sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Eclipse and EINSTEIN

Subject: Re: Eclipse and EINSTEIN
From:
Date: 30 Mar 2006 07:30:58 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro
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
saying "NO - LIGHT HAS NO REST MASS".

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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. 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).

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>