Kevin,

 I'm not familiar with the experiment, so only gave it a casual glance.

 For the "light or no light", one has to turn to quantum electrodynamics quantum mechanics and other models, not just the classical theory of light flow.  Involved therein are the de Broglie waves, including two sometimes different velocities: (1) the single wave velocity, and (2) the group velocity.

When you tamper with one of them, you affect the other.

 As an example, in the standard two-slit experiment with photons, if you just cover one of the slits, you get a very small little distribution on the strike screen that shows that a "particle" of light went through the open slit and struck the screen.  Cover that slit and leave the other open, and you get the same type of "particle" pattern on the other end of the screen.

 Now leave both slits open, and you get not the two previous patterns at all!  Instead, you get a pattern strongly suggesting wave interference; that the photon went -- as a wave, not a particle -- through both slits simultaneously!

 Now leave both slits open, until (at the speed of light from classical theory) the photon will have passed the region of the two slits already, but not yet reached the screen.  In other words, common sense would say that now we should get that "wave interference" pattern, since the "photon" must have already cleared the two slit region and be outside the two slit box. However, that is not what happens.  Instead, if you suddenly (instantly) cover one of the slits, you get the particle pattern as if through the other slit!

 This is called the Delayed Choice Experiment.  It shows that, for quantum things, you can wait until after a "phenomenon in progress" would appear to have passed some stage but not yet been "observed", and you can still change what it will be when it gets "observed"!

 Many explanations have been posited; I prefer the model that uses quantum interference and de Broglie waves.

 The point is, you cannot consider the laser beam as just "light in transit" as if it were something fixed, a wavefront, etc.

 And by the way, the standard wave-front moving in space illustration of an EM wave is horribly wrong, wrong, wrong anyway.     See  Robert H. Romer, then editor of AJP, "Heat is not a noun," American Journal of Physics, 69(2), Feb. 2001, p. 107-109.  Editorial discussion by the Editor of AJP of the concept of heat in thermodynamics, where heat is not a substance, not a thermodynamic function of state, and should not be used as a noun.  In endnote 24, p. 109, he also takes to task "…that dreadful diagram purporting to show the electric and magnetic fields of a plane wave, as a function of position (and/or time?) that besmirch the pages of almost every introductory book. …it is a horrible diagram.  'Misleading' would be too kind a word; 'wrong' is more accurate."  "…perhaps then, for historical interest, [we should] find out how that diagram came to contaminate our literature in the first place."

 So "simplicity" is not necessarily a valid criterion.  Nature can be very simple, and can also be very complex.  Often more complex than we think, and perhaps even more complex than we can think.  Everytime we think we have it "all figured out", nature turns around and demolishes our "perfect model" as if it were a house of cards.

 Anyway, physics is not absolute, and neither are models.  No model is worth anything except with respect to its ability to make predictions.  We already know, from Godel's theorem, that no model is perfect and none ever will be.  In physics, e.g., there are four main models (at least) of the photon, all in disagreement.  But each applies well within its given area.  So physicists just "plug in and use" the particular one of those models that works in a particular set of conditions.  And they don't sweat the rest.  The same with the old controversy of "is it a wave or a particle?"  That question has no definitive answer, the physicists finally realized.  The question "When is it a particle and when is it a wave?" does appear to have a definitive answer.  At least for now, that's the best we understand.

 For myself, I happily use any model that will fit the experiments that I'm interested in.  I really don't worry too much about some kind of "absolute" model.  In my personal view, any and all models are flawed and can be improved.  And the improved model will still have some flaws as we discover more phenomena, and then has to be improved.  And so on.

 A lot of useless heat and energy has been expended in arguing models.  It's a rather useless endeavor.  Just use what works.

 Best wishes,

 Tom Bearden

---

 
Subject: the Sansbury experiment - have electrons a structures and what is gravity? (is this the right email address?)
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:35:37 +0100
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400

Dear Tom,

I am really excited with your explanation of the energy from the active vacuum.

I agree with everything.

But I wanted to ask you something different concerning Gravity. Here is the point: We know that in the past birds of 200 pounds flew around and dinosaurs of 360,000 lbs. walked around. But taking the strength of the earth's gravity into account, this would be IMPOSSIBLE today! Calculations lead to the conclusion to believe that the biggest animal yet to walk around today is the biggest elephant. That's the limit imposed by gravity for an animal to be able to walk around normally (elephants cannot even run due to their weight - they have a stiff-legged fast-walk)

Have you ever seen a big swan taking off?  Without doubt, a bird of 200 lbs. cannot take off today. Therefore, some scientists have even suggested that the earth expands both in mass and size in order to explain why the plate tectonics drifted away like they did (because as everyone knows- the conventional theory explains nothing) and why gravity was weaker in the past (less mass) so that gigantism was possible.

But this Expanding Earth theory is rubbish in my eyes (it is confronted to many problems such as - Where is the additional mass coming from?)

But if the conclusions from the experiment described in the next link are correct then gravity is just something different then we thought. And I thought this might interest you also. I have nothing more to say, the conclusions are in the next link. I just would like to know your opinion about it.

Thanks on beforehand and keep up the good work!

Kevin.

A Plain-Language Description of the Sansbury Experiment.