Photon in an acceleration field

[Cheezle]

Mazulu. First of all you are going to be using that metal square as an antenna. I guess you can call it whatever you want. But you seem to want to use it as an antenna.

When you work with RF signals, impedance matching is very important. I assume that you use some kind of transmission line (coax cable) to get the signal to the metal square. Because your metal square is just a metal square, it is not impedance matched. The signal is going to reflect back into the output of your amplifier. You should look up VSWR. At some frequencies the end of the transmission line will look like an open, and at some frequencies it will look like a direct short to ground. Depending on your amplifier and how much power is involved, it could either just make you're experiment not work, or it could burn up the output circuit of your amplifier. Many a transmitter has been blown up because the operator transmitted with no load on the output. This is pretty basic electronics. Are you sure you have competence in that subject? I suspect that you are going to have a very difficult time with your experiment.

Study transmission lines and get a book on HAM radio and read it. I don't do RF so I am not very knowledgeable on the subject. But I do know enough that you don't just hook a metal square up to a power amplifier. I have seen some burnt circuits from amplifiers.

But just ignore me. You are the expert electronics technician and world class physicist.

 

[Mazulu]

Mazulu. First of all you are going to be using that metal square as an antenna. I guess you can call it whatever you want. But you seem to want to use it as an antenna.

When you work with RF signals, impedance matching is very important. I assume that you use some kind of transmission line (coax cable) to get the signal to the metal square. Because your metal square is just a metal square, it is not impedance matched. The signal is going to reflect back into the output of your amplifier. You should look up VSWR. At some frequencies the end of the transmission line will look like an open, and at some frequencies it will look like a direct short to ground. Depending on your amplifier and how much power is involved, it could either just make you're experiment not work, or it could burn up the output circuit of your amplifier. Many a transmitter has been blown up because the operator transmitted with no load on the output. This is pretty basic electronics. Are you sure you have competence in that subject? I suspect that you are going to have a very difficult time with your experiment.

Study transmission lines and get a book on HAM radio and read it. I don't do RF so I am not very knowledgeable on the subject. But I do know enough that you don't just hook a metal square up to a power amplifier. I have seen some burnt circuits from amplifiers.

But just ignore me. You are the expert electronics technician and world class physicist.

It's ok Cheezle, you don't have to panic. I'm not going to run out, buy a bunch of equipment and then burn my house down because because I have aliens distracting me. Just take a chill pill and relax. I don't have to have mastery of antenna design, transmission lines, ham radio, general relativity, super string theory, cosmology, nonlinear differential equations, welding and God knows what else just to perform a simple experiment. I don't have to be an Einstein or a Feynman just to test a hypothesis. You're just getting worked up for no good reason.

Maybe you speak from personal experience when you say you've burned up amplifiers. It's OK, everyone makes mistakes. Were human being and were not perfect. As long as we learn from our mistakes.

 

[Cheezle]

It's ok Cheezle, you don't have to panic. I'm not going to run out, buy a bunch of equipment and then burn my house down because because I have aliens distracting me. Just take a chill pill and relax. I don't have to have mastery of antenna design, transmission lines, ham radio, general relativity, super string theory, cosmology, nonlinear differential equations, welding and God knows what else just to perform a simple experiment. I don't have to be an Einstein or a Feynman just to test a hypothesis. You're just getting worked up for no good reason.

Maybe you speak from personal experience when you say you've burned up amplifiers. It's OK, everyone makes mistakes. Were human being and were not perfect. As long as we learn from our mistakes.

Actually I did not say I burned up amplifiers. I said I have seen the circuits that have been burned. Mainly just pictures but a couple in person. I have never even owned a HAM radio (other than a shortwave receiver). But my real point is that you are not what you claim to be. For instance you claim to "test and troubleshoot high performance oscilloscopes." How can you do that and not know anything about transmission lines. Even a data line is a transmission line. If they are not properly terminated they can have all kinds of problems. And how can you have a physics degree and know none of this stuff? We are not talking Mastery of the subject here. We are talking very basic electronics. That seems very fishy to me.

If you do not understand this stuff then your experiment will not be sending out that all important chirp. Also that square plate will make a terrible antenna. I am just a electronics hobbyist. All I did was read a HAM radio book once. How can I know this stuff and you don't? Fishy.

For someone who was so interested in everything being waves, you suddenly seem to have no knowledge or interest in them. Very fishy indeed.

Oh and I get your message. You don't want any help.

