New property of light discovered

[pavlink]

New property of light discovered
https://www.sott.net/article/318423-New ... discovered

[D_Archer]

They are co-opting Miles Mathis in small incremental ways.. very sneaky.

I am not sure about this half thing, light is photons and photons have radius and spin (Miles Mathis), they can spin CW or CCW, depending if they are upside down or not (photons and anti-photons). Maybe the found a way to have the photon hit the detector at angles.... must be visualized... i have no time now...

Regards,
Daniel

[pavlink]

They are co-opting Miles Mathis in small incremental ways.. very sneaky.

They are co-opting what can't be ignored.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

ELEVATION
http://www.joelrea.com.au/wp-content/up ... 014-13.png

[Zendo]

Oh, so the angular momentum of a photon is not a whole integer multiple of the Planck constant? Who would have thunk that photons energies are do not adhere to the theoretical minimal energy increment of a hypothetical black body oscillator.

Unless these findings get tucked away in some super-symmetric dimension this should shake up conventional quantum mechanics quite a bit... Ah, who am I kidding.

[Cargo]

I'm let down that they didn't at least show what the 'device' looks like, or how it operates.

[Michael Mozina]

New property of light discovered
https://www.sott.net/article/318423-New ... discovered

Hmmm. I wonder what the implications of this new property of light might be as it relates to the concept of "tired light"/inelastic scattering in plasma?

[D_Archer]

Proof from the Mainstream of my Quantum Spin Equations:
http://milesmathis.com/half.pdf
by Miles Mathis

They are selling it as confirmation of standard model predictions, but the sale comes with a series of fudges and pushes

The findings are actually far easier to explain using my quantum spin
equations and the theory that grounds them

In my theory we have real spin assigned to real particles. The photons or beams aren't given a set of
unassigned numbers and then hidden behind a pile of jargon, they are a given real motions in real
dimensions, and my diagrams and explanations allow us to track those motions visually any time we
like.

---

Regards,
Daniel

[Michael Mozina]

Proof from the Mainstream of my Quantum Spin Equations:
http://milesmathis.com/half.pdf
by Miles Mathis

They are selling it as confirmation of standard model predictions, but the sale comes with a series of fudges and pushes

The findings are actually far easier to explain using my quantum spin
equations and the theory that grounds them

In my theory we have real spin assigned to real particles. The photons or beams aren't given a set of
unassigned numbers and then hidden behind a pile of jargon, they are a given real motions in real
dimensions, and my diagrams and explanations allow us to track those motions visually any time we
like.

---

Regards,
Daniel

I definitely enjoyed the paper. The best paragraph of the paper IMO:

I say the angular momentum has to apply to the photon, not to the beam, because a beam can't have angular momentum. A light beam is just a collection of moving photons, which makes it a field of photons. But a field cannot have angular momentum. Only the particles in the field can have angular momentum, which then may be summed. As usual, it is hard to believe I have to be here saying this. It should be taught in the first week of any physics course, or be innately understood by any physicists; but instead it has taken on the status of a zen koan.