DoesnrCOt work thoughrCothe energy has mass too.
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote or quoted:
DoesnrCOt work thoughrCothe energy has mass too.
Energy does not always have mass. Counterexample:
A photon - it has energy, but no mass.
Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
pair (which has mass.)
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote or quoted:
DoesnrCOt work thoughrCothe energy has mass too.
Energy does not always have mass. Counterexample:
A photon - it has energy, but no mass.
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
Followup-To: sci.physics
Subject changed
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
pair (which has mass.)
Let's call the momenta of the two photons p0 and p1.
We may assume p1 = -p0 as the two photons are moving towards
each other from opposite directions. Let's call the momentum
of the system of these two photons "p", then we have:
p = p0 + p1 = p0 +( -p0 )= p0 - p0 = 0
. Let's call the energy of this pair "E" and its mass "m". From
E^2 = m^2 + p^2
(in units with c=1) and
p = 0
, we get,
E^2 = m^2
for the pair. I.e., all its energy is mass. And this is the
mass the particle pair has after the collision.
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
Followup-To: sci.physics
Subject changed.
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote or quoted:
DoesnAt work thoughuthe energy has mass too.
Energy does not always have mass. Counterexample:
A photon - it has energy, but no mass.
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
Followup-To: sci.physics
Subject changed
No *rest* mass. But a photon is never at rest.
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote or quoted:
DoesnAt work thoughuthe energy has mass too.
Energy does not always have mass. Counterexample:
A photon - it has energy, but no mass.
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
Followup-To: sci.physics
Subject changed
No *rest* mass. But a photon is never at rest.
The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
I'm just an engineer, but I think this is real.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
pair (which has mass.)
Let's call the momenta of the two photons p0 and p1.
We may assume p1 = -p0 as the two photons are moving towards
each other from opposite directions. Let's call the momentum
of the system of these two photons "p", then we have:
p = p0 + p1 = p0 +( -p0 )= p0 - p0 = 0
. Let's call the energy of this pair "E" and its mass "m". From
E^2 = m^2 + p^2
(in units with c=1) and
p = 0
, we get,
E^2 = m^2
for the pair. I.e., all its energy is mass. And this is the
mass the particle pair has after the collision.
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
Followup-To: sci.physics
Subject changed.
On 10/02/2026 20:32, Stefan Ram wrote:
Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote or quoted:
DoesnrCOt work thoughrCothe energy has mass too.
Energy does not always have mass.
Counterexample:
A photon - it has energy, but no mass.
A photon has no *rest mass* - which not quite the same thing.
On 10 Feb 2026 21:58:30 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
pair (which has mass.)
Let's call the momenta of the two photons p0 and p1.
We may assume p1 = -p0 as the two photons are moving towards
each other from opposite directions. Let's call the momentum
of the system of these two photons "p", then we have:
p = p0 + p1 = p0 +( -p0 )= p0 - p0 = 0
. Let's call the energy of this pair "E" and its mass "m". From
E^2 = m^2 + p^2
(in units with c=1) and
p = 0
, we get,
E^2 = m^2
for the pair. I.e., all its energy is mass. And this is the
mass the particle pair has after the collision.
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
Followup-To: sci.physics
Subject changed.
The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
Does't that create a spherical, symmetric, expanding bubble of
gravity?
I'm just an engineer, but I think this is real. People say it's not technically possible, or that the efffect is too small to worry about,
or some other excuse for not saying that it could happen.
There is an electrical equivalent. A metal sphere could suddenly
become charged, and it would create a symmetric e-field pulse that
expands at the speed of light, like a wave, but it isn't
electromagnetic.
I guess that you can't make an antenna that radiates em waves
symmetrically in all directions.
[...] (Stefan Ram) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
pair (which has mass.)
[irrelevant and misleading/wrong calculation]
The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
the universe,
up until the instant that they collided^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to form a particle pair.
Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
Does't that create a spherical, symmetric, expanding bubble of gravity?
I'm just an engineer,
but I think this is real.
People say it's not technically possible,
or that the efffect is too small to worry about,
or some other excuse for not saying that it could happen.
There is an electrical equivalent. A metal sphere could suddenly
become charged,
and it would create a symmetric e-field pulse that
expands at the speed of light, like a wave, but it isn't
electromagnetic.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
The gammas together had the same mass as the particle pair.