 

[Mazulu]

Actually I did not say I burned up amplifiers. I said I have seen the circuits that have been burned. Mainly just pictures but a couple in person. I have never even owned a HAM radio (other than a shortwave receiver). But my real point is that you are not what you claim to be. For instance you claim to "test and troubleshoot high performance oscilloscopes." How can you do that and not know anything about transmission lines. Even a data line is a transmission line. If they are not properly terminated they can have all kinds of problems. And how can you have a physics degree and know none of this stuff? We are not talking Mastery of the subject here. We are talking very basic electronics. That seems very fishy to me.

You're talking smack. I know a hell of a lot more than you think. The only thing fishy here is you!

 

[Mazulu]

Actually I did not say I burned up amplifiers. I said I have seen the circuits that have been burned. Mainly just pictures but a couple in person. I have never even owned a HAM radio (other than a shortwave receiver). But my real point is that you are not what you claim to be. For instance you claim to "test and troubleshoot high performance oscilloscopes." How can you do that and not know anything about transmission lines. Even a data line is a transmission line. If they are not properly terminated they can have all kinds of problems. And how can you have a physics degree and know none of this stuff? We are not talking Mastery of the subject here. We are talking very basic electronics. That seems very fishy to me.

You're talking smack. I know a hell of a lot more than you think. The only thing fishy here is you!

Oh and I get your message. You don't want any help.

You wanna help? Don't undermine my knowledge when you don't don't know what the F you're talking about.

 

[AlexG]

I know a hell of a lot more than you think

You only know what the aliens tell you.

 

[Cheezle]

You're talking smack. I know a hell of a lot more than you think. The only thing fishy here is you!


You wanna help? Don't undermine my knowledge when you don't don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I am just pointing out some facts.

"When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it." - Confucius

 

[Mazulu]

You only know what the aliens tell you.

The aliens have a point: why wouldn't gravity and redshift be coupled?

 

[Mazulu]

I am just pointing out some facts.

Why?

 

[AlexG]

The aliens have a point: why wouldn't gravity and redshift be coupled?

:facepalm:

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I just graphed it on my calculator. You're right, it doesn't graph like the picture I showed you. You probably tried to tell me that. If I missed it, it was because I skim over the useless worthless criticism. So the question becomes: what function will graph like the picture?

Let's see. A couple of months ago, I said that we had to generate a frequency shift of the form $$f(t) = \frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}t + f_0$$. I said that $$\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}$$ had to be as large as possible in order to generate a strong enough acceleration field. Now if I look at linear frequency chirps, they are of the form $$f(t) = f_0 + kt$$. According to the article, it should graph as this. So what's the problem?

I seriously can't believe you don't see the completely vapid nonsensical direction you're going in. You aren't trying to derive the results from some set of basic postulates, you're just randomly guessing. General relativity derives the photon frequency shifting by constructing the Einstein Field Equations, solving them for spherically symmetric Ricci flat space-times and considering a photon moving radially. Each step is clear, methodical and precise. Your method is "What looks like that picture?". How do you know the picture is accurate? Simple pictures like that are rarely 100% accurate.

The fact you were completely wrong should make you realise this 'information' you're getting from god or aliens is wrong. But delusional people always find a way to bend reality to fit their delusions....

Yes it is. I estimate about 2 trillion g's..

You just demonstrated more basic misunderstanding. It isn't the gravitational acceleration at a point which defines the redshift amount, it's the total gravitational gradient which a photon moves through. All that matters is the gravitational potential where the photon starts and where it finishes. A photon moving down through a 1g field for a billion years will be shifted more than one which moves down through a 10g field in 1 minute. This too is an experimentally demonstrated fact.

Time and again you are shown to be wrong.

If you seek the truth, then perform the experiment.

And yet you ignore when experiments prove your claims false. You aren't after truth, you're after some way of validating your otherwise obscure and uneventful existence.

Say the following mantra 42 times: Free me from delusion; direct me to truth.

And yet you ignore it whenever someone puts a fact on the table which shows you're wrong.

What you fail to understand is: I'm right, and the physics community is lost.

Something I've disproven on several occasions. You get wrong stuff kids are taught.

It's OK, everyone makes mistakes. Were human being and were not perfect. As long as we learn from our mistakes.

Everyone except you? You don't listen to your mistakes when they are pointed out. You don't learn from your mistakes. You make assertions you're absolutely right despite having no experience with theory or experiment, no grasp of any models, no maths skills, no access to experimental results, no nothing. All you have are the voices in your head.

I know a hell of a lot more than you think.

