Light rays, from the sun etc. Is there a simple and quick explanation of the force that "drives" them. IE why do they move/travel?

There's an easy one to start. :shrug:

First things first. No force is needed to "drive" anything in free space. Newton's first law of motion says that an object will continue to travel in a straight line at constant speed forever, unless slowed down or sped up by a force. In other words, forces are only needed to change motion (speed), but not to keep it going.

Now, photons of light, from the moment they are created (in the sun or wherever), travel at the speed of light. They never change speed, so no force is required to "drive" them.

First things first. No force is needed to "drive" anything in free space. Newton's first law of motion says that an object will continue to travel in a straight line at constant speed forever, unless slowed down or sped up by a force. In other words, forces are only needed to change motion (speed), but not to keep it going.

Now, photons of light, from the moment they are created (in the sun or wherever), travel at the speed of light. They never change speed, so no force is required to "drive" them.

Thanks for the reply. But don't i remember something about an object will remain at rest until etc etc.

So, photons are they called? I suppose that's the particle or wave?
I think you may have ducked the question. Sure after creation they travel at the speed of light and never change speed. But during creation and before the speed of light starts, what gets it going?????????????

I don't want to seem difficult, but I've been told scientists know what propels light, but they seem a bit tight liped.

Thanks for the reply. But don't i remember something about an object will remain at rest until etc etc.

Yes. That's Newton's first law again. An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by a force (because a force is needed to change the speed of an object).

Photons of light are never at rest. They always, from the moment of creation, travel at the speed of light.


So, photons are they called? I suppose that's the particle or wave?

A photon is a quantum entity that acts like a particle or a wave depending on exactly how you choose to observe it.


I think you may have ducked the question. Sure after creation they travel at the speed of light and never change speed. But during creation and before the speed of light starts, what gets it going?????????????

Well, the energy to create the photon in the first place must come from somewhere. One common way to create photons is to shake atoms around, or collide them together in some way, or to hit them with energy of some kind (light, radio waves, electrons, whatever). The atoms then goes to an excited energy state. But they soon spontaneously return to their normal (ground) energy state, releasing photons.


I don't want to seem difficult, but I've been told scientists know what propels light, but they seem a bit tight liped.

Nothing propels light (photons). Photons are created travelling at the speed of light, and they never change speed.

There is one general principle that's relevant here: photons have no rest mass. And it turns out that anything that has zero mass always travels at the speed of light, all the time. So, it's actually impossible to have a photon that is not moving, or moving slower than the speed of light.

Thanks very much, I'm starting to get the idea.

Fidget: a useful analogy is a rubber mat. Pick it up and shake it around like those atoms are being shaken around, and you get a ripple running down the length of the mat. It doesn't have any mass, but it travels at a certain speed and conveys energy. Alternatively think of an oceanic swell wave. It's a bit like that ripple in the rubber mat, and it conveys energy. But it doesn't have any mass because the water has the mass. Then if you flew above the swell-wave in a helicopter, it would look like a "lump" rather than a wave, so it would look more particle-like than wave-like. Electromagnetic waves or photons aren't quite the same, but it should give you a rough idea.

Farsight, thanks. Yes I can imagine all that, but it didn't get down to my question as someone has to shake the mat, and something starts waves moving. What I was wondering is what caused light to travel.

I can accept it moves itsself somehow if it can't be explained to a layman.
Constant speed is also a worry if a weak torch emits a beam at C and goes for ever.

I think my biggest problem is not realising the strange nature of light.
Tried to post a link to a site that had a few examples of experements, including a video and photo of a light particle/wave, Young's double slit etc
but broke some rule that I didn't see in the rules.

Photons of light are never at rest. They always, from the moment of creation, travel at the speed of light.

How are photons created?

How? Electrically charged particles couple to the photon field. The implications are obvious.

How are photons created?

Lots of different ways.

One example, given earlier, is when an excited atom loses internal energy. Energy is conserved through the emission of a photon.

Well what about gravitation? Could gravity be the force that propels the photon? Think of a super dense star. Imagine the immense pressure at the center of a mass like that. There is a certain Principle founded by one Wolfgang Pauli (The Pauli Exclusion Principle), This principle states, to paraphrase, That two states cannot occupy the same space. And since Newtonian law rules, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Compressing two atoms together will case an emission of energy. Some of that energy would be of the visible wavelength. I think this explains the propulsion of quanta. The speed of light may have something to do with the enigmatic Higgs Background. The hypothetical energy field that applies the equal and opposite force to the compression of gravitation. I believe that the residual energy left over from infinite decay of infinite particles in infinite space/time are what composes the Higgs background, and the reason light can travel smoothly through space is because it is slicing through the particles both propelling them and being degraded by them.

Well what about gravitation? Could gravity be the force that propels the photon?

Photons don't need a force to propel them.


And since Newtonian law rules, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

That law is only about forces, you know.


Compressing two atoms together will case an emission of energy.

Not always. Sometimes energy is absorbed, depending on the atoms.


Some of that energy would be of the visible wavelength.

Not always.


The speed of light may have something to do with the enigmatic Higgs Background. The hypothetical energy field that applies the equal and opposite force to the compression of gravitation.

Huh? How can you apply a force to the "compression of gravitation"? Compression is an effect, not an object.


I believe that the residual energy left over from infinite decay of infinite particles in infinite space/time are what composes the Higgs background, and the reason light can travel smoothly through space is because it is slicing through the particles both propelling them and being degraded by them.

Why do you believe that?

Photons of light are never at rest. They always, from the moment of creation, travel at the speed of light.


Strange things these photons. The above quote explanes some misconseptions I had in Gemology 101. I.e. That as light exits a gemstone it immediatly speeds up to it's original c.

Well that threw me. I figured it must have it's own power source.

Then this, from a Gem book; Speed of light in air 300,000 km/sec.
Speed of light in a diamond 124,120 km/sec.
I.e. 2.4 times faster in air.

So in science forums I've read light doesn't slow down. I guess it reflects or something, around a transparent stone, which would seem to slow it down in effect.

So I'm fairly happy. Photons are interesting. :)

Farsight, thanks. Yes I can imagine all that, but it didn't get down to my question as someone has to shake the mat, and something starts waves moving. What I was wondering is what caused light to travel.It's essentially the same for light. Some applied force essentially shakes an atom and it makes waves that travel through space. See what I said earlier about wave/particle duality. There's no friction at all, so they keep on going just like the earth keeps on going round the sun.


I think my biggest problem is not realising the strange nature of light. Tried to post a link to a site that had a few examples of experiments, including a video and photo of a light particle/wave, Young's double slit etc but broke some rule that I didn't see in the rules.It's simpler than you might think. The key is to focus on the original Maxwell in say On Physical Lines of Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:On_Physical_Lines_of_Force.pdf?page=1) and home in on displacement current. As a photon passes you by there's an electromagnetic field variation, but there's no charged particle present. Instead it's "displacement current" passing you by, and it's effectively alternating because the field variation goes this way ↑ then that way ↓ in line with the typical sinusoidal waveform. For myself I think the best way to think about it is as a "pulse of displacement", or "a pulse of spacewarp".

Note that the quantum nature of light comes from Planck's constant of action, the h in E=hf. Action is basically "kick", and applies to waves rather than billiard-ball particles. Most people have a problem with photons because they think of them as little solid things rather than little pulses of spatial action.

