FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?

[Modat22]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:19:27 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:18:17 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <rqikh0t8tq8g71ifes8eols4s26f8qijqk@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[...]
What you do is set up two identical communications channels and feed
their inputs with a single pulse, then measure the difference in
arrival times of the output pulses. The difference which exists will
be due to the fact that both channels aren't exactly identical, and
once that systematic delay difference is noted, the superluminal
signalling device (SSD) is introduced into one of the channels and the
measurement made again. Now, once the result of the measurement is
normalized by subtracting out the systematic delay, the delay
exhibited by the superluminal channel should be less than that
exhibited by the control channel. The measurement should be made many
times, of course, with the SSD moved back and forth between channels
to make sure whether or not the short delay follows the SSD.

I disagree. The experiment needs to have 2 way communications at a speed
faster than light. You have to send the signal from on location, have it
cause something at another and return a signal to the first. Without the
return trip the FLT could be an illusion.

---
Not if the measurement is done correctly. Consider:



+-->COM PATH 1-->[EDGE DETECTOR]<----------------+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+-->COM PATH 2-->[FIXED DELAY]--[EDGE DETECTOR]--+



Set up the system so the pulse generator is continuously putting out
pulses of a convenient width and PRF, and arrange the fixed delay time
so that with the scope trigger source set to A and the horizontal
speed set so that no more than one pulse is visible, the rising edge
of the received pulse will be seen at some convenient point to the
right of the start of the sweep. Now, if a working SSD is inserted
into COM path 1,:


+-->COM PATH 1-->[SSD]--[EDGE DETECTOR]<---------+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+-->COM PATH 2-->[FIXED DELAY]--[EDGE DETECTOR]--+


the propagation time through COM path 1, by the pulse used to trigger
the scope, will be decreased and the rising edge of the pulse on the B
input will be seen to move to the right of the position it occupied on
the display when no SSD was fitted.

Of course, if long COM paths were desired, (say to the moon and back)
transponders could be installed on the moon at opposite points on the
face it always points at us and the experiment performed that way.

Matter of fact, I think that ESP is superluminal and that's part of an
experiment which could be performed to determine whether it exists
and, if it does, how fast it goes. Wanna hear about it?

I think I read something in a quantum mechanics book, article etc.
that each photon in light has a linked twin, what is done to one
happens to the other. So if you could somehow capture the twins and
separate them would allow signals to be applied to one and received
from the other.


Now how would you capture and hold a photon.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <t4aph0108pk6d1s37qqi6857d7pmfgvr5n@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[....]

Not if the measurement is done correctly. Consider:

[... ascii art snipped ...]

How far away is the scope? Who's looking at it?

How do we know that the signal on the scope isn't just the result of
crosstalk from the input side of the experiment to the output?

How can we prove that the display on the scope really became valid when it
claims it did? IE: Could we have a semi-fed cat situation. Since the
effort here is to prove something about quantum physics, you can't just
assume the current theory is right because that leads to circular logic.
You've got to use some really bullet proof logic to prove FTL.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:05:23 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <t4aph0108pk6d1s37qqi6857d7pmfgvr5n@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[....]
Not if the measurement is done correctly. Consider:


[... ascii art snipped ...]

How far away is the scope? Who's looking at it?

---
Why should either of those matter? All the scope is doing is
"recording" the time between two events, one _known_ to occur before
the other, and the looker is merely observing whether the leading edge
of a repeating pulse moves in a certain direction or not. Why it may
or not is unimportant to the observer, who only cares _if_ it does.
---

How do we know that the signal on the scope isn't just the result of
crosstalk from the input side of the experiment to the output?

---
We know what we're doing and we're smart enough to know how to set up
our equipment properly.
---

How can we prove that the display on the scope really became valid when it
claims it did? IE: Could we have a semi-fed cat situation. Since the
effort here is to prove something about quantum physics, you can't just
assume the current theory is right because that leads to circular logic.

---
We assume the current theory is right, so far, because it has never
been disproved (well, except for photon entanglement) and then we
carry on with our carefully thought out and executed experiment to
determine whether our SSD really works. There's nothing magic about
it, if it takes a certain amount of time for a pulse to go from point
A to point B and you can, somehow, shorten that time without altering
the transmission medium, then you've exceeded C for that medium.

You've got to use some really bullet proof logic to prove FTL.

Check out Cherenkov radiation. C gets violated all the time.

--
John Fields

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <8ftph09tqou7l87anvecfc32tpfv645i7m@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:05:23 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <t4aph0108pk6d1s37qqi6857d7pmfgvr5n@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[....]
[...]
How can we prove that the display on the scope really became valid when it
claims it did? IE: Could we have a semi-fed cat situation. Since the
effort here is to prove something about quantum physics, you can't just
assume the current theory is right because that leads to circular logic.

