[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Eclipse and EINSTEIN

Subject: Re: Eclipse and EINSTEIN
From: "Greg Neill"
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:49:19 -0500
Newsgroups: sci.astro
<charleswehner@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> Jeff Root wrote:
> > Greg Neill wrote:
> >
> > > photons are practically oblivious to electric and
> > > magnetic fields; photon-photon interactions have an
> > > incredibly small cross section.  The interaction,
> > > according to quantum theory is, if memory serves, a
> > > third order effect which is practically nil.
> >
> > How might I coax two photons to interact?
> >
> >   -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
> Firstly, Greg Neill answered my statement that energy has mass by
> We can see he is imprecise, because I never spoke of rest-mas in that
> context, and he uses expressions like "third order" without
> understanding them.

Hardly imprecise, as it is a correct statement that stands alone.

If you take a Taylor expansion of the expression that
represents a given interaction, a third order effect
would be one whose leading term appears as the cubic
(third power) term in the expansion.  What exactly did
you read in my post that would lead you to believe that
I had something else in mind?

> I go back to what I said. I said M1 times M2 divided by D-squared is
> the rule for gravity (the force of gravity between material-bodies of
> masses M1 and M2) and ALSO for diffraction (the attractive force
> between energy-quanta of Einsteinian masses M1 and M2).

This applies in Newtonian gravity, and does not apply except as
the limit approximation in General Relativity.

> Anything to do with D-squared is known as a SECOND-order equation.
> It is not the rule of attraction between two masses that is incredibly
> small. It is the size of the Einsteinian (or relativistic) mass.

Who, besides you above, have said otherwise?  I smell a straw man
argument in the making.

> A single Herz (cycle per second) cannot divide down below a quantum.
> This is about 6 times ten to the MINUS 34 Joules at one Hz. I know
> this, because it is h. Max Planck got the Nobel prize of 1915 for this.
> Einstein's discovery of 1904, that he used in his work in 1905, was
> that you must divide this by the speed of light (3 time ten to the 8
> Metres per second) and AGAIN. So you divide by 9 times ten to the 16.
> The mass of a quantum at 1 Hz is therefore 6 times ten to the MINUS 39
> Kilogrammes.

This is the equivalent mass of the energy of a quantum of electromagnetic
radiation according to E = h*f and E = m*c^2.  Yes.

> So a quantum of everyday radio- ot light- energy has a tiny
> relativistic mass. That is why Einstein suggested the sun (the heaviest
> body in the solar system) as the means of pulling the quanta. The huge
> (mainly) rest-mass of the sun pulls this TINY relativistic mass of
> energy, and what I call "graviffraction" occurs - gravity and
> diffraction combined.

Except that the effect is about half of what is predicted by
Einstein's General Relativity.

> I mentioned this in my original post because it is the ninetieth
> anniversary of the prediction as well as the occasion of a total
> eclipse. Anybody watching the eclipse might therefore be interested in
> the NEWS that I put on a newsgroup.
> Scientists are not aggressive. Unfortunately, "science fiction
> hooligans" joined in the discussion. Their attitude problem is obvious.
> I never put a foot wrong, but these science fiction devotees had simply
> not heard of what I was saying. Their gospel - if it is new to THEM,
> then it is WRONG. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio,
> than dreamt of in your "philosophy".

Very nice, but what point are you trying to make?  I could decern
no facts in the above.

> TWO quanta, of tiny mass M1 and tiny mass M2 can only display
> diffraction clearly if these photons are pushed through a tiny hole, or
> onto a tiny grid of scratches.

Single photon-at-a-time diffraction patterns have been produced.

> The first example is the pinhole camera - as metioned by me in an
> article elsewhere. It is well known that you can only make a pinhole
> down to a certain size if you want all the benefit. The sharpness of an
> image does not get better and better as the hole gets smaller. After a
> certain minimum size is reached, the image gets more fuzzy.


> This "diffraction effect" is well known in photography. It has long
> been known that on a 35mm camera with a 2 inch lens, the optimum
> aperture is about f/8. Larger apertures have less depth-of-field whilst
> smaller - such as f/11 ot f/16 begin to display diffraction.
> This a real-world interaction of photons in a tiny hole.

No, it's wave mechanics.  Photons have both wave-like and particle-
like natures.

> The other example - a tiny scratches - is known as a DIFFRACTION
> GRATING. Such a grating is often used in place of a prism, in
> scientific instruments.


> An "accidental" version of this effect makes compact disks look
> attractive, and so improves the marketability.

Can you cite a study that shows that this effect improves the
marketability of CD's?

> The tiny grooves pressed
> into the plastic have the effect of reflecting photons into each
> others' paths, causing their masses to interact at specific frequencies
> (colours).

No, this is another example of wave interference.

> That is a second everyday example of photons interacting.


> So the interaction of photons (the diffraction effect) is no problem.
> Real scientists have seen it every day.
> Charles Douglas Wehner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>