Originally Posted by Fidget
Light rays, from the sun etc. Is there a simple and quick explanation of the force that "drives" them. IE why do they move/travel?
There's an easy one to start. :shrug:
As farsight pointed out, the original Maxwell equations demonstrate how the speed of light can be measured (frequency * wavelength) and James R highlighted Newton's first law of motion stating that a force is not needed to "drive" anything in the vacuum of space. Both examples hint that a photon will always move at a constant rate from the moment it is created. This velocity maxes out at 299,792,458 m/sec in a pure vacuum and there have been experiments preformed that show, in certain mediums, a photon can "stand still". This brings us to post #13 where you bring up the refraction index of diamond.
.
An important thing to note is that the photon leaving a diamond medium is not the same photon that entered it. Here's what's happening. The moment a single photon enters an atomic structure, like diamond or air, it immediately becomes absorbed by certain electrons that "orbit" the nucleus of an atom (electron shell). When an electron absorbs the photon's energy it gets "lifted" out of its ground state and then, just as fast, releases that absorbed energy in the form of a newly produced photon. This allows that electron to "snap back" to its natural ground state which is determined by it location from the atomic nucleus. Diamond happens to be the hardest (densest) natural molecular structure known to man. The reason diamond has such a high refraction index is because its carbon atoms are so tightly packed together. The energy being carried by a photon can move through certain mediums without being totally absorbed. The number of times a single photonic energy pocket gets absorbed and then re-emitted will alter its wavelength (not the frequency). This is what we observe as the "slowing of light" I.e. Change in the angle of incident.

:shrug:
Photons don't need a force to propel them.

When I learned that nuclear hadrons were composed of even smaller bodies of positive and negative energy than the hadrons themselves, I became very interested in them. Even the proton has a negative componet quark. To me this flooring. There is no neutrally charged quark though. This gave me the idea that neutrality is an unstable relationship between + and - charges, that is broken by force. When the balance breaks a charged particle appears and energy escapes that circuit. Some of that light could be of the visible wavelenght.

That law is only about forces, you know.

The force I'm trying to work with is the electromagnetic-weak force, within the neutral entity. That aids it's decay. Taking matter that is neutral and balanced and jamming them together will both require and relinquish energy even if gravity is doing the jamming. Though any neutral object is constantly eroding away it is the nature of bonds of positive and negative energy to breakdown. They have an existince whose time is dependent upon their ability to continue as balanced. But something like gravitation greatly forshortens the life of a neutral body and greatly increases the amount of energy out put over time, by crushing it forcing it's componet positive and negative componets into a circumference that is too small for occupancy by the particles. They smash to pieces and emit energy.

Not always. Sometimes energy is absorbed, depending on the atoms.

Oh yeah, that is true,(nervous chuckle). I am glad you mentioned that. Energy is so cool .But is it not true that nuclear hadrons are composed of both positive and negative charges, at the quark level. I find that interesting. What becomes of a quark when it's life cycle is over? I believe that is the beginning of the process of beta decay. During this process all kinds of cool things happen, Protons swapping roles with neutrons and the emission of radiation and such. I'm saying that the neutral aspect of the atomic nucleus is the meat and potatoes of an atom. The positive and negative charges left over simply exist to establish equilibrium- hypothetically of course.

Not always.



Huh? How can you apply a force to the "compression of gravitation"? Compression is an effect, not an object.

I want to draw a picture of gravity as a perfect vacuum, just in a hypothetical sense. I know that gravity is mysterious. But what if at the moment before the big bang, what surrounded the super symmetrical singularity was a perfect vacuum, like an enoromous black hole, that can never entropy. You couldn't really call a hole an object, but I guess you could call it something.


Why do you believe that?

Lots of different ways.

One example, given earlier, is when an excited atom loses internal energy. Energy is conserved through the emission of a photon.

So, how are they created when two nuclei fuse?

As farsight pointed out, the original Maxwell equations demonstrate how the speed of light can be measured (frequency * wavelength) and James R highlighted Newton's first law of motion stating that a force is not needed to "drive" anything in the vacuum of space. Both examples hint that a photon will always move at a constant rate from the moment it is created. This velocity maxes out at 299,792,458 m/sec in a pure vacuum and there have been experiments preformed that show, in certain mediums, a photon can "stand still". This brings us to post #13 where you bring up the refraction index of diamond.

Agreed.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html

Do you mean stand still relative to the earth's motion?

Does that mean it stands still in the vacuum of space or relative to the earth's motion?
.

Fidget:


Then this, from a Gem book; Speed of light in air 300,000 km/sec.
Speed of light in a diamond 124,120 km/sec.
I.e. 2.4 times faster in air.

So in science forums I've read light doesn't slow down. I guess it reflects or something, around a transparent stone, which would seem to slow it down in effect.

What happens to light in a medium (such as diamond or water or glass) is that photons travel between the atoms at the normal speed of 300,000 km/s. However, their interactions with the atoms in the medium lead to a delay in propagation. The details of the interaction in a transparent medium are complicated - it's not quite the same as absorption and re-emission (which also take time and cause delay) - but the effect is similar.


Jack_:


So, how are they created when two nuclei fuse?

When two nuclei fuse, the resulting nucleus is typically not in its lowest possible energy state. It loses the residual energy by emitting one or more photons.


freziggity:


:shrug:

:sleep:

...have been experiments preformed that show, in certain mediums, a photon can "stand still".

Not exactly. There have been experiments that show light standing still, but not individual photons.

:shrug:

I believe that the residual energy left over from infinite decay of infinite particles in infinite space/time are what composes the Higgs background, and the reason light can travel smoothly through space is because it is slicing through the particles both propelling them and being degraded by them.


When a neutral symmetry of + and - charge is created it immediately begins to decompose by electro-weak interaction within itself. The positive and negative composition of nuclear hadrons is known. Though the quark cannot be observed independent a composite configuration, they too have charges +and-. the way these quarks bond ( I believe there are about 8 observed types) has alot to do with what type of particle forms, but the positively charged nucleus seeks equilibrium by gathering an electron cloud. the element is not complete until it is balanced. But again once it has achieved balance it is in a temporal state again, that is dependent on it's ability to maintain equilibrium of charge- emitting and absorbing whatever energy it needs to remain neutral. Heavy compression speeds up the degradive process and energy leaves the spheres at a fater rate.

Like counting from 0 to 9 using every possible number in between, It is impossible to raise 0 to a higher integer, because of the limitless 1-9's. Energy is existential only. None has ever left the universe and none can be lost. Is it impossible to consider energy, in it's purest state, as an ideal gas, that never experiences particle collision, in the infinite gravity of the superconductive perfect vacuum? Liken it to the super-massive black holes that are the causation for all the galaxies in space. Every orbiting particle in that masse's(the supermassive black hole) gravitation inherit's it's angular momentum from that first cause. Though these low energy states are not absolute 0. they are low enough to cause latent energy to pour into them, Eventually gas and dust collect and the hole plugs with energy to a stable pressure, this is when it fades. It can only fill if something is still sealing it. Pure energy is all permeating and all radiating indefinitely, at some level it is backing and providing the opposition force necessary to keep black holes from constantly sucking energy. I'm trying to (keyword) "timidly" call this the Higgs field. composed of infinitely broken down particles living extremely short lives, constantly breaking down and bonding to lower states, until they are pure energy, the ideal gas. Something permeating all things and emanating from all things, composed of +and- qualities. But that gravitation is the 0 state of energy, a vacuum that is superconductive, the most enoromous black hole possible. In essence I'm saying what happens inside of black holes is the balancing act between the background of pure energy and an energy vacuum, but in the ideal situation the universe is created.

I believe that the residual energy left over from infinite decay of infinite particles in infinite space/time are what composes the Higgs background, and the reason light can travel smoothly through space is because it is slicing through the particles both propelling them and being degraded by them.

Why do you believe that?


Like counting from 0 to 9 using every possible number in between, It is impossible to raise 0 to a higher integer, because of the limitless 1-9's.

No idea what you're talking about here.