The Einstein Field Equations are in units where c = 1
G_ab + Lambda g_ab = 8pi G T_ab,
where
G_ab = R_ab - 1/2 R g_ab
is (a component of) the Einstein tensor, R_ab is the Ricci curvature tensor, g_ab is the metric tensor, R = g^ab R_ab is the Ricci curvature scalar, Lambda is the cosmological constant, and T_ab is the (stress--)energy--momentum tensor.
Gravitional effects are understood (in GR) as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which is described by the quantities on the left-hand side of the equations.
The energy--momentum tensor of a 1+3-dimensional spacetime has 16
components, but it is antisymmetric so only 10 of them are unique.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
As I argued before, that pair of photons /does/ have mass.
But even if it would /not/ have mass.
The source of gravity
is
not mass, but energy-momentum (the energy-momentum tensor T)
(in general relativity).
A photon passing by the sun is attracted to it.
To conserve
momentum, the sun must also be attracted by the photon!
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
As I argued before, that pair of photons /does/ have mass.
But even if it would /not/ have mass.
The source of gravity
is
not mass, but energy-momentum (the energy-momentum tensor T)
(in general relativity).
A photon passing by the sun is attracted to it.
To conserve
momentum, the sun must also be attracted by the photon!
[...] (Stefan Ram) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
pair (which has mass.)
[irrelevant and misleading/wrong calculation]
The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
the universe,
up until the instant that they collided^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to form a particle pair.
Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
Does't that create a spherical, symmetric, expanding bubble of gravity?
I'm just an engineer,
but I think this is real.
People say it's not technically possible,
or that the efffect is too small to worry about,
or some other excuse for not saying that it could happen.
There is an electrical equivalent. A metal sphere could suddenly
become charged,
and it would create a symmetric e-field pulse that
expands at the speed of light, like a wave, but it isn't
electromagnetic.
The Einstein Field Equations are in units where c = 1
G_ab + Lambda g_ab = 8pi G T_ab,
where
G_ab = R_ab - 1/2 R g_ab
is (a component of) the Einstein tensor, R_ab is the Ricci curvature tensor, g_ab is the metric tensor, R = g^ab R_ab is the Ricci curvature scalar, Lambda is the cosmological constant, and T_ab is the (stress--)energy--momentum tensor.
Gravitional effects are understood (in GR) as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime which is described by the quantities on the left-hand side of the equations.
The energy--momentum tensor of a 1+3-dimensional spacetime has 16
components, but it is antisymmetric so only 10 of them are unique.
On 10 Feb 2026 21:58:30 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Two gamma rays (zero mass total) can collide to produce a particle
pair (which has mass.)
Let's call the momenta of the two photons p0 and p1.
We may assume p1 = -p0 as the two photons are moving towards
each other from opposite directions. Let's call the momentum
of the system of these two photons "p", then we have:
p = p0 + p1 = p0 +( -p0 )= p0 - p0 = 0
. Let's call the energy of this pair "E" and its mass "m". From
E^2 = m^2 + p^2
(in units with c=1) and
p = 0
, we get,
E^2 = m^2
for the pair. I.e., all its energy is mass. And this is the
mass the particle pair has after the collision.
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,sci.physics
Followup-To: sci.physics
Subject changed.
The gamma rays had no gravitational effect on the rest of the mass in
the universe, up until the instant that they collided to form a
particle pair. Then a gravitational object magically appeared.
Does't that create a spherical, symmetric, expanding bubble of
gravity?
I'm just an engineer, but I think this is real. People say it's not technically possible, or that the efffect is too small to worry about,
or some other excuse for not saying that it could happen.
There is an electrical equivalent. A metal sphere could suddenly
become charged, and it would create a symmetric e-field pulse that
expands at the speed of light, like a wave, but it isn't
electromagnetic.
I guess that you can't make an antenna that radiates em waves
symmetrically in all directions.
Energy has mass
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote or quoted:
Energy has mass
Counterexample: The photon. It has energy, but no mass.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote or quoted:
Energy has mass
Counterexample: The photon. It has energy, but no mass.
On 2/13/26 17:20, Stefan Ram wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote or quoted:
Energy has mass
Counterexample: The photon. It has energy, but no mass.
The photon is an interaction, not a particle. Thinking of
photons as discrete particles leads to madness.