---
We assume the current theory is right, so far, because it has never
been disproved. (well, except for photon entanglement)

This is the part of my point you didn't get. To pick a single example
assume you are doing an experiment where the results could prove either
(A) FTL or a (B) mistake on page 7 in the big book on QM. If you don't
rule out the flaw in QM the best your experiment can do is prove either
(A) or (B) must be true. It can't prove (A)

and then we
carry on with our carefully thought out and executed experiment to
determine whether our SSD really works. There's nothing magic about
it, if it takes a certain amount of time for a pulse to go from point
A to point B and you can, somehow, shorten that time without altering
the transmission medium, then you've exceeded C for that medium.

You have to prove that you have really shortened the time and not created
some sort of semi-fed cat situation.

You've got to use some really bullet proof logic to prove FTL.

Check out Cherenkov radiation. C gets violated all the time.

I don't think so C is the speed of light in free space. Cherenkov happens
when something's speed exceeds the speed of light within the medium. It
all happens at less than C.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 18:47:36 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <8ftph09tqou7l87anvecfc32tpfv645i7m@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:05:23 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <t4aph0108pk6d1s37qqi6857d7pmfgvr5n@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[....]
[...]
How can we prove that the display on the scope really became valid when it
claims it did? IE: Could we have a semi-fed cat situation. Since the
effort here is to prove something about quantum physics, you can't just
assume the current theory is right because that leads to circular logic.

---
We assume the current theory is right, so far, because it has never
been disproved. (well, except for photon entanglement)

This is the part of my point you didn't get. To pick a single example
assume you are doing an experiment where the results could prove either
(A) FTL or a (B) mistake on page 7 in the big book on QM. If you don't
rule out the flaw in QM the best your experiment can do is prove either
(A) or (B) must be true. It can't prove (A)

---
Nothing can _prove_ A, but the very fact that the result of the
experiment yielded the possibility that A _might_ be true certainly is
a starting point for more rigorous study of the purported SSD. And QM
---

and then we
carry on with our carefully thought out and executed experiment to
determine whether our SSD really works. There's nothing magic about
it, if it takes a certain amount of time for a pulse to go from point
A to point B and you can, somehow, shorten that time without altering
the transmission medium, then you've exceeded C for that medium.

You have to prove that you have really shortened the time and not created
some sort of semi-fed cat situation.

---
Give me an example of a "semi-fed cat situation" which would result in
a false indication of FTL in the experiment, please?
---

You've got to use some really bullet proof logic to prove FTL.

Check out Cherenkov radiation. C gets violated all the time.

I don't think so C is the speed of light in free space. Cherenkov happens
when something's speed exceeds the speed of light within the medium. It
all happens at less than C.

---
You're splitting hairs. 'C', 'c', what does it matter?

The _fact_ is that superluminal velocities _can_ be and _have_ been
achieved in different mediums, much as supersonic velocities have.

Do you doubt that quantum entanglement is superluminal and occurs in
vacuo?

--
John Fields

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:14:07 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Do you doubt that quantum entanglement is superluminal and occurs in
vacuo?

I do. Nothing moves as a result of quantum entanglement, and it can't
be used for FTL communication.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:24:48 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:14:07 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Do you doubt that quantum entanglement is superluminal and occurs in
vacuo?


I do. Nothing moves as a result of quantum entanglement, and it can't
be used for FTL communication.

---
Maybe not yet, but check out:

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/6/18

and note, in particular:

"To demonstrate open-destination teleportation, Pan and co-workers
first teleported the unknown quantum state of a single photon onto a
superposition of three photons. They were then able to read out this
teleported state at any one of the three photons by performing a
measurement on the other two photons."

--
John Fields

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
ents.com> wrote (in <dndsh099fkhiat1cbf5o5c0gv2utdtr7qc@4ax.com&gt about
'FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?', on Sat, 14 Aug 2004:

"To demonstrate open-destination teleportation, Pan and co-workers first
teleported the unknown quantum state of a single photon onto a
superposition of three photons. They were then able to read out this
teleported state at any one of the three photons by performing a
measurement on the other two photons."

THREE photons? Is this the birth of the TRI-corder?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <FpsTc.131809$28.82907@fe1.news.b
lueyonder.co.uk&gt about 'FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?', on
Sat, 14 Aug 2004:

Its simply not debatable under QM, unless QM
is wrong.

Like everything else in science, QM is wrong. We just haven't found
anything more correct yet, and when we do, that will be wrong as well.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:59:01 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

But none of this implies useful signal FTL communication, as you seem to
be suggesting that by the "Maybe not yet, but check out".

---
I'm suggesting nothing of the kind. The "Maybe not yet" part should
have made that clear, since to imply otherwise I would have written
something like "Oh, yeah? then check out..."