Energy is existential only. None has ever left the universe and none can be lost. Is it impossible to consider energy, in it's purest state, as an ideal gas, that never experiences particle collision, in the infinite gravity of the superconductive perfect vacuum?

Where is this infinite gravity you speak of ? What superconductive perfect vacuum? Where is that? What is the evidence that such things exist at all?


Liken it to the super-massive black holes that are the causation for all the galaxies in space.

How do supermassive black hole cause galaxies? Please explain.


Every orbiting particle in that masse's(the supermassive black hole) gravitation inherit's it's angular momentum from that first cause. Though these low energy states are not absolute 0. they are low enough to cause latent energy to pour into them

What's latent energy?


Eventually gas and dust collect and the hole plugs with energy to a stable pressure, this is when it fades.

Black holes have pressure? Please explain.


Pure energy is all permeating and all radiating indefinitely, at some level it is backing and providing the opposition force necessary to keep black holes from constantly sucking energy.

How can we detect this all-permeating energy of yours? What experiment would I need to do to prove that it exists?


In essence I'm saying what happens inside of black holes is the balancing act between the background of pure energy and an energy vacuum, but in the ideal situation the universe is created.

You think the universe is created by black holes?

Originally Posted by Jack_
Do you mean it stands still relative to the earth's motion?
Does that mean it stands still in the vaccum of space or relative to the earth's motion?
I'm not sure what the motion of Earth has to do with these experiments. If Earth's motion was an influence then I'm sure the experiments would have had to of compensated for it. At the moment, I don't have the patients to go over how these experiments where set-up and run. Based on my own understanding of the nature of light I would have to assume that "standing still" is a reference to how we observe photons interacting with a super-cooled medium. The photons that enter and then exit this kind of enviroment would be traveling at the speed of light yet, when we observe the wave-nature of light inside this medium, we measure it as standing still. In other words, inside the medium, light does not move between points A and B even though the photons we measure entering and the exiting this medium would be traveling at the speed of light.
.
If we preformed these exact same experiments while traveling at the speed of light (relative to Earth) then, you should observe the exact same phenomena. That's what's important. Everything else must be thought of as a compensation between different "frames". The only time such compensations are important is when those "different frames" interact with each other (which happens often in our universe).

I'm not sure what the motion of Earth has to do with these experiments. If Earth's motion was an influence then I'm sure the experiments would have had to of compensated for it. At the moment, I don't have the patients to go over how these experiments where set-up and run. Based on my own understanding of the nature of light I would have to assume that "standing still" is a reference to how we observe photons interacting with a super-cooled medium. The photons that enter and then exit this kind of enviroment would be traveling at the speed of light yet, when we observe the wave-nature of light inside this medium, we measure it as standing still. In other words, inside the medium, light does not move between points A and B even though the photons we measure entering and the exiting this medium would be traveling at the speed of light.
.
If we preformed these exact same experiments while traveling at the speed of light (relative to Earth) then, you should observe the exact same phenomena. That's what's important. Everything else must be thought of as a compensation between different "frames". The only time such compensations are important is when those "different frames" interact with each other (which happens often in our universe).
referring to the Bose–Einstein condensate I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

Imagine the immense pressure at the center of a mass like that. [quote]But the constancy of the speed of light is seen in places other than in stars.

[QUOTE=freziggity;2558075]There is a certain Principle founded by one Wolfgang Pauli (The Pauli Exclusion Principle), This principle states, to paraphrase, That two states cannot occupy the same space. It doesn't apply to light, gravity or any other boson related effect.


The speed of light may have something to do with the enigmatic Higgs Background. The Higgs mechanism is in quantum field theory which presupposed special relativity, which presupposes the constancy of light speed.


I believe that the residual energy left over from infinite decay of infinite particles in infinite space/time are what composes the Higgs background, and the reason light can travel smoothly through space is because it is slicing through the particles both propelling them and being degraded by them.Now you're just making stuff up in relation to a model you don't know and thus have absolutely no justification for your claim. Simply saying "Infinite decays or infinite particles in infinite space" doesn't absolve you of the burden of proof.

First things first. No force is needed to "drive" anything in free space. Newton's first law of motion says that an object will continue to travel in a straight line at constant speed forever, unless slowed down or sped up by a force. In other words, forces are only needed to change motion (speed), but not to keep it going.

Now, photons of light, from the moment they are created (in the sun or wherever), travel at the speed of light. They never change speed, so no force is required to "drive" them.

well dont qote me on this but i do know that photons have mass.. so when they enter the admosphere they do slow dont but by an amount that we cannot measure

Jack [now banned] actually mentioned an interesting point concerning the Boss Einstein Condensate experiments. [ my presumption of reference ]
When they considered that light was slowed down what was the slowing relative to?
Just the condensate, the measuring device or the chamber used to facilitate the experiment [ and as Jack alluded to, Earths orbit and stella motions etc etc ]
Might be worth a thread in pseudo science eh what!

well dont qote me on this but i do know that photons have mass..

How can you "know" something that is false?

Who told you photons have mass?


so when they enter the admosphere they do slow dont but by an amount that we cannot measure

Light slows down in any medium. Light in water, for example, travels at about 3/4 of its speed in air.

How can you "know" something that is false?

Who told you photons have mass?



Light slows down in any medium. Light in water, for example, travels at about 3/4 of its speed in air.

i deal with lasers on a daily basis as it is my job. there is a program in minnasota called optical tweesers.. they move around single cells with just light. this would not be possible if ligh, photons didnt have mass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers

http://www.stanford.edu/group/blocklab/Optical%20Tweezers%20Introduction.htm

http://www.physicscentral.org/explore/action/tweezers-1.cfm

When they considered that light was slowed down what was the slowing relative to?
Relative to the medium, the condensate.

there is a program in minnasota called optical tweesers.. they move around single cells with just light. this would not be possible if light, photons didnt have mass
That light can apply a force doesn't imply that light has mass.

Also, you can see from the relativistic momentum equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Momentum_in_relativistic_mechanics) that anything with non-zero mass moving at the speed of light would have infinite momentum.

Light doesn't have infinite momentum (it does have momentum, but it is very small), so it can't have mass.

From http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27391&view=findpost&p=445609


k is a general wavenumber with units of inverse length.
λ is a general wavelength describing the distance which characterizes the length between periodic features.
k = 2π/λ
...
Elementary Quantum Relativistic Physics

p is momentum of an entity with respect to an inertial observer
h is Planck's constant
λ is the de Broglie wavelength as measured by that same inertial observer

|p| = h/λ
(This generalizes to p = (h/2π)k when p is a vector.)

E is the relativistic energy with respect to an inertial observer
f is the de Broglie frequency (cycles per second) as measured by that same inertial observer

E = hf

v is the velocity of an entity with respect to an inertial observer
c is the speed of light in vacuum

v = pc˛/E

m is the invariant mass of an entity

E˛ = m˛c⁴ + p˛c˛

When |pc| is very small when compared to |E|, we can approximate these relations as:
E = √(m˛c⁴ + p˛c˛) = (mc˛)√(1 + (p/(mc))˛) = (mc˛)( 1 + (p/(mc))˛/2 - (p/(mc))⁴/8 + ...) ≈ mc˛ + p˛/(2m)
|v| = |p|c˛/E = |p|/(m + p˛/(2mc˛) ≈ |p|/m
or p ≈ mv
E ≈ mc˛ + p˛/(2m) ≈ mc˛ + m˛v˛/(2m) ≈ mc˛ + ˝mv˛

So we see Newtonian kinematics are implied by relativistic kinematics as the low-momentum approximation.

The high-momentum approximation is gotten immediately by assuming m=0.
Then E = |p|c and |v| = |p|c˛/(|p|c) = c

So for light in vacuum, E = |p|c = hf = hc/λ and |p| = E/c = hf/c= h/λ and f = E/h = |p|c/h = c/λ and λ = hc/E = h/|p| = c/f and |v| = c = λf because it is massless. The situation gets complicated with atoms in the way since atoms interact with photons and can capture then and re-emit them after a delay.