Jeroen Belleman
Single photons sure behave like particles, especially the energetic
ones.
On 14/02/2026 3:20 am, Stefan Ram wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote or quoted:
Energy has mass
Counterexample: The photon. It has energy, but no mass.
Depending on how you define mass.
Newton had one definition.
Einstein had another.
Light pressure does imply that a photon has momentum.
On 2/13/26 17:20, Stefan Ram wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote or quoted:
Energy has mass
Counterexample: The photon. It has energy, but no mass.
The photon is an interaction,
not a particle.
Thinking of photons as discrete particles leads to madness.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Single photons sure behave like particles, especially the energetic
ones.
Wave-like interference can be observed in the famous double-slit
experiment. Now, what happens when we reduce the intensity of the
incoming light to one single photon? We get one single spot on the
detector screen! So, does this mean "no wave behavior"? Well, when
we repeat this with many single photons, one after the other, in
the end, we get the same interference pattern on that screen created
by all those dots!
On 2/14/26 00:35, Stefan Ram wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Single photons sure behave like particles, especially the energetic
ones.
Wave-like interference can be observed in the famous double-slit
experiment. Now, what happens when we reduce the intensity of the
incoming light to one single photon? We get one single spot on the
detector screen! So, does this mean "no wave behavior"? Well, when we
repeat this with many single photons, one after the other, in the end,
we get the same interference pattern on that screen created by all
those dots!
This is misleading. There is no single-photon gun.
The only thing you can do is to reduce the light intensity to a level
where the interval between detection events is much longer than the
transit time of EM waves through the setup.
This doesn't demonstrate unequivocally that light consists of discrete photons travelling from a source to a detector. It just demonstrates
that light *detection* is quantized.
Experiments that pretend to prove the particle nature of light
invariably use tricks with non-linear optics, coincidence detectors and statistical foul play. That includes the experiments of Aspect,
Grangier, Zeilinger, Kwiat, Gisin and numerous others.
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2/14/26 00:35, Stefan Ram wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Single photons sure behave like particles, especially the energetic
ones.
Wave-like interference can be observed in the famous double-slit
experiment. Now, what happens when we reduce the intensity of the
incoming light to one single photon? We get one single spot on the
detector screen! So, does this mean "no wave behavior"? Well, when we
repeat this with many single photons, one after the other, in the end,
we get the same interference pattern on that screen created by all
those dots!
This is misleading. There is no single-photon gun.
There is:
Veritasium: Single Photon Interference
<https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=GzbKb59my3U&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDB2GGhVEb6lQ6ayYAsntEX&index=7>
The only thing you can do is to reduce the light intensity to a level
where the interval between detection events is much longer than the
transit time of EM waves through the setup.
Nonsense.
This doesn't demonstrate unequivocally that light consists of discrete
photons travelling from a source to a detector. It just demonstrates
that light *detection* is quantized.
In the experiment cited above, the photons were counted before, when they
did NOT pass through the slits.
And, of course, that Planck's radiation formula exactly predicts the
spectral energy distribution of black-body radiation is (and was the first) observational evidence that light energy is actually quantized.
Experiments that pretend to prove the particle nature of light
... which you misunderstand completely ...
"The Science Asylum: What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!" <https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=zS2vI_2faII&list=PLOVL_fPox2K_oFZzJxIU0YIKgTSPu9tcx&index=2>
invariably use tricks with non-linear optics, coincidence detectors and
statistical foul play. That includes the experiments of Aspect,
Grangier, Zeilinger, Kwiat, Gisin and numerous others.
Yeah, in your mind everybody is "insane", except you. Particularly the people who, by contrast to you, have actually studied this :-D
BTW, by address munging you are violating network standards.
On 2/14/26 00:35, Stefan Ram wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Single photons sure behave like particles, especially the energetic
ones.
Wave-like interference can be observed in the famous double-slit
experiment. Now, what happens when we reduce the intensity of the
incoming light to one single photon? We get one single spot on the
detector screen! So, does this mean "no wave behavior"? Well, when
we repeat this with many single photons, one after the other, in
the end, we get the same interference pattern on that screen created
by all those dots!
This is misleading. There is no single-photon gun.
you can do is to reduce the light intensity to a level where the
interval between detection events is much longer than the transit
time of EM waves through the setup. This doesn't demonstrate
unequivocally that light consists of discrete photons travelling
from a source to a detector. It just demonstrates that light
*detection* is quantized.