Personally I'm amazed you have a job. I honestly can't see how someone with the level of delusion and detachment from reality that you have can hold down a regular job. You believe your grasp of the universe to be beyond anything mainstream science has, repeatedly telling us how you're right and everyone else wrong. Do you tell people you work with such things? Do you tell them space aliens told you? Do they know you think god talks to you? Honestly, I wouldn't trust you with sharp objects and I wouldn't leave you alone with anyone who can't look after themselves. Anyone who thinks aliens and god are telling him secrets of the universe needs evaluation from a medical professional.

 

[Mazulu]

I seriously can't believe you don't see the completely vapid nonsensical direction you're going in. You aren't trying to derive the results from some set of basic postulates, you're just randomly guessing. General relativity derives the photon frequency shifting by constructing the Einstein Field Equations, solving them for spherically symmetric Ricci flat space-times and considering a photon moving radially. Each step is clear, methodical and precise. Your method is "What looks like that picture?". How do you know the picture is accurate? Simple pictures like that are rarely 100% accurate.

The fact you were completely wrong should make you realise this 'information' you're getting from god or aliens is wrong. But delusional people always find a way to bend reality to fit their delusions....

You just demonstrated more basic misunderstanding. It isn't the gravitational acceleration at a point which defines the redshift amount, it's the total gravitational gradient which a photon moves through. All that matters is the gravitational potential where the photon starts and where it finishes. A photon moving down through a 1g field for a billion years will be shifted more than one which moves down through a 10g field in 1 minute. This too is an experimentally demonstrated fact.

2 trillion g's across 300meters will frequency shift f to 2f.

Time and again you are shown to be wrong.

And yet you ignore when experiments prove your claims false. You aren't after truth, you're after some way of validating your otherwise obscure and uneventful existence.

And yet you ignore it whenever someone puts a fact on the table which shows you're wrong.

Something I've disproven on several occasions. You get wrong stuff kids are taught.

Everyone except you? You don't listen to your mistakes when they are pointed out. You don't learn from your mistakes. You make assertions you're absolutely right despite having no experience with theory or experiment, no grasp of any models, no maths skills, no access to experimental results, no nothing. All you have are the voices in your head.

Personally I'm amazed you have a job. I honestly can't see how someone with the level of delusion and detachment from reality that you have can hold down a regular job. You believe your grasp of the universe to be beyond anything mainstream science has, repeatedly telling us how you're right and everyone else wrong. Do you tell people you work with such things? Do you tell them space aliens told you? Do they know you think god talks to you? Honestly, I wouldn't trust you with sharp objects and I wouldn't leave you alone with anyone who can't look after themselves. Anyone who thinks aliens and god are telling him secrets of the universe needs evaluation from a medical professional.

Everything else that you write is really not worth reading. Just the rantings of a string theorist. String theory is a form of illusion. It fools people into thinking that super-strings are real; but they're not. It fools physicists into thinking that they understand how light couples with gravity, but they don't understand. PhD's spend years of their life, their entire career, trying to understand the unification between GR and QM, but it doesn't lead to an experiment. It doesn't lead to any measurable results. So string theorists have this gnawing feeling that they've done all this work, but have not contributed anything. That is why string theorists have to attack others to boost their self esteem.

When someone shows up with the ever so simple solution, that the aether medium is made of the set of waves that satisfy $$c=\lambda f$$, which is a relativistic aether, how is a string theorist supposed to respond to such a simple answer? Years unto decades of mathematics training, and the aether is just a set of waves described with high school algebra? How could anyone ask questions, or think rationally, when they missed the simple answer by a million miles?

 

[FTLinmedium]

Wow Mazulu, I'm reading your posts, and you have a very interesting perspective.

As to your original question: Anything dealing with light will have to do with the reference frame you're talking about.

About double slit: A single photon can not create a full interference pattern, because it can only be detected at one point. However, the probability of one photon impacting any given point in iterative experiments can reflect an interference pattern. This can be understood in that a photon is not strictly a particle, but a wave (everything technically is- solid matter can also create an interference pattern in the right contexts if I recall correctly- photons just have larger wavelengths and so are much easier to experiment with in this sense).

I'm not an expert, though- I'm sure others could answer your question better.

Have a great day!

 

[Mazulu]

Wow Mazulu, I'm reading your posts, and you have a very interesting perspective.

As to your original question: Anything dealing with light will have to do with the reference frame you're talking about.

About double slit: A single photon can not create a full interference pattern, because it can only be detected at one point. However, the probability of one photon impacting any given point in iterative experiments can reflect an interference pattern. This can be understood in that a photon is not strictly a particle, but a wave (everything technically is- solid matter can also create an interference pattern in the right contexts if I recall correctly- photons just have larger wavelengths and so are much easier to experiment with in this sense).