That light can applying a force doesn't imply that light has mass.

Also, you can see from the relativistic momentum equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Momentum_in_relativistic_mechanics) that anything with non-zero mass moving at the speed of light would have infinite momentum.

Light doesn't have infinite momentum (it does have momentum, but it is very small), so it can't have mass.

how can light alone move something around if they didnt have mass? unless its because of small ammounts of heat somehow thoes photons alone are moving cells around how is that possible?

doesnt your post contridict itself a bit? or im interprating it wrong

anything with non-zero mass "so mass is greater than 0"

so your saying if i shine a laser into the sky it wont keep traveling untill it strikes something? that cant be right we can see stars that are millions of lightyears away YET some of them may be gone but we just havent seen the last of there light yet.. and light from some stars hasnt even reached us yet

Because it's got momentum, sifreak. Not mass. To understand it, just think of a water wave. The wave hasn't got any mass, because the water has the mass. But a wave can still knock you over.

Because it's got momentum, sifreak. Not mass. To understand it, just think of a water wave. The wave hasn't got any mass, because the water has the mass. But a wave can still knock you over.

This is a dangerous analogy. It is good, but you should be cautious about thinking of things this way. For example, if the water were massless, would the wave still knock you over? Does the vacuum, from which the photon is excited, have ``mass''?

Because it's got momentum, sifreak. Not mass. To understand it, just think of a water wave. The wave hasn't got any mass, because the water has the mass. But a wave can still knock you over.

well how can something have momentum with no mass? even if the mass is .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 if it doesnt have mass

they have GIANT sails that pick up photons like wind in outerspace if this was connected to you you would be knocked over

How big is a photon particle ?
What dimensions does it have?
hmmmmm.....

how can light alone move something around if they didnt have mass? unless its because of small ammounts of heat somehow thoes photons alone are moving cells around how is that possible?
Because the light applies a force to the cells. Like a magnetic field applies a force to iron filings.

The magnetic field doesn't have mass. The light doesn't have mass.


doesnt your post contridict itself a bit? or im interprating it wrong
anything with non-zero mass "so mass is greater than 0"
Yes, non-zero mass means mass is greater than zero. No, there's no contradiction in the post.
Read what I wrote. Non-zero mass, moving at light speed, means infinite momentum.
Light moves at light speed. So, if light had mass greater than zero, it would have infinite momentum.
But light it does not have infinite momentum, therefore it does not have mass greater than zero.


so your saying if i shine a laser into the sky it wont keep traveling untill it strikes something?
No.

Originally Posted by scifreak21
well dont qute me on this but i do know that photons have mass.. so when they enter the admosphere they do slow don't but by an amount that we cannot measure
There are five ways to observe a photon and mass is not one of them. The first four amount to the same quantity (wavelength, frequency, energy and temperature) but the fith (spin), this matches what we observe in other messenger type particles (massless particles). First you have the wavelength (distance between peaks or valleys) then comes frequency (amount of times two peaks or valleys pass over a stationary point) which carries energy. The higher the frequency, the higher the energy (Planck's constant) which leaves temperature as a byproduct (Boltzmann, second radiation constant, Kelvin). All four of these measurements are constantly related to one another and this is what we call a photon. As for the particle's spin, aka, quantized angular momenta ... I don't know enough jargon to comment (h-bar, g-factor and what not). I'll have to leave this to the more knowledgeable members.
.
Note: Everything in parentheses are keywords. Look them up if you're interested.

how can light alone move something around if they didnt have mass?

It turns out that mass is not required for momentum or energy.


How big is a photon particle ?

You can think of it as being roughly the size of its wavelength, if you like.

How big is a photon particle ?
What dimensions does it have?
hmmmmm.....

I've seen one I tell you. It was 2.5 billionths of a millionth of a second long.
It was in colour, purple top and bottom, yellow in the middle, about twice as long as it was high, about a dozen "lines" fitting into a wave shape.

The photo featured on Newscientist dot etc etc but I can't say more. :shrug:

This is a dangerous analogy. It is good, but you should be cautious about thinking of things this way.Thanks. Analogies like this are never perfect, but they seem to be the only way to tackle the "billiard-ball" concept that people have about particles like the photon, despite the obvious evidence of long-wave radio.


For example, if the water were massless, would the wave still knock you over? Does the vacuum, from which the photon is excited, have "mass''?The vacuum doesn't have mass in the sense of inertial mass. You can't push against it and feel resistance to acceleration. You can't feel anything, it certainly isn't like water. And yet, the vacuum does have its vacuum energy. Demarcate a cube of "empty" space and call it a system that's at rest with respect to you. This system contains energy, and thus it has a mass-equivalence. I didn't like it when I first heard it, but I can't fault it because virtual photons are virtual.

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
How big is a photon particle?
What dimensions does it have?
Hummmmm.....
In modern day physics, photons are called 'point particles' and so your question of how "big" a photon is would be irrelevent seeing as all points are one dimensional. This means that all photons (regarless of energy) are the same "size". In a classical sense, you would be safe to assume that a photon can only be as "large" as its respective three dimensional wavelength. I should also add that, in a classical sense, the propagation of a photon happens in four dimensions.

Thanks. Analogies like this are never perfect, but they seem to be the only way to tackle the "billiard-ball" concept that people have about particles like the photon, despite the obvious evidence of long-wave radio. Whose this 'they'? Everyone (including lay persons)? The science community? Your perception of the science community?

The photon has both particle and wave properties but there's no reason to think it must be one and only one of those. A photon is certainly localised into a small region of space, even to a single point, and yet has wave-like properties like diffraction. The diffraction property is not dependent upon its length,. If memory serves you think it does, that a radio wave of wavelength into the km's is has a length of that scale, which isn't true.


The vacuum doesn't have mass in the sense of inertial mass. You can't push against it and feel resistance to acceleration. Undergoing acceleration in a vacuum will cause you to have resistance due to Unruh radiation, you'll see the direction you've moving in gain a positive temperature as you're hit by more particles in front of you than behind you. This is only when you're accelerating, as its not relative like velocity is.


And yet, the vacuum does have its vacuum energy. The fields within space have vacuum energies, not the space-time itself (ignoring quantised gravity processes or GR related cosmological constants), the vacuum energy is obtained from the energy of all ground state harmonic oscillators in the quantised field.


Demarcate a cube of "empty" space and call it a system that's at rest with respect to you. This system contains energy, and thus it has a mass-equivalence. I didn't like it when I first heard it, but I can't fault it because virtual photons are virtual.The relative velocity you deem yourself to have relative to some frame in a vacuum is immaterial, the vacuum is Lorentz invariant.

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Is it correct to say that according to current thought, 2 dimensional objects can not exist in 4 dimensional space? If so how can a 1 dimensional object exist in 4 dimensional space?
I'm pretty sure you've seen the x,y,z symbol. It consists of the endpoints of two lines joining at an intersection, each line being ninety degrees from the other. Then we add a third line whose endpoint matches-up with the other two. This line protrudes out at a fourty-five degree angle (x,y,z labeled respectively for top, side and frount views). If you "zoomed-in" on the intersection of these three lines. That point will always stay the same "size". This is a one-dimensional object. Now, each line represents a two-dimensional space (I think there's another thread open about 2D space) and it takes three lines to represnt a three-dimensional object. Once we established a unit system, we can all agree on the same scale for any particular object (how "zoomed-in" we are).

