I am using the evidence, not their interpretation so much except the 'bound state' which shares the em, being held upon mass. To comprehend how the mass and energy works, assists with comprehending how the DSE works. i can see that. I try to keep as much relevant to actuality, versus just what 'humans expect it to conform to'. It's the best way to learn. It is like you know the math of a geocentric, versus heliocentric as found to be true. That's the problem i have. Most do not sustain the reality and comprehend only the little and what they have been exposed to. ie.... you dont see the fields as relative, but in every case, they are. And the DSE and heat and 'h' and 'c' and 'S' are wrong, perhaps because of 'we can limit it as we want'. i dont accept such latitude. No wonder the random uncertainties are a rule to the ignorant.
I note how you shamelessly cut out all of my attempts to gain an accurate understanding of what it is you're trying to say. In fact, the consistency of the timing with which you do so leads me to believe that you know you're going to have to admit you're wrong if we honestly examine your position. What is the picture of? Yes, there are plenty of fields around atoms, a fair few of which are excited, disturbed or otherwise involved. An electron has electromagnetic fields, weak fields, the Higgs field (possibly several Higgs fields) and so on. Well, in an earlier thread, we've found that what you're calling "energy upon mass" is just energy held in magnetic fields (or something similar, your lack of clarity has been consistent), which is fairly well understood. This new information gives no new insights, seeing how we already knew everything relevant about it except that it was possible. Even the fact that it was possible was assumed but never finalised since it didn't influence the conclusions one would make. So do I, that's why I didn't bring up the size of the photon, which is only a human construction. However, I've got some honesty, so when someone asks me a question, I answer and clarify. Without that, understanding can never propagate. You not only miss that, but intentionally avoid it. The difference with what you are saying and the dispute between geocentric and heliocentric world views is that in that case, understanding was reached by clear explanation. The equivalent of your argumentation technique would be if some guy was standing shouting "you're wrong! Stars!". Clearly, while such a man would be correct, his statements aids no one in finding anything out. Again, this has nothing to do with the piece of text you quoted. I'm beginning to doubt that you even read my posts. You clearly don't understand how we've reached the conclusions we have reached. I was very specific about what concept was specified by using our own limits, the photon size. Thinking the same method applies to other things is just a figment of your imagination. No wonder determinism are a rule to those too stubborn to allow independent verification.
I have items that i do throughout the day. So i comment on what i want and let the obtuse wonder, all they like If anyone has backtracked, it is you. And numerous times. The problem that you and i have is you are not as well versed nor up to speed in the comprehension of what the phyics (math/theorem) or practical application in applying what is found in evidence versus the math (theorem). I keep pointing out that you are practically obsolete. electron microscope picture of mass you can call them what you want, but you asked about 'sphere' and so i just showed you a real piece of evidence. Idiots dont sustain what is real. And the fields are 'upon mass' to make any motion to any mass, every time. i aint lacking the comprehension and have been very consistent. the per se photon is held in place, within the 'fields'. That's a qm and relativity buster! you had no idea what a 'size' of any photon is.Until i brought it up. actually, it is more like copernicus, telling the idiot that the geocentric model is correct and stupid easy to comprehend and you being either a ptolemaic accedemic that thinks he has the math to show the 'roaming bodies' do follow the laws, or the preacher, that has the whole church to back them up that the earth is the central by god. Some people evolve with understanding and some dont because they are educated in the old paradigm and to stubborn to develop any further. Sorry, to burst your bubble but you need to check yourself; dont believe me. ie.... have you observed what the fields are upon each type of mass, for each recieving plate, in relation to the reaction points of each wavelength?
