiron", which was central to the cosmological theory created by Anaximander, a 6th to century BC. Also the physicists Werner Heisenberg e Max Born think so. Here is what is written on wikipedia. "Werner Heisenberg, noted for the creation of quantum mechanics, arrived at the idea that the elementary particles are to be seen as different manifestations, different quantum states, of one and the same "primordial substance". Because of its similarity to the primordial substance hypothesized by Anaximander, his colleague Max Born called this substance apeiron." Dino Bruniera
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 23:39 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-20 12:56 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 22:40 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-21 09:28 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:42 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-20 17:45 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-20 17:48 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 16:08 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-20 21:09 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-21 11:08 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-22 10:40 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 12:01 -0500
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 18:53 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 12:14 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 08:26 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 19:57 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-23 05:50 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-04-23 05:26 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-23 06:09 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 08:32 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 01:48 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 10:33 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 02:53 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 12:00 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 04:08 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 04:33 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 05:11 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:13 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-24 09:26 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:04 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 12:37 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 19:58 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 20:06 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 20:42 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:40 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-23 17:01 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-23 09:17 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-23 10:05 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 16:07 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-24 13:47 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-23 21:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:25 +0100
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 14:49 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 13:05 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 06:32 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 15:38 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 10:01 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 18:13 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 11:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-25 09:25 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-24 21:27 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 21:39 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-26 10:42 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-04-25 21:37 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:59 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-27 09:07 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 22:38 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Jim Emile <leuu@wwjw.ce> - 2018-04-27 20:46 +0000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-28 14:40 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-29 14:28 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-28 22:32 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 17:41 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-30 08:51 +1000
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 10:14 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-26 21:58 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 22:19 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-26 22:28 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 20:49 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 12:21 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-27 13:30 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 23:52 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 23:46 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "e-ps@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:27 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-04-22 10:45 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 10:51 -0700
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR Dino Bruniera <dino.bruniera@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 22:16 +0200
Re: Falsification of second postulate of SR, using the CMBR "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 13:39 -0700
csiph-web