I'm pretty sure you've seen the x,y,z symbol. It consists of the endpoints of two lines joining at an intersection, each line being ninety degrees from the other. Then we add a third line whose endpoint matches-up with the other two. This line protrudes out at a fourty-five degree angle (x,y,z labeled respectively for top, side and frount views). If you "zoomed-in" on the intersection of these three lines. That point will always stay the same "size". This is a one-dimensional object. Now, each line represents a two-dimensional space (I think there's another thread open about 2D space) and it takes three lines to represnt a three-dimensional object. Once we established a unit system, we can all agree on the same scale for any particular object (how "zoomed-in" we are).
Even though I deleted my post as I didn't want to interupt this thread too much I thank you for your response.

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Even though I deleted my post as I didn't want to interupt this thread too much I thank you for your response.
I didn't think the answer to your question was off topic. All photons follow some form of coordinate system but, if you're going to take what I said literally (which you shouldn't because it's an abstract analogy) then I should clarify something. Each line represents a direction of motion, not a two-dimensional space. It takes two lines to make a two-dimensional space. This analogy also illustrates how the fourth-dimension of time intersects with the three spatial dimensions of space. By "zooming-in" on the intersection of the x,y,z lines (it's called the 'origin' and most every coordinate system has one) we are looking at the fourth-dimension of time. The oddest part about this direction of motion is that it's always hidden. No matter how you orientate the other three lines we will always see the fourth-dimension as a point. In other words, its "line of motion" is always aimed directly at you (it points off the paper) and so, we can only view it as a single point (one-dimensional). We're able to plot a three-dimensional object along this hidden line (in a series) and watch as it changes with time.

These two posts are interesting:
1] by Acitnoids

I didn't think the answer to your question was off topic. All photons follow some form of coordinate system but, if you're going to take what I said literally (which you shouldn't because it's an abstract analogy) then I should clarify something. Each line represents a direction of motion, not a two-dimensional space. It takes two lines to make a two-dimensional space. This analogy also illustrates how the fourth-dimension of time intersects with the three spatial dimensions of space. By "zooming-in" on the intersection of the x,y,z lines (it's called the 'origin' and most every coordinate system has one) we are looking at the fourth-dimension of time. The oddest part about this direction of motion is that it's always hidden. No matter how you orientate the other three lines we will always see the fourth-dimension as a point. In other words, its "line of motion" is always aimed directly at you (it points off the paper) and so, we can only view it as a single point (one-dimensional). We're able to plot a three-dimensional object along this hidden line (in a series) and watch as it changes with time.
and
2] by JamesR

You can think of it as being roughly the size of its wavelength, if you like.

Now if I am not mistaken a wave length is something that takes time to occur. To consider a photon particle size as it's wave length would be to grant the photon a temporal value and that would make no sense at all.

So being the size of it's wave length can't be right can it?

Would that be a fair assessment?

photon moves in space only not in time
gravitational red shift change frequency of light, velocity is invariant

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Now if I am not mistaken a wave length is something that takes time to occur. To consider a photon particle size as it's wave length would be to grant the photon a temporal value and that would make no sense at all. So being the size of its wave length can't be right can it? Would that be a fair assessment?
A photon is a single snapshot of a specific moment in time which is transmitted through space in all directions over a given amount of time. When a ray of light is broken down into its respective constituents (wavelength, frequency - energy) we are able to glean important information about that photon's origin. In no way can we declare a photon to be either a wave or a particle because, in fact, it is both. Now, for simple abstract visualization purposes, you can envision a photon as being either a standing wave (propagation aside) or a point of energy/angular momentum and, for all intensive purposes, both of these images would be correct.

And it turns out that anything that has zero mass always travels at the speed of light, all the time. So, it's actually impossible to have a photon that is not moving, or moving slower than the speed of light.

Basically anything without rest mass, also lack rest time, that is why all its time is vt/c = distance/lightspeed (which must be a time) in the movement direction, and this sums up to t becase it's speed v is c.


That is why the photons oscillate, since it has time to do it, lengthwise, not timewise.

The photon has both particle and wave properties but there's no reason to think it must be one and only one of those. A photon is certainly localised into a small region of space, even to a single point...No, it isn't a point-particle. That's a myth that creates untold confusion. Long wave radio waves are not made up of a blizzard of point particles, and nor is visible light or any other electromagnetic radiation.


...and yet has wave-like properties like diffraction. The diffraction property is not dependent upon its length. If memory serves you think it does...Not me. Refraction depends on wavelength.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ijJiXo-ZlJ3yaM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Refraction_varies_by_frequency.gif


Undergoing acceleration in a vacuum will cause you to have resistance due to Unruh radiation...No problem with that. But you can't accelerate a region of vacuum like you can accelerate a spaceship. Hence the usual description of inertial mass does not apply.


The fields within space have vacuum energies, not the space-time itself...This is incorrect I'm afraid. A field is a particular disposition of spatial energy. Whilst it might be modelled in a quantized fashion via virtual particles, these particles are virtual. They aren't real particles. For example the electromagnetic field of an electron comprises energy and has a mass-equivalence. In QED it's modelled very successfully via virtual-photon exchange particles. But the only particle actually present is the electron. There are no actual photons flitting back and forth in the space between an electron and a proton. In similar vein people attempt to model gravity via gravitons, but there are no actual particles flitting back and forth in the space between two gravitating bodies.


The relative velocity you deem yourself to have relative to some frame in a vacuum is immaterial, the vacuum is Lorentz invariant.No problem.

Now if I am not mistaken a wave length is something that takes time to occur. To consider a photon particle size as it's wave length would be to grant the photon a temporal value and that would make no sense at all.

So being the size of it's wave length can't be right can it?

Would that be a fair assessment?

No it would not. You're getting confused between wavelength which is simply the distance between two peaks or troughs, and the period, which is the time for one of these to occur. The two are not independent of course, and if you know one you can always translate it into the other.

No it would not. You're getting confused between wavelength which is simply the distance between two peaks or troughs, and the period, which is the time for one of these to occur. The two are not independent of course, and if you know one you can always translate it into the other.
so distance wave length is not time related in this instance?

I would have thought that for a constantly travelling at 'c' wave, wavelength distance as you put it, must have a time value of some sort.
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/media/Communications/frequency.gif
image c/o google images
frequency over time

Now if I am not mistaken a wave length is something that takes time to occur

The wavelength is a spatial distance. You might be confusing it with the period, which is a time.


To consider a photon particle size as it's wave length would be to grant the photon a temporal value and that would make no sense at all.

What do you mean by "a temporal value"?


So being the size of it's wave length can't be right can it?

Would that be a fair assessment?

Not according to my understanding of physics.


photon moves in space only not in time
gravitational red shift change frequency of light, velocity is invariant

If a photon is here now, and there one minute from now, then the photon has travelled through space and time.

so distance wave length is not time related in this instance?

I would have thought that for a constantly travelling at 'c' wave, wavelength distance as you put it, must have a time value of some sort.
http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/media/Communications/frequency.gif
image c/o google images
frequency over time

The curves in your picture have wavelengths yet nothing is changing with time. Likewise if you have a photon standing wave in some cavity then it has a wavelength in exactly the same sense. Sure it wiggles up and down with time (I mean a curve of the intensity of the field vs position) but the wavelength doesn't change nor would it lack a definition if you took a snapshot of this standing wave pattern. Photons flying through free space are not so different, though their wavelength may certainly be more poorly defined in some situations (uncertainty principle stuff).

What do you mean by "a temporal value"?
if at t=0 the wavelength is the size of the photon and this length is determined by it's period then at t=0 the photon would have t value greater than t=0

say for example the wave length was 10lys [ dialetic extreme ]

At t=0 the photon particle size = 10lys
Because the wave length is a distance taken over time..

therefore it must have a temporal value....so I am having trouble comprehending how a photon particle can be given the size of it's wave length. [ which amongst other things would mean that the size is variable according to that wave length]

On the graphs shown would it be correct to say that any point on the curved lines used would be t=0 and not the entire line between peeks as being t=0?
If the entire line between peeks is the photons size then half the photon could be in the past and the other half could be in the future ....