I haven't said you're not allowed to refrain from answering, all I have said is that it is dishonest not to. If you choose to be dishonest, there is little I can do. What do you mean by backtrack? I can't claim understanding unless I understand any and all steps. If you gloss over a step, of course I have to go back to figure out what it as you meant. I am not up to speed in the comprehension of Bishadi-speak, but that doesn't mean I don't know my physics. As I've stated numerous times, my main problem is with your language. I'm guessing I would disagree with your physics as well, but I'm not willing to make that claim unless I understand what you are saying. You repeating it does not make it so. We could settle it once and for all if you managed to convey information in a standard way. Do you know the difference between "matter" and "mass"? Mass is a property of matter. It does not in itself have an appearance (although you can see effects of mass, such as gravitational effects). You're mixing topics again. I was talking about fields, you answer by talking about spheres. No coherent logic can form if you won't follow an argument. I'm not sure what kind of evidence you are referring to. If you're referring to the fact that the photons have a radius, then that was easily contradicted by the fact that shapes other than spheres also have radii and therefore, having a radius is not evidence of being a sphere. Again, the words you're using do not mean what you use them for. I wasn't questioning your consistency. Read what I'm writing instead of arguing against points I'm not making. Yup Nope. In fact, this effect was thought of and shown to be consistent with quantum mechanics in the 1920s. In fact, without quantum mechanics, they would never have thought of testing the idea. Looks to me that you have a flawed idea of quantum mechanics. Considering how badly you've misunderstood my position, it wouldn't surprise me the least. False. You bringing it up has added nothing to my understanding or the conversation as a whole. All it did was sidestep an actual discussion we were having. We were talking about radio waves being particles. Then you asked about the size of particles and you never went back to make any point, which means, again, your debating technique lead to unanswered questions and lack of communication. Well, do you know how new ideas spread? They get presented to new people so that others can understand them. You're not doing that. You may be stating words that are linked to the explanation you want to give but actual explanations require explicitly written statements explaining every step of the logic, even those you may find obvious. I'd be happy to examine the new paradigm. The problem is that the words you're using have not been coming together as a paradigm, they've just been single words here and there and statements that do not connect. I'm quite happy to consider your new paradigm, but you'll have to explain it, not just say "colors" three times and think that that's an explanation. Check what myself? The only objection I've understood you raising has already been checked and your argument doesn't hold water. Still don't know what a reaction point is. I have not measured each field individually, but I have observed that it makes no difference to the conclusion.
i taught you this information last year. The dishonest one is you. Perhaps if you sustained an integrity to science you would already have learned what i wrote before, simply to investigate the ideas. The title of the thread is supported by evidence, the published science. The reason is a change is occuring on what to observe as the specimen 'light'. i am pointing out how this kind of evidence, is unfolding and that to understand how many phenomena can be described, defined and with far more predictability. Observe the fields because at the core of every exchange of energy, the em fields are causing it, in one fashion or another. What property? Do photons have mass? Or are you suggesting that when matter (atoms) are molecules, the photon is the mass of the matter? the fields are what appear as the sphere of mass/matter/elements....atoms The problem you are having is you dont bridge knowledge as easily anymore. field can be quite fluid upon mass that's what i hate about the biased; they actually claim that qm predicted That is like claiming that bb is a qm prediction or that life was predicted to have instinct, based on qm and i said, fields (waves) aint and are not particles. Idiots claim that they are based on being biased, versus shutting their mouths (or keyboard) and learning before just rehashing old news. the radio wavelength is not a particle and you did not bridge how ignorant it was to believe such crap, simply by noticing the size requirement. If i wanted to publish a written paper an sustain it with theorem (math). But i dont have to enable the math for people to learn what to look at. ie... you are light upon mass; as a life No one else is going to put such a fact of truth on the table without comprehending the whole process. ie.... i am that first to comprehend these basics in principle and to the level of comprehending how it works to the letter. It is why my language is a bit difference as I have been building these bridges of comprehension for 3 decades. You are just beginning to see the light no you aint, as you argue even the dumbest crap like the DSE
