On Friday, June 6, 2025 at 5:47:01 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2025 at 10:15 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> Stop distorting my words, aka lying. I never claimed frequency and wavelength have no relation to physical reality. But as far as I know, it's never been shown that photons have spatial extention.* *It's never been shown that photons have spatial extent, but it has been shown that the wavelength of light has spatial extent.* *The concept of wavelength has units of length by definition. But if a photon has no spatial extent, the concept of wavelength cannot be physically applied to it. That's why I claim the wavelength and frequency of photons are just parameters used to calculate energy, and nothing more. AG* *But if light is composed of photons, which are particles, then how can they have a wavelength? Physicists have been asking themselves that question for the last 120 years, and there is still no consensus on what the correct answer is, and I think it unlikely that you are going to come up with one today.* *>>>> It's a logical necessity that 2+2 be equal to 4, but there is no such logical necessity that energy be conserved.* *>>> On the contrary, in classical mechanics one can show that the sum of kinetic and potential energy is constant. AG * *>> The conservation of energy is an empirical observation, it is not a logical necessity.* *> It is a logical necessity in Classical Mechanics, as well as being an empirical observation. AG * *No it is not. * *In CM it can be shown that the sum of kinetic and potential energy is unchanged. The proof isn't difficult. AG* *In the 1640s Descartes proposed that mv, what we now call momentum, was conserved but Leibniz disagreed, about the same time he proposed that it was mv^2, a.k.a. energy, that was conserved. It turned out that both men were correct but that fact was not made apparent for another 200 years. It was easy to demonstrate that momentum was conserved, you can do that with a simple pool table, but for a long time it seemed that Leibniz must be wrong because their experiments indicated energy was not conserved. Their confusion stems from the fact that nobody understood the concept of heat, much less entropy. The law of conservation of energy wasn't universally accepted by physicists until the mid to late 19th century with the rise of greatly improved experimental techniques and the arrival of the new science of thermodynamics. * * >> the ancient Greeks were able to figure out that there was no largest prime number but they were unable to figure out that energy was conserved, they were good theoreticians but lousy experimentalists.* *> There were some good experimentalists in ancient Greece, such as the fellow who made a decent measurement of the circumference of the Earth. Can't recall his name. AG * *Eratosthenes, he was of Greek heritage but did his work in Alexandria Egypt not Athens, and he lived several hundred years after the time of Socrates and Plato**. He was a good experimentalist but that was a very rare attribute for an ancient Greek to have.* *> If your intuition is so good, how about explaining what the LT is predicting wrt time dilation; that is, which imaginary clock is being dilated, surely not the one in the muon's frame, assuming such a clock exists. AG * *I don't know what that means or what you're asking. * *I'm asking you to identify the clock which is dilated when applying the LT. For example, even if we assume the muon has a clock, in the muon's frame its clock isn't dilated. So what clock is dilated as predicted by the LT? AG * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* vfv -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/66083d6c-77c2-45ac-802a-c1f981ad0305n%40googlegroups.com.