Experiments that pretend to prove the particle nature of light
invariably use tricks with non-linear optics, coincidence detectors
and statistical foul play. That includes the experiments of Aspect,
Grangier, Zeilinger, Kwiat, Gisin and numerous others.
Jeroen Belleman
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 2/14/26 00:35, Stefan Ram wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Single photons sure behave like particles, especially the energetic
ones.
Wave-like interference can be observed in the famous double-slit
experiment. Now, what happens when we reduce the intensity of the
incoming light to one single photon? We get one single spot on the
detector screen! So, does this mean "no wave behavior"? Well, when we
repeat this with many single photons, one after the other, in the end,
we get the same interference pattern on that screen created by all
those dots!
This is misleading. There is no single-photon gun.
There is:
Veritasium: Single Photon Interference
<https://www.youtube.com/watch? >v=GzbKb59my3U&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuDB2GGhVEb6lQ6ayYAsntEX&index=7>
The only thing you can do is to reduce the light intensity to a level
where the interval between detection events is much longer than the
transit time of EM waves through the setup.
Nonsense.
This doesn't demonstrate unequivocally that light consists of discrete
photons travelling from a source to a detector. It just demonstrates
that light *detection* is quantized.
In the experiment cited above, the photons were counted before, when they
did NOT pass through the slits.
And, of course, that Planck's radiation formula exactly predicts the
spectral energy distribution of black-body radiation is (and was the first) >observational evidence that light energy is actually quantized.
Experiments that pretend to prove the particle nature of light
... which you misunderstand completely ...
"The Science Asylum: What Are Particles? Do They ACTUALLY Exist?!" ><https://www.youtube.com/watch? >v=zS2vI_2faII&list=PLOVL_fPox2K_oFZzJxIU0YIKgTSPu9tcx&index=2>
invariably use tricks with non-linear optics, coincidence detectors and
statistical foul play. That includes the experiments of Aspect,
Grangier, Zeilinger, Kwiat, Gisin and numerous others.
Yeah, in your mind everybody is "insane", except you. Particularly the >people who, by contrast to you, have actually studied this :-D
BTW, by address munging you are violating network standards.
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 10:47:10 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 2/14/26 00:35, Stefan Ram wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Single photons sure behave like particles, especially the energetic
ones.
Wave-like interference can be observed in the famous double-slit
experiment. Now, what happens when we reduce the intensity of the
incoming light to one single photon? We get one single spot on the
detector screen! So, does this mean "no wave behavior"? Well, when
we repeat this with many single photons, one after the other, in
the end, we get the same interference pattern on that screen created >>> by all those dots!
This is misleading. There is no single-photon gun.
I recall someone making a laser sort of thing that dispenses a single
photon periodically.
Wave-like interference can be observed in the famous double-slit
experiment. Now, what happens when we reduce the intensity of the
incoming light to one single photon? We get one single spot on the
detector screen! So, does this mean "no wave behavior"? Well, when
we repeat this with many single photons, one after the other, in
the end, we get the same interference pattern on that screen created >>> by all those dots!
This is misleading. There is no single-photon gun.
I recall someone making a laser sort of thing that dispenses a single
photon periodically.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Single photons sure behave like particles, especially the energetic
ones.
Wave-like interference can be observed in the famous double-slit
experiment. Now, what happens when we reduce the intensity of the
incoming light to one single photon? We get one single spot on the
detector screen! So, does this mean "no wave behavior"? Well, when
we repeat this with many single photons, one after the other, in
the end, we get the same interference pattern on that screen created
by all those dots!
In 1986, a rigorously controlled experiment was designed by
Grangier, G. Roger, and A. Aspect, [Europhys Lett. 1(4), p. 173,
1986] that guaranteed a single-photon beam. The explanation of the
experimental results implied the interference of the wave function
of a single-photon with itself. This was disputed in 2018 by
Parra, but good quantum textbooks like [1] take this for granted.
[1] "2.1 The photon in the interferometer" in "Quantum Processes,
Systems, and Information" (2010) - Benjamin Schumacher
Yes, /that/ Schumacher who coined "qubit"!
On 15/02/2026 1:21 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
And, of course, that Planck's radiation formula exactly predicts the
spectral energy distribution of black-body radiation is (and was the first) >> observational evidence that light energy is actually quantized.