Perhaps try comprehending what a chemical reaction is. I am getting the impression that to you, neither discipline is related. You havent done the work, but you have observed..... what? Obsolete, obtuse and blatant ignorance....................... no science coming that that corner. Here see what is new Universal Law for Light Absorption in 2-D Semiconductors July 31, 2013 — From solar cells to optoelectronic sensors to lasers and imaging devices, many of today's semiconductor technologies hinge upon the absorption of light. Absorption is especially critical for nano-sized structures at the interface between two energy barriers called quantum wells, in which the movement of charge carriers is confined to two-dimensions. Now, for the first time, a simple law of light absorption for 2D semiconductors has been demonstrated It's brand new and not from me you google to find the source. (and we know how that goes)
There is an additional correction. The dimensionless absorption steps that we observe at ∼1.6% are actually smaller than πα = 2.3%. This is due to a local optical electric field correction factor, which we call nc. In a surrounding refractive index nr, nc = nr, as is clear from Eq. 1. When the quantum membrane film is mounted on a substrate of refractive index n, it experiences both the incident electric field, Eo, and the Fresnel reflected electric field {(1 − n)/(1 + n)}Eo. Superposing the incident and reflected fields, that local optical electric field at the quantum membrane is weaker by {2/(1 + n)}Eo, which reduces the optical absorption by {2/(1 + n)}2, and the local field correction factor becomes nc = {(n + 1)/2}2, yielding the corrected step absorption AQ: What ratio? http://nano.eecs.berkeley.edu/publications/PNAS_2013_quantum-of-absorption.pdf Note the fields; the progression for each field and the em interaction (see graphs for the picture people) Now, will these finding share that the DSE as it is, does not reflect nature simply because the mass affects the outcome and few sustain their focus on why/how? Swenson, is wrong and doesnt have a clue as to why, but at least YESTERDAY was here and publications to show evidence, can assist with the old school. . Anyone see the 'golden ratio' at the interaction (reaction point)?
The applied light field interacts with the emitter via the dipole Hamiltonian H = ��d E and carries infor- mation about the atomic coherence after the interac- tion. In particular, the input and output (scattered) fields are related to the atomic coherence via the rela- tion aout L = ��ain L + p �� jgihej, where characterizes the detection eciency. This way, phase fluctuations in the atomic coherence are mapped to phase fluctuations of the scattered light eld. In the weak driving limit, the emitter can be adiabatically eliminated. This yields an eective emitter-mediated interaction between the membrane and the light fields Here's a good paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.8090.pdf Casimir ie.... the fields, em and measuring In summary, we have shown that strong quantum vacuum interactions can be used as a valuable resource for the measurement of nanomechanical systems at the quantum level. We have specically analyzed our protocol for the case of a graphene nanomechanical resonator, which is viewed as a promising platform for devices but currently lacks the means for fast readout. However, in principle, the presented method is quite general and can be applied to a wide class of materials. If the position of the mechanical object to the quantum emitter is known, our scheme allows for a precise study and measurement of Casimir forces [25{29] at a level of precision that has not been possible so far. The ability to measure Casimir forces accurately is an important step towards the vision of controlling and manipulating quantum vacuum potentials i love to read up on what is occuring.... especially from the places that i have visited .
I didn't understand it then either. I asked you to clarify, but you wouldn't. No dishonesty on my part. I'm trying to, but you're not letting me know what idea should be investigated. You quote words that I assume is part of your idea, but you have not provided enough information for me to figure out what the entire idea is. So far, most of the "ground breaking" information you're displaying is either really old, or you're not describing it in a way that makes other understand. Mass is defined to be a property of matter linked to the influence of gravitation. I've posted the definition earlier. The photon isn't the mass of matter. The mass of matter is measured in kilograms and similar. Abstract concepts, whereas photons are objects. No, I've been asking for the information to bridge the knowledge. You have not delivered. Your answer has nothing to do with my statement. I am talking about the mathematical concept of a sphere, now you're changing the subject to fluidity of fields. Do you have any attention related diagnoses? It did. It's written in the paper your article references to. Nah, quantum mechanics comes in part from the study of black body radiation. I haven't heard any arguments for quantum effects having any influence on evolution. You keep saying it, but you're not making a case for it. I tried to learn your position, but you won't explain reasonably. What size requirement? I don't want your math, I want your explanation of what it is you're looking at. Your sentences are a train wreck of comprehension. I've barely begun criticising your claims because I don't understand the wordings. It would be a good start if you applied at least semi-proper grammar. I'm not being picky about small grammatical errors, your language often lacks it all together, which means I see some aspects which you apparently think are important, but I don't see how you think they relate to the questions. Experts in more or less all subjects that are important enough to have experts are usually very picky about definitions and the like. Not really, I have to understand the idea before I can assess its credibility. Well, you haven't managed to tell me why it is wrong.