The "Maybe not yet" part was meant to imply that how to do FTL _will_
eventually come to light (groannn :^), and the "but check out" part
was just a pointer to another brick coming out of the wall.
---

Its an accepted given by all pro physicists that entanglement can not be
used to send FTL signals. Its simply not debatable under QM, unless QM
is wrong. Its a basic result proved based on the postulates of QM. There
is no escape from this mathematical proof, unless QM is wrong. So, why
this FTL stuff keeps getting churned out is beyond me. Its simply not
allowed under accepted QM. Period.

---
Yes, and to pro clerics neither was anything but a terracentric
universe allowed up until a very few years ago.

It's probably a good thing that not _everyone_ accepts the edicts of
current authority as immutable truth, since there's still a lot out
there we don't know anything about, and looking for it in the face of
naysayers and, sometimes finding it, is fun.

--
John Fields

 

[Rich Grise]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <FpsTc.131809$28.82907@fe1.news.b
lueyonder.co.uk&gt about 'FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?', on
Sat, 14 Aug 2004:
Its simply not debatable under QM, unless QM
is wrong.

Like everything else in science, QM is wrong. We just haven't found
anything more correct yet, and when we do, that will be wrong as well.

I have, but nobody seems to want it.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <en8sh017njte088c6s30vp7ifir01rregk@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 02:46:18 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <i1eqh09nqvana0pvg857ftv522a9tdduoh@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[...]
Give me an example of a "semi-fed cat situation" which would
result in a false indication of FTL in the experiment, please?

In this case the scope or to be more exact parts of it would be the
semi-fed cat.

FTL communications implies that information got to the scope before
a beam of light could have. You do not know the true state of the
scope until you look at it. This is when you make the
"measurement" of the state of the scope.

---
I don't see why when the scope gets its trigger matters. Think about
the experiment this way:

The two fastest runners on earth, Racer A and Racer B, are equally
matched, consistent, and always run the same distance in the same
time.

[... using runner instead of photons ..]

he always had before leads to the conclusion that Runner A ran faster
than he normally would have.

You've missed the whole point of my argument. Switching to human
runners doesn't help. Lets try this:


You have some electronics in one room with a push button on it. In
another room you have two devices that display numbers. You believe
that the numbers these devices display are the time since Jan 1, 1980
until a pulse arrives at each input.

You press the button and go look in the other room. When you get
there they show a difference of 1 second. From this you would
conclude that the travel time down the two paths is really one secon
different.

You believe that your measuring method is correct. You also believe
that this 1 second difference is proof of FTL.

Lets further assume that your currently accepted theory of physics say
both that the equipment is indeed measuring the speed correctly and
that FLT is imposible. You have just proven that this theory is
wrong.

Lets say, there is another theory of physics which states that the
entire contents of that other room does not exist unless you are
looking at it. Under this theory, the equipment and the measurement
even the windows and drapes and potted plants wink in and out of
existance. This theory is so weird you've rejected because (A) its
weird (B) you have another theory that worked perfectly.

Now you are in a bind. The theory you have been using is now proven
to be false and the truely weird one may be all you've got. Under
this truely weird theory, there was no information in the room at all
until you opened the door. In this theory FTL is still imposible.





If matters a whole bunch. "C" is the top speed of communications
in the universe.

---
We don't know that for sure, it's just that _we_ can't seem to find
anything going faster because _we're_ bound, so far, by what we don't
know.

I agree we can't really be sure its right but that is what I mean by
"C".

It just happens that light goes that fast.

---
Only as the limit allowed in a vacuum, and it varies just like
everything else does depending on the density of the medium it's
traversing.

Exactly "C" is an upper limit.

Other types of
communication also have "C" as an upper limit.

---
_Any_ types of communication, so far.

I agree
---

"c" on the otherhand
depends on the medium. It may even be that somethings still work
at "C" through the medium that slows light.

---
Assuming that things which work at C can't go slower than C, then it
seems reasonable to assume that the "slowing" isn't a slowing at all,
but the extra time required for the thing to bounce around in the
medium before it finally comes out.

Essentially, yes, but technically implemented differently.

It could also be that light never really travels at "C". It may
always travel at "c".

In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C", i.e.
the 3e8 max speed in vacuume. Atoms consist of 99.99etc% of vacuume.
Photons can't slow down, ever. The speed of light in a medium is an
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger energy
state, then after a delay, emit a new photon. It is this delay that
makes for an effective slower velocity. You know its the whole exited
electrons is an atom bit, Balmer series and all that jazz.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:59:01 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


But none of this implies useful signal FTL communication, as you
seem to be suggesting that by the "Maybe not yet, but check out".

