Stars and photons

[biknewb]

biknewby,
Your description of the "light potential" as a characteristic of the [local or universal] field is in direct agreement with my idea. The "frequency" aspect that you described is definitely more of a Ralph Sansbury concept, but I reconcile it by recognizing that the signalling source, stars in this thread, are in an oscillating mode, this due to rotation, electrical stressors, etc., pulsars, cepheids and the like, or beating rhythmically like our Sun... I would even attribute at least part of the "twinkling" aspect of stars to this... with this presupposition, no wavish "light frequency" need be imputed. Add to this that photoreceptors, whether biological, atomic/chemical or technological, are largely designed to resonate with the peculiar oscillations of a/the light source, thus contributing to the belief that the light itself is wavish by nature, and requiring models of emission, motion, longitudinal or standing waves, etc. I believe the geometry of the unified force field also applies to waves and wave media, but not that light must wave because geometries that apply to it also apply to some forms of waves... confusing sentence there, but it says what I mean. This why "non-material aether" concepts have appeal for me.

One thing is not clear to me yet: how do you explain the colours of light if "no wavish light frequency need be imputed". In my model the frequency/colour is part of the "state" of the atom which possesses Light Potential. The receiving atom takes over the Light Potential, but may alter/filter the frequency of it.

[seasmith]

~
FS3 wrote:

So photons are said to come in pairs and their polarization state depend on their fields.

...if you plotted all the photon polarizations from your
perspective on a graph of "up-down" versus "sideways" it would look
like a circle

It doesn't matter if photons come in "pairs" or not.. The duality is observed as polarization.
If you accept that a 'photon' is our detectable quantum measure of EM radiation (ie light), then 2 or 3 slit experiments probably need to take in to account the relative geometry of the filters.

If you throw in (again) statistics, you may regognize the sum of all those photons polarization stats as a complete circle. No preferences in unpolarized light (many perpendicular polarized pairs of 0°-90° photons give a complete circle)

This recent experiment might shed some luminescent radiation on the matter:

T-Ray filter: Terahertz radiation causes waves to propagate through electrons in a metal sheet. Where the waves bend around holes in the sheet, the resulting electric field causes the emission of terahertz radiation at a single frequency. That could allow different frequencies to be encoded with different information, increasing capacity in a wireless network

.

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/21543/?a=f

[webolife]

biknewby said:
"One thing is not clear to me yet: how do you explain the colours of light if "no wavish light frequency need be imputed". In my model the frequency/colour is part of the "state" of the atom which possesses Light Potential. The receiving atom takes over the Light Potential, but may alter/filter the frequency of it."

As I have described on other threads, the spectrum of light [imho] is the manifestation of the light pressure field about the central line-of-sight, that gradient being expressed in a geometrically redundant [fractalish] manner, as seen in any pinhole/slit/multiple-slit setup, incl. spectroscopes. The belief that these patterns represent interference or diffraction is entirely based on the assumption of the wave nature of light, and can be falsified from T. Young's own notes and acoustical speculations, as well as by some very simple experiments with slits. The mathematical concept of "wavelength" is derived from the angle at which a particular color appears with respect to the central line-of-sight in a spectral display, but this angle is merely a locus in the pressure gradient of the light field. That certain atomic/electronic fields resonate at different light pressures accounts for the absorption/reflection of different colors by filters, dyes, or whatever. This the reason for spectral lines, be they bright or dark, as they manifest the "crystalline" field structure[s] of the element[s] being observed.
I do not use the word "emission" with respect to light because I see light effects as field pressure shifts due to fluxuation [in particular energy-level drop] of the electronic field at the light source/centroid, eg the surface of a star. The resulting "tug" [I use the term "vector"]at the peripheral receptor site shows up [with appropriate setup or instrumentation] as a spectrum, because a [geometric] vector/ray has infinitesmal diameter; therefore a light "ray" is better described as a "beam" of finite diameter, the least phenomenal diameter of which describes my definition of a "photon".

[altonhare]

Here's something to ponder: Many EU theorists don't think photons even exist.

Nice! Than what is light, because experiments clearly shows signs of a wave structure?

Light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

The H Atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Explains the observation of "wave" phenomena and "particle" phenomena.

[altonhare]

Radio, micro, UV -- all light waves.

The way that EM radiation propogates is through a "ratcheting" effect.

