A Really Big Bang?

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 6 months ago #6157 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[SpaceMan, regarding elysons]: 1)Where are they? You've said they're too small, how small. With enough 1/2 mirrors or enough slits we can divide the photon up as much as we want into quantum amplitudes. If there IS a finite number of elysons per singlet, that can in theory be experimentally proven.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Elysons are roughly ten orders of magnitude smaller than typical nucleons. In this model, light is a pure wave, so there are no "photons" as such. A singlet wave might still stretch across half the visible universe.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>2)Unlike water, they behave as a wave singlet. What force binds them together?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The question makes no sense except in the "photon" theory. Light, including a singlet wave, is an organized disturbance of the elyson sea.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>3)Size: Are they points? Are they waves? Something different?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

We can describe them with the generic term "particles", just as we can describe the ultimate composition of everything that exists that same way.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>4)Determinism? How does it decide where to collapse?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

When this wave strikes matter, it can "collapse" (meaning simply that a portion of the wave can be absorbed by the matter).

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>5)Can the singlet be divided? If not, why not?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The question makes no sense. Can you divide a singlet ocean wave? Into what?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"Fact: no detectable time lag has ever been measured. No matter how dim the light is, as long as f ³ f0 there are photoelectrons being ejected immediately." This is a direct quote from a Santa Monica College website.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I have found private web sites to sometimes be filled with false impressions or private notions of the site author. Because they are not reviewed for accuracy, they should not be taken as definitive.

Moreover, you took your quote out of context, so we can't be sure what non-delay was being discussed.

Here is a quote from the college text "Physics" by K.R. Atkins, in the section on "the photoelectric effect" (p. 523-524): "In fact, however weak the radiation, the first photoelectron is ejected within 10^-8 sec after the radiation has been switched on." This is the same time constant that applies to reflection and absorption of light, which introduces propagation delays and was the explanation for why all the older experiments to measure the speed of light using mirrors got slower values than the newer microcavity experiments.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The amplitude you claimed was common knowledge now turns out in fact to be your hypothetical Elysons. You cannot present your theories and other controversial ideas as accepted fact.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I am careful to distinguish what is MM theory from what is standard physics, and "amplitude" is standard physics for wave theory.

But this exchange seems to have moved in a non-productive direction. I suggest we let it rest for a while. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.249 seconds