Action at a Distance = Fiction

[Goldminer]

GM: I have trouble communicating with him because he won't comment on what I see as big problems for the theory. He just glosses over the comments. Consequently, and unfortunately, I therefore have to gloss his theory.

Why not tell us what you see as big problems for his theory? There's a lot I don't understand about his idea either.

`
I have provided him with links to Time Delay Reflectometry, EDM distance measuring, Radar delay, and the whole GPS system, which all require consideration of the latency, or finite speed of light. Nothing but silence. Other problems are with the diverging nature of beams of light, which are related to its spherically radiating nature. Still no logical comment. IMHO, nature is not up to performing to his theory!

[saul]

In my opinion, the energy carrying "photon" is a conceptual relic derived of our prehistoric origins [...]

I have to agree. I hope my comments are relevant to action at a distance.

For me it helps to realize that a photon is an emission or absorption phenomenon.

All light is the result of acceleration of charge. The emitted power is given by the Larmor formula. In some systems, the acceleration of the charge in question (e.g. an electron jumping between energy levels about a nucleus) is quantized, meaning it can only occur in discrete steps. Such emissions or absorptions of light we call photons.

However some emission is continuous and so there is no photon. One example is the radio waves generated by an oscillating current. Another is synchrotron radiation.

[Sparky]

Thank you for further clarification..

Yes, I think that I understand that. No, I don't agree.

Is the universe finite?

We have no way of knowing, at this time. Does this theory hinge upon a finite universe?

At the solar surface, an electron [yes quite a few of them] falls toward a lower energy state [under relentless centropic pressure] -- as it does so, other objects in the local field are also being pushed in that direction.

What happens when they move up in energy state? If CP (centropic pressure) is relentlessly forcing lower energy states, it seems that that would be violating several laws.

At the edge of your universe, what generates the CP? What defines the edge of a universe?

Good points, Sparky. Imagining "theories" is not "doing theoretical physics," it is doing science fiction.

Webo has come up with some brilliant comments and ideas, and is a valuable asset here on the Tbolt forum, but his "Webocentric" light theory isn't one of them. I have trouble communicating with him because he won't comment on what I see as big problems for the theory. He just glosses over the comments. Consequently, and unfortunately, I therefore have to gloss his theory.

au, those were the only things I could think of.....irealllydonno..
don't want to double team webo...

[Lloyd]

Saul: However some emission is continuous and so there is no photon. One example is the radio waves generated by an oscillating current. Another is synchrotron radiation.

Why would radio waves not be photons? The spectrum goes from radio waves to microwaves to infrared to light to ultraviolet to x-rays to gamma rays, if I got the order right. They're all photons, just of varying frequencies and wavelengths.

[saul]

Saul: However some emission is continuous and so there is no photon. One example is the radio waves generated by an oscillating current. Another is synchrotron radiation.

Why would radio waves not be photons? The spectrum goes from radio waves to microwaves to infrared to light to ultraviolet to x-rays to gamma rays, if I got the order right. They're all photons, just of varying frequencies and wavelengths.

Yes, they are all types of light. But consider the wires in your wall right now continuously radiating near sinusoidally at 50 or 60hZ, can you identify individual photons of emission in that radiation? Hardly. There is no stop and start, it is just radiating.

OK, by building an -extremely- cold and very detector that could absorb radio energy in quantized steps we could hold it near your wall and perhaps pick up a single absorption photon at that frequency. But this would be just that, an absorption photon.

21 cm emissions due to fine structure in Hydrogen are an example of radio wave emission photons. But if I drive an antenna at 1420 MhZ you can see how it's not quite the same.

[sjw40364]

21 cm emissions due to fine structure in Hydrogen are an example of radio wave emission photons. But if I drive an antenna at 1420 MhZ you can see how it's not quite the same.

Question? When you drive that antenna at 1420 MhZ are all other wavelengths still emitted just at lesser strength?

[Sparky]

Question? When you drive that antenna at 1420 MhZ are all other wavelengths still emitted just at lesser strength?

you'll have certain harmonics, who's amplitude will lessen as distance from the tuned frequency increases.

I have a problem with the "spectrum", linking all frequencies in a family tree. How is a 1hz signal similar to an xray, except that there is vibration.?

Even a difference between a 60hz emf and a 60hz sound wave.

[webolife]