I'm not an expert, though- I'm sure others could answer your question better.

Have a great day!

Everything you said sounds about right. In two slit diffraction patters, there is a wave-function, one for each slit. Those wave-functions interfere with one another. When one photon is fired at a time at the slits, it contributes to an interference pattern. The photon is just the energized part of the aether wave (described by a wave-function). If you ask which slit the photon goes through (which results in interference), the answer to that question doesn't actually exist. Why? Because wave-functions (aether waves) are the ontological component(s) that makes everything exist. Information is just a distinction between two things. Information is basically just 1's and 0's that look like this.

Mathematicians forget that mathematical tools like reference frames are a very real phenomenon. It reality, is the presence of matter that causes reference frames to exist. Matter is just a composition of EM frequencies (more accurately, aether medium wave frequencies). If you annihilate matter with antimatter, then you release EM frequencies (gamma rays). Reference frames exist because matter exists. Matter exists because aether medium frequencies exist. Therefore, reference frames and coordinate systems owe their existence to aether medium waves. You can create a reference frame without matter, but how will you experimentally test it? Matter gives you a reference frame clock which emerges from the composition of all those aether wave frequencies. Feel free to challenge this point.

 

[FTLinmedium]

A reference frame is important for light as well, not just fermions.

Doppler shift is substantial and measurable at even very low velocities.

 

[Mazulu]

A reference frame is important for light as well, not just fermions.

Doppler shift is substantial and measurable at even very low velocities.

The frequency of light (in cycles per second) depends upon the clock of the reference frame that it's interacting with. In the case of Doppler shifting, the light is emitted from the reference frame of the police officer's radar gun (for example), next it bounces off the reference frame of a car in traffic, then it bounces back to the reference frame of the radar gun detector. A computer calculates the car's speed, and the officer decides if that car is speeding.

All of this happens in an aether medium made of waves that satisfy $$c=\lambda f$$.

The equations for Doppler shift (and other phenomena) are already known and can be looked up. The physics community avoids discussing ontological causes. But I don't. Everything in physics makes sense if the light bearing, luminiferous aether is made of waves.

 

[FTLinmedium]

"luminiferous aether" was supposed to be the medium that light waves propagated through- but I don't think it was supposed to have been made from waves itself.

Can you please explain what you mean?

Light speed being the same relative to any observer is somewhat problematic for most aether theory.

 

[Mazulu]

"luminiferous aether" was supposed to be the medium that light waves propagated through- but I don't think it was supposed to have been made from waves itself.

Can you please explain what you mean?

Light speed being the same relative to any observer is somewhat problematic for most aether theory.

An aether medium is supposed to be some kind of substance. But it doesn't necessarily have to be a substance that we recognize (made of atoms). It could be made of dark matter for all we know (although I personally don't think it is). I'll post more at lunch time.

 

[Mazulu]

"luminiferous aether" was supposed to be the medium that light waves propagated through- but I don't think it was supposed to have been made from waves itself. Can you please explain what you mean?

I got the idea for aether waves from wave-functions which are solutions to the Schrodinger equation in QM. Physicists will maintain that the wave-function is just math. But I think it's more than math, I think it's a phenomena of nature. I am happy to explain how the 2 slit experiment supports my position.

The wave function of a photon is $$\psi = Ae^{i\omega t}$$. That's perfectly fine for one frequency, but what about all the other frequencies? That's when I started to realize that the electromagnetic spectrum has no ontological cause except the lumiferous aether; but the physics community abandoned the aether because it wasn't relativistic. If you don't mind that the luminiferous aether might be made of probability waves, then we have an aether candidate for an aether. The aether is simply made of all possible wave function frequencies as shown in the equation above.

But the aether has to obey relativity, particularly the second SR postulate: As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. OR: The speed of light in free space has the same value C in all inertial frames of reference.

I can only think of one set of waves that will satisfy this postulate. If aether waves have to satisfy $$c = \lambda f$$, then it's a relativistic aether, by definition.

I understand that aether waves made of just waves of aether sounds circuituous. I'm sorry about that, but I didn't create the laws of physics.

Light speed being the same relative to any observer is somewhat problematic for most aether theory.

Aether waves perform all of the distance and time measurements; it might give you a feeling that the laws of physics are rigged somehow to obey the speed of light. Well this is why.

In a sense, aether waves are made of a) probability amplitudes and b) phase angles of electromagnetic fields. I know it doesn't make any intuitive sense. At least not right away.

 

[Cheezle]

That is brilliant (where I define the word brilliant to mean not brilliant). Where is your FQXi essay? Was it turned down or something?