You've got it exactly backwards.
The failure to find formula that
matched the spectral energy distribution of black body radiation was the "ultraviolet catastrophe" and Max Planck's resort to energy quantisation
to get a formula fitted the data was a desperate improvisation.
Einstein's use of energy quantisation to explain the photo-electric
effect did actually exploit experimental observations, and Planck was initially very dubious about it.
invariably use tricks with non-linear optics, coincidence detectors and
statistical foul play. That includes the experiments of Aspect,
Grangier, Zeilinger, Kwiat, Gisin and numerous others.
Yeah, in your mind everybody is "insane", except you. Particularly the
people who, by contrast to you, have actually studied this :-D
You don't seem to have studied it all that thoroughly.
BTW, by address munging you are violating network standards.
Not that you bother to tell us where we could find them.
I recall someone making a laser sort of thing that dispenses a single
photon periodically.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
Yes, by stupid people.
F'up2 sci.physics
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 15/02/2026 1:21 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
And, of course, that Planck's radiation formula exactly predicts the
spectral energy distribution of black-body radiation is (and was the first)
observational evidence that light energy is actually quantized.
You've got it exactly backwards.
No, I do not.
The failure to find formula that
matched the spectral energy distribution of black body radiation was the "ultraviolet catastrophe" and Max Planck's resort to energy quantisation to get a formula fitted the data was a desperate improvisation.
Nevertheless, this was evidence supporting quantization.
Einstein's use of energy quantisation to explain the photo-electric
effect did actually exploit experimental observations, and Planck was initially very dubious about it.
Irrelevant.
invariably use tricks with non-linear optics, coincidence detectors and >>> statistical foul play. That includes the experiments of Aspect,
Grangier, Zeilinger, Kwiat, Gisin and numerous others.
Yeah, in your mind everybody is "insane", except you. Particularly the
people who, by contrast to you, have actually studied this :-D
You don't seem to have studied it all that thoroughly.
LOL
BTW, by address munging you are violating network standards.
Not that you bother to tell us where we could find them.
I already told you three times or more. You simply do not pay enough attention.
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5536#section-3.1.2>
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 01:37 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 18/02/2026 5:37 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 09:47 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/17/2026 03:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
You forgot about the everlasting tinfoil hats...
These days they call it "EMF shielding". Or "off-grid".
Yes, by stupid people.
Oh, it's well-known that exposure to high-intensity
radio waves has observable and demonstrable physiological
effects,
If you put your head in a microwave your brain will get cooked.
Some unfortunate radar technicians got bits of their brains warmed up
enough to do observable damage
I have been told that you can actually hear a high power pulsed radar,
(without suffering any damage)
Cal OSHA did exactly one controlled study of rats in
a basket, one with radios one without, the ones with
radios suffered neo-natally and post-natally and
failed the swimming test.
Probably you mean "The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), better known as Cal/OSHA":
<https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/>
It is unlikely that you will be able to cite the original study because
it is more likely that it is all a delusion.
Another likely possibility is that you have misunderstood or are misrepresenting the experiment.
In any case, humans are not rats. They are also not usually exposed to high-intensity electromagnetic radiation in close proximity to their source.
There is no physical reason and no evidence whatsoever that radio waves as used in daily telecommunication caused bodily harm to any human.
The people who are claiming otherwise are not suffering from brain damage because of radio, but from paranoia which is indicative of a brain malfunction which could be caused by prior, unrelated brain damage. It is also indicative of the growing ignorance among the general public that I was talking about: It is human nature to substitute ignorance with conceits and conspiracy theories because that is more convenient than learning.
On 2/19/26 20:27, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 |a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit
the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal. >>
KHz/gauss.
I believe that, due to magnetic field perturbations in urban
areas, the resonance gets scrambled too quickly to be easily
detectable. In rural areas it should be easier.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 21:41:50 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 20:52:48 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 19/02/2026 7:49 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:
Le 18/02/2026 a 20:13, Ross Finlayson a ocrit :
..
and, you know, magnetic monopoles, is widely employed
in medical imaging and the like.
No.
Resonance imaging (NMR) is a thoroughly different mechanism
than Roentgen rays.
But as the name implies, it's nuclei of the atoms involved that exhibit >> >the resonance. It's a remarkably low energy effect, and you need
remarkably high magnetic fields to get it to give you a detectable signal.