Hey Goldminer,
I'm sorry you find my answers to your light speed latency or delay questions to be evasive.
I'm not trying to evade or avoid your questions. I simply see the "latency" as due to a different cause than stuff moving a the c-rate. Suppose that an "instantaneous" vector [eg. my view of a laser or radar pulse or action] is applied from an observer toward a target that is at "rest" with respect to the observer, and that both objects are at "rest" with respect to the larger field [whatever that field's extent may be]... in this idealized case, no "instantaneous" reflection can be measured due to vector cancellation; even in this situation there will be observed "latency". In the example of radar, pulses being generated at, say, a thousand or more per second, will be difficult to distinguish from each other... The radar unit reading a "return" pulse is not capable of distinguishing pulse 3 from pulse 1, yet by the assumption of light speed delay it will be determined to be a delayed pulse 1, and described in accordance with the assumed light speed delay. This might seem to suggest that radar can't work, but we both understand that it does. The reality of motion however, is that objects are not at rest wrt each other or the local field, so vector cancellation is not an issue. What is at issue is that the reflected pulse[ray] is [must be] at an angle to the original ray, and therefore has spectral characteristics that differ from the original signal. This is spoken of as a "phase" change and analogized to Doppler shift. These spectral "shifts" are computed by the radar in a formula that relates the shift ["phase change"] to velocity of the object. This is possibile because the objects are in motion wrt each other, and doesn't require that "light", which is simply the effect of the pulse on the detector, be moving through space. I completely understand that this is not agreeable to, well, pretty much anyone else in the world who operates from a c-rate paradigm. It took me close to 10 years of study to be able to see things this way, and I've been looking for reasons to abandon the view for at least thirty years. But it solves a number of dilemmas in physics, and absolutely eradicates Einsteinian light paradoxes or Heisenbergian uncertainties. Every light ray received by a detector is an image of the centroidal object, if it is channeled through a focal point. Optical ray diagram geometry explains the behavior of light without regard to c-rate, particles or waves.

[Sparky]

Sparky,

So no single isolated "photon" and no single isolated electron, both examined continuously in detail from start to finish.

The effect on electrons by the signal changes after the initial interaction. Since the signal cannot be examined, has no "mass" and no ponderable physical construction, then the signal ("photon") cannot be examined by any possible method. The only insight that may be considered as in any way "knowable" is the change in behaviour of the electrons.

In my opinion, the energy carrying "photon" is a conceptual relic derived of our prehistoric origins, as is the concept of energy transmission in general.

Michael

I was under the impression that much of science is analysis of data sets.
I can not critique the experiment, so if you say it is not conclusive, I can accept that.

[saul]

21 cm emissions due to fine structure in Hydrogen are an example of radio wave emission photons. But if I drive an antenna at 1420 MhZ you can see how it's not quite the same.

Question? When you drive that antenna at 1420 MhZ are all other wavelengths still emitted just at lesser strength?

Yes, you will always have an envelope in frequency space. As you approach a perfect sine wave with the driving current, the output in frequency space will approach a perfect delta function. But you'll never get a perfect one in a real physical system. You will have some power raditating at 1419.99999999 MhZ for example. You can get pretty close to monochromatic but even lasers and individual photons have an envelope in frequency. Nothing is truly monochromatic.

[seasmith]

sjw40364 wrote:
saul wrote:
21 cm emissions due to fine structure in Hydrogen are an example of radio wave emission photons. But if I drive an antenna at 1420 MhZ you can see how it's not quite the same.


Question? When you drive that antenna at 1420 MhZ are all other wavelengths still emitted just at lesser strength?

Yes, you will always have an envelope in frequency space. As you approach a perfect sine wave with the driving current, the output in frequency space will approach a perfect delta function. But you'll never get a perfect one in a real physical system. You will have some power raditating at 1419.99999999 MhZ for example. You can get pretty close to monochromatic but even lasers and individual photons have an envelope in frequency. Nothing is truly monochromatic.

There are also the omnipresent near-field and evanescent radiations, which are now being used routinely on the nano-scale for spectroscopic analysis.

[webolife]

It is correct that nothing is monochromatic.
"Monochromatic" is the error behind Young's interference theory, and a common misconception of physics, or at least physics students. From the view of the centropic pressure field, a light beam can be collimated via internal reflective "crystal" properties which redirect the pressure gradient vectors into line with the central line of light, but there will always be an accompanying pressure gradient about the detected signal. The pressure gradient manifests as the spectrum seen through spectroscopes, spectrographs, lenses, prisms, raindrops, single- or double-slits and pinholes. This is the geometric origin of color. There is no "monochromatic." Not with any form of light, from radio signals to gamma-rays.

[sjw40364]

It is correct that nothing is monochromatic.
"Monochromatic" is the error behind Young's interference theory, and a common misconception of physics, or at least physics students. From the view of the centropic pressure field, a light beam can be collimated via internal reflective "crystal" properties which redirect the pressure gradient vectors into line with the central line of light, but there will always be an accompanying pressure gradient about the detected signal. The pressure gradient manifests as the spectrum seen through spectroscopes, spectrographs, lenses, prisms, raindrops, single- or double-slits and pinholes. This is the geometric origin of color. There is no "monochromatic." Not with any form of light, from radio signals to gamma-rays.

I agree, nothing is monochromatic, until after you isolate a specific frequency through absorption, reflection, filters, etc. That would be like inferring that x-ray stars are only emitting in the x-ray band. That band may be the most amplified by the vibration of the atoms, but other frequencies are there as well.

[webolife]

Besides being a property of the field, all color is invisible without a resonant detector, thus UV is visible light to a fly, while some RGB-range colors are invisible to say dogs and cats, radio is visible to an antenna, X-rays are visible to photographic film, etc.

[Lloyd]

Web, have you seen this page toward the bottom about light? http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/pp0/plasma3.html - I'm wondering if your theory is anything like that.