No more posts, S man? Did you read yesterdays write up, to see what i was talking about? If you look at the images within the pdf, you'll see the fields depicted and the radius i was talking about. What is cool, is they are using standard physics to describe, what i knew decades back with my own. Science is catching up. Perhaps if you read over my posts. Go back 10 years and see that i am quite consistent, while the rest are 'catching up'. The thread title alone (the concept of energy upon mass) had me debating with physicist all over the world. A few science forums had banned me just for making fools of their very best, on that concept. . when you claim, that i am hard to understand, you should stop trying to discount what i have to say and ask better questions or better still, ask yourself the questions and work on learning, before asking me any. .
I ask a yes or no question and your answer is "both"? Hang on, your receiving plates are emitting stuff? No wonder you're getting different results. The quantum effects are made large enough to be detectable by allowing the light to travel some length. The same is not true for any effects you would get from the receiver, so they would not influence your conclusions. No, as I keep telling you, unless you use definitions and at least half-decent grammar, understanding is at best arbitrary.
No one could see any pattern if it wasn't Apparently common sense, eludes you what allowance? Are you using your eyes to see the evidence, emitted from the recieving plates? Yes or no no emission, no see any plate; yes or no Do them plates have 'energy upon' that mass? Are fields involved, upon each and every plate ever used, for any DSE experiment? Did you read the posts that have current evidence? Did you read the publications? Are the fields affecting the evidence recorded?
Yes and no. I have seen the pattern on screens, but mostly, I use a detector with high absorption. It absorbs the light and sends a signal to a computer. That way, measurements can be more precise and it decreases background light since it can be put inside a box. If you look at the experiment, you will see a distance that the light travels between the slits and receiving plate. If you move any of the parts so that this distance becomes to small, the effect becomes invisible. If you're asking whether the atoms in the receiver have electric fields, then yes. Use the proper scientific names for things like "energy upon mass", or it will only be confusing. I read the publications, none of them include anything that influences the double slit experiment.
there is no NO to whether the pattern that represents the screen is emitting. Your computer detector requires a signal too and your screen is emitting to you, just the same. No magic but as oooosual, you prefer to be obtuse. you deny reality an what relevance is that? It is like suggesting that if you choose not to wipe your butt, that you will stink, eventually. Atoms? The mass, is a colective of many atoms and then, there is no such thing as an electric field without its magnetic field (basic em/faraday) You are just using words to try and make sense, but in each case, you are just sidetracking. see the thread title Or did you even read that? Sure it does as the fields are what is causing the change of the pattern to the evidence emissions. The problem you are having is it does not say, 'this evidence will change how the DSE is defined and make swensson be found as ignorant' It does share that the fields are more important than you've ever considered and what i have been claiming, since day one is that at the molecular level, all exchanges are affected by the fields.
op The new system, devised through computer modeling and then demonstrated experimentally, pits light waves against light waves: It sets up two waves that have the same wavelength, but exactly opposite phases -- where one wave has a peak, the other has a trough -- so that the waves cancel each other out. Meanwhile, light of other wavelengths (or colors) can pass through freely. The researchers say that this phenomenon could apply to any type of wave: sound waves, radio waves, electrons (whose behavior can be described by wave equations), and even waves in water. Do fields have anything to do with what is causing this phenomenon?