Do you happen to have a link that may explain it in better ways?

oh hang on I think I see what you are driving at...hmmmm

IMHO there's an interesting paper on this called How Long is a Photon? by Drozdov and Stahlhofen, see http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596. It discusses the photon as a single pulse, and the conclusion says:

"A critical review of the well known concept of a photon frequency reveals inconsistencies in the conventional picture and interpretation of the photon structure. A treatment of the photon as a single pulse of the electromagnetic field is possible as argued above without raising contradictions with basic principles of quantum mechanics and electrodynamics..."

When light is intercepted by a diamond, what actually happens is that the photon more-or-less "collides" with an electron in a carbon atom. Its energy is absorbed by the electron and at this instant the photon no longer exists. The electron continues to carry the energy, but since it has mass (unlike a photon) it travels much more slowly than the speed of light. When it finally reaches the other side of its atom, it releases that energy and another photon (not the same one!) instantly springs into existence. Since photons have no mass, the principles of force and acceleration cannot be applied to them, and the photon is traveling at exactly the speed of light throughout the entire duration of its existence.

Rather quickly, that photon runs smack-dab into another carbon atom (since they are so close together in a diamond crystal) and the same sequence of events occurs again. Yet another photon then travels to yet another carbon atom, until eventually the last photon reaches the other side of the diamond and flies through space unencumbered.

So "light," in the form of photons, is only traveling through the diamond in the spaces between the atoms. When the energy is being transported within an atom by an electron, from one side to the other, this is not really light.

The light changes back and forth from photons into another energy medium. Only when it is actually "light," i.e. photons, does it move at the speed of light. The rest of the time it is moving at the slower speed that a particle with mass (in this case an electron) is capable of reaching.

The light never slows down. It just changes into a different form of energy, which is carried by particles with mass, and particles with mass move slower than light.

After all, when sunlight hits the roof of a black car and is absorbed, we don't say, "The light is not moving at all inside the black paint." We say that the light has changed into a different form of energy: the heat that makes black cars very uncomfortable in the summer, the reason nobody buys black cars in Arizona. When the photons hit the roof, they cease to exist. There is no more "light."

IMHO there's an interesting paper on this called How Long is a Photon? by Drozdov and Stahlhofen, see http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596. It discusses the photon as a single pulse, and the conclusion says:

"A critical review of the well known concept of a photon frequency reveals inconsistencies in the conventional picture and interpretation of the photon structure. A treatment of the photon as a single pulse of the electromagnetic field is possible as argued above without raising contradictions with basic principles of quantum mechanics and electrodynamics..."
Well don't believe everything you read. There's no inconsistency in the "conventional" description of the photon - the authors just don't seem to be familiar with it. According to them, the "conventional" description of a photon is:

[...] a particle with a certain coordinate, energy, momentum and velocity and simultaneously the spatial delocalization of order \lambda.
which simply isn't true. They don't seem to be aware that quantum mechanics has its own idea of what a particle is. All they say about it in the following sentence is:

The declaration of the ”wave-particle dualism” appointed to save the classical imagination of particle [...]
In other words, the authors seem to be under the impression that the modern view of the photon is as a "point-like particle" with "wave-like" properties attributed to it in an ad-hoc and inconsistent manner, and quantum mechanics is just some sort of explicit acceptance of this dualism. It isn't. Quantum mechanics explicitly threw out the "classical imagination of the particle" and replaced it with something new. Under certain conditions, a quantum particle can behave in a way that resembles a classical "point-like" one, and in certain respects it can exhibit what you might like to call "wave-like" behaviour, especially in interference patterns. But:

quantum mechanics provides a single consistent description of the behaviour of a particle which reproduces these special cases.
the full, general behaviour of a quantum particle simply doesn't have a classical analogue, so you're missing out on a lot if you obsess over the "particle-like" or "wave-like" aspects of particle behaviour.

Maybe I've missed something, but the authors just don't seem to understand the quantum mechanical concept of a particle, and set out to solve a problem that's never existed since quantum mechanics was formulated. After this false start, the rest of the article just doesn't seem to have anything to do with any real physics. It's like reading the stuff I've recently had to toil through at Physics Myths (http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/). They have an overly classical view of everything. Ironically, the authors seem to have the sort of misconception about particles you think "a lot of people" do.

Well don't believe everything you read. There's no inconsistency in the "conventional" description of the photon...

...the authors just don't seem to understand the quantum mechanical concept of a particle, and set out to solve a problem that's never existed since quantum mechanics was formulated. After this false start, the rest of the article just doesn't seem to have anything to do with any real physics...To make sure we're all clear on this, give us the "conventional" description of the photon, followed by the quantum mechanical concept of a particle, and finish off with a description of the photon. If that's too much to ask, just give a description of the photon. If your description merely refers to things that are in themselves not described, and is protected by "quantum cop-out", then we can discuss the issue of real physics further.

To make sure we're all clear on this, give us the "conventional" description of the photon, followed by the quantum mechanical concept of a particle, and finish off with a description of the photon. If that's too much to ask, just give a description of the photon.
Well for a brief description, then compared with the description of classical particles, there's a change in notation/terminology and a couple of twists. As far as the notation/terminology goes, we talk about a particle being in a certain "state" which is noted in Dirac ket notation. For example if a particle is located in a specific position \bar{x}, we'd say its state is | \bar{x} \rangle. If it has a momentum \bar{p} we'd write its state as | \bar{p} \rangle.

The first "twist" in quantum mechanics is that a particle can exist in a superposition of states. You'd write this as something like:


| \Psi \rangle \,=\, \int \text{d}^{3} x \, \Psi(\bar{x}) \, | \bar{x} \rangle

where \Psi(\bar{x}) is the particle's wavefunction. An important property of the wavefuction is that it is a complex quantity - it carries both amplitude and phase information.

The second "twist" is that a particle in a definite momentum state is in a superposition of position states. Specifically:


| \bar{p} \rangle \,=\, \frac{1}{(2\pi \hbar)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \int \text{d}^{3} x \, e^{\frac{i}{\hbar} \bar{p} \cdot \bar{x} } \, | \bar{x} \rangle

This is just saying that a momentum state is a de Broglie wave in position space.

Finally, how quantum states evolve is governed by the Schrödinger equation (which plays the role in QM that F = ma does in classical mechanics).

As I've said I've been brief and I've restricted this to the description of single particle states (be reasonable - there's a reason entire textbooks get written on quantum theory; I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish by asking for a description of QM on an internet forum), but I've said enough to demonstrate a point: QM gives a unified description of particle states which includes all the "particle-like" and "wave-like" aspects of a particle in a single mathematical description. It also contains Heisenberg uncertainty: the momentum state above *is* a completely delocalised particle for example. QM simply doesn't provide you with any way of describing a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. As I said, maybe I'm missing something, but the authors of the article you dug up just seem to ignore all of this. As far as I'm concerned QM as it was formulated over 70 years ago solves all their problems.


If your description merely refers to things that are in themselves not described
Everything is ultimately explained in terms of things that are not described. For example I've told you the quantum mechanical description of a particle but I haven't really told you what a particle "is". Quantum field theory can give an answer to that (in QFT the single particle momentum states are excitation states of an underlying quantum field) - but then you've just substituted one fundamental object (the particle) for another (the quantum field). I doubt there's any way of giving a more fundamental account of what a wavefunction is. The important point is that everything that appears in the QM description of particles is relevant to making predictions about them.


then we can discuss the issue of real physics further.
Your idea of "real physics" or the physics community's idea of "real physics"? You aren't going to win any friends if you go around telling career physicists what their job "actually" is about and what they "really" should be researching.

