How cross-section area of single E-M wave looks like?

[Simon Bridge]

What you have written is a very pop-sciencey...
You have been repeatedly asked...

I have been telling you where you are going wrong.
Here it is again:
What you have written is a very pop-sciencey way of describing particle physics in relation to classical wave theory. You have been repeatedly told this is not a good way to go forward as it is almost certain that your problem is related to a misunderstanding this approach tends to produce.

You have been repeatedly asked for a clear problem statement, that and you have repeatedly ignored that request. If you do not come up wit a problem statement, we cannot help you.
Please stop beating around the bush.

Please address these issues.
Please avoid pop-science pseudo-arguments.
Please make a clear problem statement.
Please stop beating around the bush.

Good luck.

 

[Drakkith]

Gfgts, I spent a while attempting to respond to your posts, but frankly I got tired of the meandering in your posts, claims that I/we don't know what we're talking about, and your poor attitude in general towards us. I highly advise you to type less rhetoric and be more direct. Have a nice day.

 

[gfgts250]

Gfgts, I spent a while attempting to respond to your posts..

I've started this thread and in my original post there were no questions about quantum physics, generally only simple fact that light is quantized somehow. It was mainly YOU who directed entire discussion to what we are talking about right now - first by telling me i can't localise photons in space like i can do with particles, then that it's not possible to know their path. I don't know if you realize but the main motive/theme of the thread is completely lost thanks to this. No one will read thread which is almost about everything. Only people commenting single (out of context) sentences can appear which will cause even more chaos. In other words: YOU (mainly) have caused thet my problem will never be answered (at least in this thread). You could do it but ONLY if you have had very good reasons/arguments. I've waited patiently for them.

The only person the that can feel resentful is ME MYSELF. This is very not fair telling me, after literally "cancelling" my post, you've "spent a while attempting to respond to" my posts, because it took me MUCH MORE time to wrote this. And all this explanation was written just because of YOU. No one else will even read this. It was your free will to choose whether even talk with me. But now, after making some damages, it's your obligation (not favor) to explain why you've done this or at least admit you were wrong - not saying that you are tired/bored.

...claims that I/we don't know what we're talking about...

It's my right to say so, and i don't feel offended if you will do the same (by the way: telling me i need modern some theories is exactly like telling me i don't know what I'm talking about). BUT after telling me i don't know what I'm talking about, you HAVE TO prove it somehow. And here is the difference between me and you. In my last post I've pointed out you are quoting wrong physics laws (any objections?) and I've shown you some paradoxes such theories lead to (it undermines more fundamental physics laws). If this is not an explanation then what is? I'm not just claiming, I'm trying to show weak points and give some examples. The key concept of my last post is: speed of the light - something more fundamental then everything else. I've shown that you have to exceed it, when you want your theories to work - i wouldn't call it "meandering".

...your poor attitude in general towards us...

Excuse me?! Isn't it poor attitude towards me (someone anonymous to you) telling I'm wrong after reading couple of sentences written by some other anonymous? Speaking about "meandering in my posts" and at the same time taking seriously theories in which photon "goes via Alpha Centauri". Such split of personality is especially visible in your case. You are arguing with me but at the SAME TIME being blindly uncritical to comments of almost everyone else - it's hard to find example of worse attitude towards some person. I'm at least critical to some theories not specific persons.

...less rhetoric and be more direct...

I'm as direct as i can be. In short: how E-M radiation at large distance from the source looks like? - i need informations from real experiments (if any) not predictions of some hypothesis. Simple, isn't it? It's not my fault you are using some theories and you don't understand the question. You (all) have created the situation when i can't proceed without, at least partially, refute them. Of course i can't do this in one sentence. Although, reading my explanation took you less time than you lost reading about some modern theories - so don't complain.

Have a nice day.

If you wanted to say you've finished responding to my posts, i can only agree. Further discussion has no sense. why can't you say it directly?

 

[gfgts250]

I have been telling you where you are going wrong.

The only thing i can really see in your posts is a bunch of insinuations without arguments. I have been telling you that if you want to use statements like: "pop-science", "pseudo-arguments" you have to prove it somehow, otherwise it's nothing more than arrogant insult made most likely due to lack of knowledge, that prevents the formulation of substantial answer. I ALWAYS try to explain my motives when i use such statements, you don't. I'm wondering, why are you doing it? This is public thread, everyone can read what you've written and verify your claims.

The last constructive comment you've made, read: "...more probematic to assign a distance between two photons before they are detected" (post #27). It was the last sentence in the paragraph, you didn't specify what EXACTLY you meant. So, i interpreted it in this way, that you were talking about so called: multipath (many paths) theory of photon. And i told what i think about such theories and also explained why. If you were talking about something else then you got an opportunity to clarify this in your last post. You didn't even mention about it. So my question is simple:

What exactly do you mean saying: "...more probematic to assign a distance between two photons before they are detected"?

Next time be more specific.

My sentence: E-M wave is nothing more then electric/magnetic field fluctuations which propagate in space. Your comment: This is incorrect. Classical EM has everything to do with electric/magnetic field fluctuations which propagate in space. (post #16)

I'm asking again: Am i using some strange grammar or one mistake ("than" vs "then") changes everything? If i made mistake you can help me avoid it in the future. If you not carefully read, correct your comment. Saying i don't know what I'm talking about is one thing but claiming that i said something i never said is a little bit too much. You've gone too far (if you did it intentionally). Clarify this.

 

[Drakkith]

This thread has devolved into the equivalent of name calling. Thread locked.

 

[Dale]

I hope you read entire post

Just some general advice, if you want people to read an entire post and if you want responses to the entire post then you need to concentrate on brevity. People in any internet forum will respond only to the particular statements that interest them; that is the nature of an internet forum.

Don't get upset if people respond to stuff you were not interested in and do not respond to stuff that you were interested in. Instead of getting upset, get concise so that your posts contain only things where you want responses.