Physics question pertinent to global warming

[flacaltenn]

SSDD - do you believe that light interacts with other light in the absence of matter? It is a moot point to discuss interference patterns that leave all of the light totally unchanged if it is not measured.

I think light waves with the proper characteristics cancel, interfere with, and amplify each other whether we are looking or not.

Absolutely -- that's how diffraction patterns work. Or how you make a hologram.. BUT -- interestingly enough, those field additions and subtractions don't change the missions of the photons or their energy levels UNLESS they occur on in in a medium that can absorb them.

In that sense -- OBSERVING them is what causes the resultant energy pattern to appear. In free space, there is no energy transformation from interference..

 

[Crick]

Still waiting with bated breath to hear how EM radiation propagates in SSDD-world.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD - do you believe that light interacts with other light in the absence of matter? It is a moot point to discuss interference patterns that leave all of the light totally unchanged if it is not measured.

I think light waves with the proper characteristics cancel, interfere with, and amplify each other whether we are looking or not.

Absolutely -- that's how diffraction patterns work. Or how you make a hologram.. BUT -- interestingly enough, those field additions and subtractions don't change the missions of the photons or their energy levels UNLESS they occur on in in a medium that can absorb them.

In that sense -- OBSERVING them is what causes the resultant energy pattern to appear. In free space, there is no energy transformation from interference..

Are you sure about that? Any actual proof or is it an assumption. As I understand it, your position derives from a statistical model of large numbers of particles that are assumed to not be interacting with each other in a system that is at equilibrium.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting with bated breath to hear how EM radiation propagates in SSDD-world.

Unlike you, I don't need a story to tell...I don't have to believe that I know the unknowable....I don't yank my own chain with stories that aren't provable. I am satisfied with the observation that energy moves from warm to cold and not the other way around. Exactly what causes it to move in that direction only has yet to be discovered....what we know, is that every observation of energy movement ever made is of energy moving from a higher state to a lower state. Someday the exact mechanism may be known....till that day, the fact that every observation ever made is of energy moving from a higher state to a lower state is good enough for me.

 

[Crick]

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

We all know that you've been unable to find anyone who agrees with you. We also all have some idea of the sort of insanity it would take to keep spouting your nonsense when you know it's nonsense. So, for whatever its worth, their's really no point in pretending you're sane on here; everyone already knows the truth.

 

[SSDD]

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

We all know that you've been unable to find anyone who agrees with you. We also all have some idea of the sort of insanity it would take to keep spouting your nonsense when you know it's nonsense. So, for whatever its worth, their's really no point in pretending you're sane on here; everyone already knows the truth.

I don't need to find anyone who agrees with me...I haven't even looked. The fact that every measurement and observation ever made agrees with me makes my case. I have asked repeatedly for just one observed, measured example of a warm object both radiating and absorbing energy from a cooler object at the same time....you can't produce it because all measurements of energy transfer are moving in one direction.

It is you who is exhibiting the manic behavior....insisting that you are right even though you can't produce a single observed, measured example of what you claim is happening....and torturing my position into unrecognizably in an effort to have anything at all to say.....and not being able to admit that your position is derived from a mathematical model that remains, to this day, unmeasurable, unobservable, and untestable. That's where you stand...but are far enough out there to claim that it is me who is insane for believing what I can see and not disregarding it all in favor of a mathematical model.

 

[IanC]

SSDD - do you believe that light interacts with other light in the absence of matter? It is a moot point to discuss interference patterns that leave all of the light totally unchanged if it is not measured.

I think light waves with the proper characteristics cancel, interfere with, and amplify each other whether we are looking or not.

Absolutely -- that's how diffraction patterns work. Or how you make a hologram.. BUT -- interestingly enough, those field additions and subtractions don't change the missions of the photons or their energy levels UNLESS they occur on in in a medium that can absorb them.

In that sense -- OBSERVING them is what causes the resultant energy pattern to appear. In free space, there is no energy transformation from interference..

I love holograms. The concept of cutting a hologram picture in half and getting two pictures of the same image is facinating. I can't help but think the process has implications as to how our brains store memories.

 

[SSDD]

Mays well talk about holograms...at least you can produce actual evidence and observation of them...unlike the two way energy transfer thing.

 

[IanC]

Mays well talk about holograms...at least you can produce actual evidence and observation of them...unlike the two way energy transfer thing.

Could you fix the quotes in that last post.

 

[flacaltenn]

SSDD - do you believe that light interacts with other light in the absence of matter? It is a moot point to discuss interference patterns that leave all of the light totally unchanged if it is not measured.

I think light waves with the proper characteristics cancel, interfere with, and amplify each other whether we are looking or not.

Absolutely -- that's how diffraction patterns work. Or how you make a hologram.. BUT -- interestingly enough, those field additions and subtractions don't change the missions of the photons or their energy levels UNLESS they occur on in in a medium that can absorb them.

In that sense -- OBSERVING them is what causes the resultant energy pattern to appear. In free space, there is no energy transformation from interference..

Are you sure about that? Any actual proof or is it an assumption. As I understand it, your position derives from a statistical model of large numbers of particles that are assumed to not be interacting with each other in a system that is at equilibrium.

I've got 4 or 5 published papers in Optical Computing and Optical Signal Processing and no one at a conference Q&A ever questioned the basic optical propagation assumptions.. Most folks working in optics use tools that assume waves. A coherent laser image used in holography for instance is just modeled as a flat plane of light waves whose PHASE is at the same point everywhere. Thus changes in the phase front due to delays in hitting various parts of the object in the hologram is what ENCODES the 3D part of the hologram. Very RARELY do you see references to particles or statistics in order to get things to work..

 

[Crick]

Might I suggest photovoltaics...