As I've said I've been brief and I've restricted this to the description of single particle states (be reasonable - there's a reason entire textbooks get written on quantum theory; I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish by asking for a description of QM on an internet forum),
IMO this would have to be the most profound thing said so far...thanks for the inspiration....
the limitations of internet forums are both a blessing and a curse....

No, it isn't a point-particle.While I have no issue with the proposition that the photon isn't a point I wouldn't say your declaration is supported by evidence.


Long wave radio waves are not made up of a blizzard of point particles, and nor is visible light or any other electromagnetic radiation. Experiments say otherwise.


Not me. Refraction depends on wavelength. I said length, as in the photon is an object with length. I seem to remember you saying you think a radio wave is an object of length its wavelength.


No problem with that. But you can't accelerate a region of vacuum like you can accelerate a spaceship. Hence the usual description of inertial mass does not apply. Where did I mention accelerating the vacuum? That's a meaningless concept. You accelerate yourself and you see a thermal distribution from the vacuum.


This is incorrect I'm afraid. A field is a particular disposition of spatial energy. Whilst it might be modelled in a quantized fashion via virtual particles, these particles are virtual. They aren't real particles. For example the electromagnetic field of an electron comprises energy and has a mass-equivalence. In QED it's modelled very successfully via virtual-photon exchange particles. But the only particle actually present is the electron. There are no actual photons flitting back and forth in the space between an electron and a proton. In similar vein people attempt to model gravity via gravitons, but there are no actual particles flitting back and forth in the space between two gravitating bodies. Farsight, please don't try to pretend you know any QED. What I said was correction. The vacuum energy of a field in space-time is obtained from the ground state Hamiltonian expectation value. For instance, E_{0} = \frac{\langle \psi_{0} | H | \psi_{0} \rangle}{\langle \psi_{0} | \psi_{0} \rangle} and for simple fields you get things like \int \frac{d^{3}p}{(2\pi)^{3}} \frac{\omega_{p}}{2}\; \[ a_{p},a_{p}^{\dag} \]

And if you think I'm wrong I just got that from Pg 19 of 'An Introduction to QFT' by Peskin and Schroder. They go on to apply such methods to QED, electroweak and QCD processes. Try reading some QED before telling people who have done QED what it involves. :rolleyes:

You can't say what isn't actually present because you have no ability to determine the energy in short time frames precisely and thus you can't get sure how many particles are involved, thus allowing for the QFT notion of virtual particles (which don't exist in QM). And they have clear measurable effects like beta decay. A W boson flitters into existence and then decays into particles we do see. If other particles weren't created how'd a neutron turn into a proton, electron and antineutrino? Something creates them and they are observed.

QQ,
If you're still having a problem with the classical representation of a photon then may I suggest this abstract demonstration:
.
Materials Needed
Sheet of paper, Scissors, Pencil and a piece of tape.
.
Steps
1. Cut a small circle out of the paper (about 4 cm which is microwave size).
2. Cut the circle in half.
3. Discard one of the two halves.
4. Tape the other half of the circle to the pencil. Make sure that the flat end is running along the length of the pencil.
5. Hold both ends of the pencil with the half circle pointing at the ceiling (This is called the peak).
6. Rotate the pencil ninety degrees so that the half circle disappears behind the pencil (I think this is called the ground but, I'm not sure).
7. Rotate the pencil another ninety degrees so that the half circle is pointing at the floor (This is called the valley).
8. Rotate the pencil another ninety degrees so that you see the half circle edge on (Once again you return to the ground).
9. Rotate the pencil another ninety degrees for a total of three hundred and sixty degrees (Once again you return to the peak).
.
The total amount of times you can do this in one second is called the frequency (In particle form this comes from the photons' spin) and this ability depends on the size of your half circle. The shorter the "wave" the higher the frequency/energy. Likewise, the longer the "wave" the lower the frequency/energy. If I'm not mistaken, even wavefunctions depend on this fact.
.
*NOTE: All experiments should be preformed with the supervision of an adult and all appropriate safety precautions should be adhered to. :)

Richard Feynman, "QED". Get it. Read it. It's thin. It's good.

Fraggle:

There's a problem with your absorption-re-emission model of light travelling through a transparent substance like diamond.

Transparent substances are transparent precisely because they don't absorb light. That means that photons that pass through the substance do not have energies corresponding to any permitted transitions in the atoms of the substance. Therefore, absorption does not happen.

So, an alternative explanation is needed for the delay in propagation.

Also, if there was absorption, then there would be spontaneous emission in random directions from the substance, and yet a laser beam will happily pass through diamond, say, and retain its coherence and ray-like directionality.

Again, Feynman explains this phenomenon nicely in his little book.

QQ,
If you're still having a problem with the classical representation of a photon then may I suggest this abstract demonstration:
.
Materials Needed
Sheet of paper, Scissors, Pencil and a piece of tape.
.
Steps
1. Cut a small circle out of the paper (about 4 cm which is microwave size).
2. Cut the circle in half.
3. Discard one of the two halves.
4. Tape the other half of the circle to the pencil. Make sure that the flat end is running along the length of the pencil.
5. Hold both ends of the pencil with the half circle pointing at the ceiling (This is called the peak).
6. Rotate the pencil ninety degrees so that the half circle disappears behind the pencil (I think this is called the ground but, I'm not sure).
7. Rotate the pencil another ninety degrees so that the half circle is pointing at the floor (This is called the valley).
8. Rotate the pencil another ninety degrees so that you see the half circle edge on (Once again you return to the ground).
9. Rotate the pencil another ninety degrees for a total of three hundred and sixty degrees (Once again you return to the peak).
.
The total amount of times you can do this in one second is called the frequency (In particle form this comes from the photons' spin) and this ability depends on the size of your half circle. The shorter the "wave" the higher the frequency/energy. Likewise, the longer the "wave" the lower the frequency/energy. If I'm not mistaken, even wavefunctions depend on this fact.
.
*NOTE: All experiments should be preformed with the supervision of an adult and all appropriate safety precautions should be adhered to. :)

May I suggest a similar demonstration:


Materials Needed
scissors

Steps

1. Stand with your arms loosly by your sides
2. extend your favoured arm holding the scissors in the closed position in a fist with the blades pointing upwards
3. Accelerate your fist sharply into your forehead.
Note: do not be alarmed by moderate pain and loss of consciousness.

May I suggest a similar demonstration:


Materials Needed
scissors

Steps

1. Stand with your arms loosly by your sides
2. extend your favoured arm holding the scissors in the closed position in a fist with the blades pointing upwards
3. Accelerate your fist sharply into your forehead.
Note: do not be alarmed by moderate pain and loss of consciousness.

uhm ....was that in Richard Feynmans book if so what page?:D

Well for a brief description, then compared with the description of classical particles, there's a change in notation/terminology and a couple of twists. As far as the notation/terminology goes, we talk about a particle being in a certain "state" which is noted in Dirac ket notation...Thanks for the sincere and detailed response.


Everything is ultimately explained in terms of things that are not described. For example I've told you the quantum mechanical description of a particle but I haven't really told you what a particle "is".This is what I was driving at.


Quantum field theory can give an answer to that (in QFT the single particle momentum states are excitation states of an underlying quantum field) - but then you've just substituted one fundamental object (the particle) for another (the quantum field). I doubt there's any way of giving a more fundamental account of what a wavefunction is.I think there is, associated with delocalised particle and a momentum state is a de Broglie wave in position space.


The important point is that everything that appears in the QM description of particles is relevant to making predictions about them.Yes, it's important, but understanding the underlying reality is important too. That's one of the main reasons why people "do" physics, and start threads like this one.