An oscillating dipole (a hydrogen atom, for example) creates an electric field in motion. The electric field generates a magnetic field (in motion) which, in turn, re-creates the e-field. This process continues until the EM radiation is absorbed by some intervening material, like your retina. The waveform is self-regenerating away from the original source because of the relationship between electricity and magnetism.

Here's a link to a Java applet that helps to visualize the phenomenon:

http://www.falstad.com/emwave1/

Steve

This doesn't tell us what light is, it tell us how light behaves. The rope hypothesis justifies light physically.

The only thing you can see is what hits your eye. The only thing you can measure is what hits your instruments.
If a "photon" is a "local production" when it hits your instrument, you will have no way to deduce that it was something else before this happened.

Exactly. Only the rope hypothesis justifies the particle/wave observations in a single structure.

"Photons" are not particles nor waves, in the sense of objects emitted from a source [I disagree with Steve Smith's description here],

Exactly, no objects are actually emitted. There is an already-existing coaxial chain/rope between every atom in the universe.

but are discrete field pressure vectors connecting a peripheral observer to the light source-sink, directed toward the sink, not away from it toward the observer.

But you miss the mark Web. you grasp how light behaves, but not what light IS. Pressure and vectors are all the results of OBJECTS interacting with OBJECTS. What object is acting? The structure that most simply explains and justifies all these behaviors is the coaxial antiparallel rope I linked to before.

You claim that light is instantaneous and at the same time moving towards the source. That's a contradiction. Nothing can be moving and arrive instantaneously.

I agree. In chain theory light is not instantaneous.

Light. What is it?
I never could imagine something being a wave and a particle at the same time.

Exactly! Both the particle AND the wave must be wrong. The coaxial rope justifies both these behaviors in a single, non contradictory structure! It explains every phenomenon of light that I know of, I think it is a very important theory for the EU to incorporate.

[webolife]

As I already answered elsewhere, light is not moving in my UFT.
What light is: Light is the change in field potential that occurs when the light source "compresses" [eg. electron energy level drop, or in Alton's scenario, the electron shell expands, "pulling in" discrete parts of the connecting "rope"], which is felt as a "tug" at the peripheral receptor; that field potential changes "everywhere" at once. The change does not propagate through space at the c-rate, it is virtually instantaneous. I say virtually because the change itself [eg. the energy level drop] takes a tiny amount of time, as well as the detection of the change... seconds or fractions of seconds at most. Alleged change in light speed inferred from the behavior of light in refraction setups is based on the assumption of the c-rate, and wavelength/frequency ratios formulated around that assumption of c. We detect the field potential change in an analogous way to a voltmeter measuring the change in voltage of a discharging battery.

[altonhare]

As I already answered elsewhere, light is not moving in my UFT.
What light is: Light is the change in field potential that occurs when the light source "compresses" [eg. electron energy level drop, or in Alton's scenario, the electron shell expands, "pulling in" discrete parts of the connecting "rope"], which is felt as a "tug" at the peripheral receptor; that field potential changes "everywhere" at once. The change does not propagate through space at the c-rate, it is virtually instantaneous. I say virtually because the change itself [eg. the energy level drop] takes a tiny amount of time, as well as the detection of the change... seconds or fractions of seconds at most. Alleged change in light speed inferred from the behavior of light in refraction setups is based on the assumption of the c-rate, and wavelength/frequency ratios formulated around that assumption of c. We detect the field potential change in an analogous way to a voltmeter measuring the change in voltage of a discharging battery.

You still haven't explained in terms of physical causality. You still haven't told us what structure(s) are responsible for light.

[webolife]

How is a conical beam with a spectral peripheral base and an apex at the source/centroid, both based strictly on what we actually observe, less of a structure than a imaginary and unobservable coaxial rope?

[altonhare]

How is a conical beam with a spectral peripheral base and an apex at the source/centroid, both based strictly on what we actually observe, less of a structure than a imaginary and unobservable coaxial rope?

You've seen spectral peripheral bases and source/centroid apexes!?

The problem with your theory is this vague "potential". Essentially you say that one atom influences another through vacuum because of this "potential". For some reason I can't imagine an electron in one atom will engage in a "quantum jump" because an electron in another, entirely separate, atom does also.

A chain-rope physically justifies this behavior.

[junglelord]

EM Radiation is composed of Primary Angular Momentum.
Plain and simple. It can become a electron, or the electron can return to the EM Radiation state of existance.
Its all the same thing, Primary Angular Momentum, just in different states of existance.

