[General] Gravity

[Albrecht Giese]

Hi!


Am 12.09.2016 um 20:34 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 12. September 2016 um 16:59 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de>
> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Gravity
>
> Hi Al:
>
> " "Photons"  (given anybody's definition) cannot be directly an object 
> of observation.  PEROID. "
>
> In this case please explain the corresponding process in my 
> experiment, i.e. the detection of photons by pair production where all 
> necessary physical quantities for an individual photon have been 
> conserved. The distance between generation and detection was about 10 m.
>
> AK:  You didn't see any photons, rather the pair after the split and 
> infered what happend based on the taget location and the cite of the 
> 'pair production' and their subsequent orbits in a bubble chamber (or 
> equivalent).  [If I got the experiment wrong, please describe the 
> target and detection apparatus.]   BTW, respecting conservation laws 
> does not require direct observation of a means of interaction between 
> source charges and sink charges, (modulo an uncharged---i.e. 
> unobservable---sink charge).
>
In the experiment photons have been generated  having a certain energy. 
10 meters downstream an electron-positron-pair was generated 
representing the same energy. So, there was some object flying between 
the generation point and the detection point which transported just that 
energy. And this object did not have any charge. (Otherwise it would 
have been deflected away as there was a strong magnetic field.)

If it should not have been a photon as you suspect, should we give this 
object a different name? Do you propose a name? Then we could have new 
physics. Existing physics tells us that it was a photon.

> And hi Chandra:
>
> Why can we not assume that the particles "photons" have a "pilot wave" 
> in the sense of de Broglie around them as similarly have e.g. 
> electrons and neutrons? And those pilot waves follow similar rules 
> like the Maxwell equations?
>
> AK:  If the "pilot wve" itself is not of E&M origin, what is it? How 
> does it work?  [Granted deBroglie himself did not have specific models 
> for his pilot wave; but others have!  For example, see #11 on my web 
> page, www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com]
>
We could also use the understanding of present main stream physics: All 
particles like photons, electrons, neutrons are a particle and a wave at 
the same time. If we take the mode as wave in case of the photon we can 
use Maxwell's equations to describe the situation. - I like the pilot 
wave of de Broglie better as it is perceptible by human imagination. In 
the case of the photon the superposition of all pilot waves would in 
that case fulfil the requirements of Maxwell's equations. Something 
equivalent should happen to the superposition of the pilot waves of e.g. 
electrons and neutrons. De Broglie did not specify what the pilot wave 
is made of. He assumed his "waves of harmony" without further 
specification. That sounds a bit mysterious. In the case of hadrons 
those should be waves of the strong force.
>
> Albrecht
>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160913/c66f0696/attachment.htm>