The earth's field is enough. The hydrogen resonance is about 4
KHz/gauss.
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-amateur-scientist-1959-04/>
(paywalled, unfortunately)
Jan
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26172037
This link will give you a automatic download of the FULL PDF file:
https://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/files.php?pid=89590&aid=2617
A wall is to keep 'other' people out...
i'm a quantum...i go through walls.
Ross Finlayson wrote:
It's simple that particle/wave duality the usual account
always must make for wave/resonance dichotomy, say.
It's just as simple to models waves and particles
and particles and waves and waves and resonances and
resonances and waves, as each other variously, since
for example wave mechanics is the usual notion of
"change in an open system", then for Huygens principle,
that waves beget waves, then also for the accounts of
wavelets, at the boundaries, or ondes and ondelettes.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad>
*shrug*
[F'up2 sci.physics as it has nothing inherently to do with either relativity or electronics design.]
Ross Finlayson amok-crossposted to sci.physics.relativity, sci.electronics.design:
On 02/25/2026 09:54 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/23/2026 11:15 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:Only of the 'half-quantum',
On 24/02/2026 5:16 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:Sometimes it's said that Stern-Gerlach was "proof of the quantum".
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:It's actually an academic joke.
[...]
The most dramatic demonstration of the Pauli Effect happened when he >>>>>>> wasn't actually in the room. Somebody was complaining at a conference >>>>>>> that an experiment had stopped working for a couple of hours - "as if >>>>>>> Pauli had stepped into the lab, but he wasn't even in Munich at the >>>>>>> time" and Pauli admitted that he had been stuck in train in Munich for aThat sounds as though it was proof of the quantum effect.
couple of hours that day while going somewhere else.
Oh, care to explain, or, perhaps your new
posting style is just "cut and get cut".
Stern-Gerlach basically demonstrates that it must
be continuum mechanics that it must be quantum mechanics
not simply particle mechanics.
No, it demonstrated that quantum-mechanical systems ("particles") have a property called "(quantum-mechanical) spin", an intrinsic form of angular momentum that is quantized. In particular, the experiment showed that (silver) atoms have this property, and that the projection of their spin can only assume one of two possible values (which for both physical and mathematical reasons were chosen to be +raA/2 and -raA/2; physics justifies the
raA) which makes them behave like that in a magnetic field:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment#Description>
Everybody who has any clue about quantum mechanics knows this. You don't have a clue, and neither has J. J. Lodder.
On 2/13/26 15:35, Stefan Ram wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote or quoted:
Single photons sure behave like particles, especially the energetic
ones.
Wave-like interference can be observed in the famous double-slit
experiment. Now, what happens when we reduce the intensity of the
incoming light to one single photon? We get one single spot on the
detector screen! So, does this mean "no wave behavior"? Well, when
we repeat this with many single photons, one after the other, in
the end, we get the same interference pattern on that screen created
by all those dots!
Yea. Beyond that there is an implied 'frequency' or 'wavelength'
in the theoretical energy or momentum of the photon.
I think that it is all based upon a esoteric mystical phenomenon
coming from not defining terms. Point and curve have reasonably
good meanings in mathematics, but 'particle' and 'wave' are just
different enough for people to sort of claim they have no meaning
at all, but then say 'stupid' and back track and bait and switch
'particle' and 'wave' with 'point' and 'curve'.
Then of course there is the Fourier transform. Any curve can
be represented by an set of sine wave equations, just as the
Laplace transform for exponential equations.
Probably it is best to just keep it simple. A photon is an
increment of energy or momentum transfer from the Schrodinger
equation curve. Beyond that do not get into strange mysticism.
In 1986, a rigorously controlled experiment was designed by
Grangier, G. Roger, and A. Aspect, [Europhys Lett. 1(4), p. 173,
1986] that guaranteed a single-photon beam. The explanation of the
experimental results implied the interference of the wave function
of a single-photon with itself. This was disputed in 2018 by
Parra, but good quantum textbooks like [1] take this for granted.
[1] "2.1 The photon in the interferometer" in "Quantum Processes,
Systems, and Information" (2010) - Benjamin Schumacher
Yes, /that/ Schumacher who coined "qubit"!
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:48:08 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (10,048K bytes) |
| Messages: | 203,128 |