---
I'm suggesting nothing of the kind. The "Maybe not yet" part should
have made that clear, since to imply otherwise I would have written
something like "Oh, yeah? then check out..."

The "Maybe not yet" part was meant to imply that how to do FTL _will_
eventually come to light (groannn :^), and the "but check out" part
was just a pointer to another brick coming out of the wall.
---

Ok.

Its an accepted given by all pro physicists that entanglement can
not be used to send FTL signals. Its simply not debatable under QM,
unless QM is wrong. Its a basic result proved based on the
postulates of QM. There is no escape from this mathematical proof,
unless QM is wrong. So, why this FTL stuff keeps getting churned out
is beyond me. Its simply not allowed under accepted QM. Period.

---
Yes, and to pro clerics neither was anything but a terracentric
universe allowed up until a very few years ago.

My point being that, sure, in a bigger scheme of things QM might be
wrong, but non of these researchers/experiments are actually claiming
that what they are doing violates QM in any way to date. They are just
presenting some of the strange aspects of QM as it stands.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C", i.e.
the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger
energy state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't
have serial numbers.

Oh, you mean like when the photon disappears (gets absorbed) it actually
runs around inside the electron for a bit, then pops out again. Maybe.


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Mjolinor]

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:teMTc.142924$28.34654@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C", i.e.
the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger
energy state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't
have serial numbers.

Oh, you mean like when the photon disappears (gets absorbed) it actually
runs around inside the electron for a bit, then pops out again. Maybe.

No it doesn't, it becomes a part of the track that the electron is riding on
giving the electron a longer path and therefore a higher orbit.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <teMTc.142924$28.34654@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C", i.e.
the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger
energy state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't
have serial numbers.

Oh, you mean like when the photon disappears (gets absorbed) it actually
runs around inside the electron for a bit, then pops out again. Maybe.

Something effectively like that. Of course what you've described is a bit
more "classical" than I'd expect it to really be.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Mjolinor wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:teMTc.142924$28.34654@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C",
i.e. the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger
energy state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't
have serial numbers.

Oh, you mean like when the photon disappears (gets absorbed) it
actually runs around inside the electron for a bit, then pops out
again. Maybe.

No it doesn't, it becomes a part of the track that the electron is
riding on giving the electron a longer path and therefore a higher
orbit.

These words makes no sense at all. A photon isn't a tract. This is
gibberish.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Mjolinor]

"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:05ZTc.143824$28.122316@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

Mjolinor wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:teMTc.142924$28.34654@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <w2ETc.141739$28.48707@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
In fact, its the other way round photons *always* travel at "C",
i.e. the 3e8 max speed in vacuume.

Yes, existing theory.

[...]
*apparent* speed. Atomic electrons absorb photons, go to a hifger
energy state, then after a delay, emit a new photon.

Proving that it is really a new photon is a bit tricky. They don't
have serial numbers.

Oh, you mean like when the photon disappears (gets absorbed) it
actually runs around inside the electron for a bit, then pops out
again. Maybe.

No it doesn't, it becomes a part of the track that the electron is
riding on giving the electron a longer path and therefore a higher
orbit.

These words makes no sense at all. A photon isn't a tract. This is
gibberish.

Sorry, missed the off

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <05ZTc.143824$28.122316@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Mjolinor wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
[...]
No it doesn't, it becomes a part of the track that the electron is
riding on giving the electron a longer path and therefore a higher
orbit.

These words makes no sense at all. A photon isn't a tract. This is
gibberish.

I wouldn't call them gibberish. They are merely wrong. The idea that
the electrons are trapped in a one dimensional loop and that the length of
this loop changes size as the energy changes is an ok way to think about
some of the quantum effects. It really bombs out on other questions.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <05ZTc.143824$28.122316@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
Kevin Aylward <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
Mjolinor wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
[...]
No it doesn't, it becomes a part of the track that the electron is
riding on giving the electron a longer path and therefore a higher
orbit.

These words makes no sense at all. A photon isn't a tract. This is
gibberish.

I wouldn't call them gibberish.

Of course the sentence was gibberish. The syntax itself was meaningless.
Maybe what was meant was supposed to make sense, but photons are objects
that move along a tract (path). The path isn't the object. Such a
statement is nonsensical.

They are merely wrong. The idea that
the electrons are trapped in a one dimensional loop and that the
length of this loop changes size as the energy changes is an ok way
to think about some of the quantum effects.

This is not what the original sentence said. Your sentence actually
makes grammatical sense, whether or not it is a true statement is
another matter.

I don't know about any of the details you allude to here, but all energy
*has* to be fundamentally an object in motion. All we have in the 3
universes are objects, that move. That's you lot. Period.

For example, if mass can be "turned" to energy (i.e. motion of objects)
mass must consist of motion of internal objects.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.