[webolife]

Altonhare said:
You've seen spectral peripheral bases and source/centroid apexes!?
The problem with your theory is this vague "potential". Essentially you say that one atom influences another through vacuum because of this "potential". For some reason I can't imagine an electron in one atom will engage in a "quantum jump" because an electron in another, entirely separate, atom does also.
A chain-rope physically justifies this behavior.

I see the spectrum manifested as a concentric array of colors about the central line, a pressure gradient tied to the direct "tug" represented by the central line-of-sight... the apex is eg. that light bulb filament or star, that is imaged at the center. "Entirely separate" you say, yet your imaginary rope/chains tie these together nicely... why not my vector/beams?
I do not say "entirely separate" because I see that I am the peripheral element of that star's astronomically large field, or I am in the same room as that light bulb. Obviously I am tied to it, because I see it. (I see the star, therefore I am connected to it.) You explain this with imaginary ropes. I "feel" the light pressure on my retina, and my brain shortly afterward tells me it's Betelgeuse. You have a more conceptually rigorous physical mechanism than I do, I admit, but I disagree with how your mechanism works in some details. You don't understand my "mechanism" because it fails your "object" screening test. I avoid the word "vacuum", because I "feign no hypothesis" regarding the possible existence of some aether, non-material or material, or some imaginary chain/rope "objects". I "see" that the intervening space is interactive somehow with the two particles, me and the star, and I call that interactive space a "field".

[altonhare]

rope/chains tie these together nicely... why not my vector/beams?

So you're saying there's a beam physically connecting every atom in the U?

You don't understand my "mechanism" because it fails your "object" screening test.

How will we differentiate between magical explanations and scientific explanations without such a simple objective criterion? Tell me, how do you distinguish between scientific and unscientific "explanations"?

I avoid the word "vacuum", because I "feign no hypothesis"

Without a hypothesis, the FIRST step in the scientific method, how can you have a theory? The hypothesis is what we try to validate or invalidate, without a hypothesis a theory is unfalsifiable.

I "see" that the intervening space is interactive somehow with the two particles, me and the star, and I call that interactive space a "field".

Yes, this is the same magical mumbo jumbo QFT has been feeding us for decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFu5BlJClYI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4iFCu4ih10

[webolife]

Beams connecting everything in the universe...
Maybe, at least close... I would say that the unified field pressure is everywhere acting and that anytime a polity point/source/centroid "compresses" it is "visible" to any observer by the change in the field "potential" that is caused.
That change in pressure is a "vector" [you would insert a description of rope/chains here] of force against my retina directed toward the "compressing" centroid, accompanied as manifest by any pinhole device or slit that redirects the surrounding gradient into an array, ie. the spectrum. You are asking me for shapes and definitions beyond this which I am unable to [satisfactorily to you] provide, but let me simply put forth that "potential" is in the sense of potential energy, whether it is viewed through the spectacles of Joule, Coulomb or Newton, or ...?

[Plasmatic]

webolife wrote:
You don't understand my "mechanism" because it fails your "object" screening test.

Of course it fails. Objects[entites] are causal primaries. If one is seeking a causal hypothesis it requires a causal agent [entity]. In your "field" you simply must realize it is a consequence of objects[causal primaries] in relationship.

[altonhare]

I would say that the unified field pressure is everywhere

Pressure is what something does, not what something is. We don't say jumping or twirling is everywhere. We say everyone is jumping and/or twirling. The former doesn't actually tell you anything because you have no idea what is acting. The latter actually teaches you something. This is the difference between saying something substantial and not.

That change in pressure is a "vector" [you would insert a description of rope/chains here] of force

Vectors and forces are, again, what things do. They are not things. Using these words evades actually saying anything new or meaningful. You do not teach someone something new with these words unless you have a something. Without the rope/chain your theory does not actually say anything substantive.

You are asking me for shapes and definitions beyond this which I am unable to [satisfactorily to you] provide

Why is it so difficult? Anything that is a thing, something (not nothing) has shape and is visualizable. It is not a matter of to my satisfaction, it is a matter of you seeming incapable.

but let me simply put forth that "potential" is in the sense of potential energy, whether it is viewed through the spectacles of Joule, Coulomb or Newton, or ...?

You probably never wanna use "energy" when discussing with me. What is potential energy exactly? What does it look like, what does it do? The units you mentioned are arbitrary just like any units. We can measure something using whatever stick we find on the ground as our standard.

There are more equations for energy than practically any other word. It's an "explain it all" word that "scientists" use when they actually have no idea what's happening. It's an evasion.