Your idea of "real physics" or the physics community's idea of "real physics"? You aren't going to win any friends if you go around telling career physicists what their job "actually" is about and what they "really" should be researching.With respect, I didn't. You raised the term "real physics" and dissed somebody else's research.

While I have no issue with the proposition that the photon isn't a point I wouldn't say your declaration is supported by evidence.You said "a photon is certainly localised into a small region of space, even to a single point". It isn't. It's delocalised. It has a wavelength. A radio-frequency photon is more delocalised than a gamma-frequency photon. My declaration is supported by evidence and experiment, stop arguing about what you seem to remember me saying.


Where did I mention accelerating the vacuum? That's a meaningless concept.You didn't, I did in the context of vacuum energy and mass-equivalence, and I said you can't.


Farsight, please don't try to pretend you know any QED. What I said was correct...No it wasn't. You're assigning a reality to QED virtual particles, one that misses the quite crucial point that they're virtual.


You can't say what isn't actually present because you have no ability to determine the energy in short time frames precisely and thus you can't get sure how many particles are involved...I gave a scenario where there was an electron present. One particle, with its electromagnetic field. The latter is modelled using virtual particles, but this doesn't mean they're actually present as real photons rattling back and forth between the electron and some othe particle such as a proton that we then introduce to create a hydrogen atom.


...If other particles weren't created how'd a neutron turn into a proton, electron and antineutrino? Something creates them and they are observed.The neutron undergoes beta decay, the proton doesn't. Virtual particles don't cause decay, and they don't create the proton electron and antineutrino. The latter are neutron decay products. It isn't stable, it breaks up.

I think there is, associated with delocalised particle and a momentum state is a de Broglie wave in position space.
Well delocalisation is part of what a wavefunction describes but there's more to it than that. As I said, the wavefunction is a complex quantity with both an amplitude and a phase (represented as a "length" and an angle in the complex plane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane)), and only the amplitude comes into the delocalisation.

For example, the wavefunction of a particle with a definite momentum (in one dimension) is proportional to e^{i k x} = \cos(kx) + i \sin(kx), where p = \hbar k. The "presence" of the particle in any given place is given by the norm squared of the wavefunction. This is just a constant for a de Broglie wave (the amplitude of e^{i k x} is 1) and you're equally likely to find the particle anywhere in the universe. You don't see that a particle of well-defined momentum has any "wave-like" behaviour in this sense - it's completely contained in the phase part of the wavefunction. You'll only "see" it in position space in interference effects (eg. if you send your particle through a double slit).


With respect, I didn't. You raised the term "real physics" and dissed somebody else's research.
Well I don't particularly like saying negative things about people or their work (I wish we could all just get along) but I'm not going to state a falsely positive opinion. To me, it looks like the authors were, in 2008, suggesting that we think of the photon as just a classical wave pulse - really nothing more than a small electromagnetic wavepacket. If I haven't misinterpreted anything, then to state my opinion bluntly: that's a really naive idea. For starters, it misses the point of even the earliest concept of the photon (a smallest "unit" of electromagnetic field), which is something that's been amply confirmed in quantum optics experiment. For instance, single photons are always either transmitted or reflected through beam-splitters; they're never split in two like a classical pulse is.

A second reason, even if they can explain why a light pulse would hold together and act as an indivisible particle, is that a classical electromagnetic pulse is just that - a classical object. We have a way (via Bell's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem)) of distinguishing quantitatively between "classical" and "quantum" behaviour, and the results of Bell experiments involving photons render the idea of viewing photons as classical light pulses (or any other type of classical object) rather implausible.

Again, this is if I've understood the article correctly. I keep adding this caveat because the idea of a photon as a classical pulse is a really surprising one to see proposed by what are apparently two working physicists.

It isn't. It's delocalised. It has a wavelength. A radio-frequency photon is more delocalised than a gamma-frequency photon. My declaration is supported by evidence and experiment, stop arguing about what you seem to remember me saying. Evidence says otherwise. Wavelength is not the physical size of a photon, its the length of the photon path which the photon moves along over one period. Just stick your finger out infront of you and wave it up and down as your arm moves side to side, it'll map out a wave path whose wavelength is much larger than the size of your finger tip.

And evidence doesn't support you. We can make shutters which open and close in micro or nanoseconds and if you were right they'd be able to cut radio wave photons in two.


You didn't, I did in the context of vacuum energy and mass-equivalence, and I said you can't. You haven't 'done' anything so raising the issue of accelerating the vacuum seems a bit superfluous.


No it wasn't. You're assigning a reality to QED virtual particles, one that misses the quite crucial point that they're virtual. Farsight I suggest you get your information on high level physics from some source other than pop science books and your uninformed assumptions. I commented in my previous post how its silly for you to argue QED when you don't know any and you just demonstrated you don't know what virtual particles are (which arise in all QFTs). A 'normal' particle is known as 'on shell', which means its 4-momentum satisfies -m^{2} = p_{\mu}p^{\mu} = -E^{2} + \mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{p}. A 'virtual' particle doesn't. That's all there is to it, it doesn't obey the mass-energy-momentum relationship and that's why you have to integrate over momentum when doing loop level scattering processes. Well I say 'you' but I don't mean you as you've never done such things or even read about them it would seem.


I gave a scenario where there was an electron present. One particle, with its electromagnetic field. The latter is modelled using virtual particles, but this doesn't mean they're actually present as real photons rattling back and forth between the electron and some othe particle such as a proton that we then introduce to create a hydrogen atom. You can't stipulate the number of particles in a QFT system, you can only do that in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. In QFT all physical processes involve additional particles, the virtual ones, as they are the quantum corrections. Loop diagrams arise when virtual particles are made and they represent corrections to the non-relativistic results. The determination of the g-2 value for the electron using such corrections is one of the most accurate results in all of physics. And the virtual particles don't need other particles to be around, an electron can create virtual photons and they in turn make virtual electrons or muons etc and this all contributes to what is known as the self energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-energy) of a particle. If you don't include such things you find you get the wrong predictions. And if you look closely enough you find the electron does jiggle about because you're looking closely enough to detect quantum fluctuations. These are indeed what you'd expect via the uncertainty principle as if you're looking closely you're measuring the position very precisely so your knowledge of the momentum goes up.


The neutron undergoes beta decay, the proton doesn't.I said that.


Virtual particles don't cause decay, and they don't create the proton electron and antineutrino. The latter are neutron decay products. It isn't stable, it breaks up. Alpha decay is caused by the He^{2+} tunnelling out of the nucleus's potential well. Beta decay is caused by a quark having enough energy, over a tiny time scale, to turn into a W and a different quark, the W then decays into a neutrino and an electron. You are just waving your arms and saying "Oh they are decay products". Yes but what is the actual process? Standard model models of such processes have met with enormous success. I guess you're still waiting for your success..... In the mean time I suggest you actually open a book on QFT before being silly enough to argue it with people you know full well have opened a book on it. Clearly age has yet to bestow wisdom on you.

eh! why the contradiction?

in answer to the question about the size of a photon:

by JamesR:

“ You can think of it as being roughly the size of its wavelength, if you like.
vs

by Alphanumeric:
snip....Wavelength is not the physical size of a photon, its the length of the photon path which the photon moves along over one period.....

.....And evidence doesn't support you. We can make shutters which open and close in micro or nanoseconds and if you were right they'd be able to cut radio wave photons in two.

This is what I was trying to get at with my post earlier, that if a photon has length in distance it must have length in time as that distance is over time.
Alphanumeric has now confirmed that concern as being valid.

so? why the confusion?

so? why the confusion?Probably because you and Farsight haven't tried to learn anything relevant.

James's reply was not "It is the size of its wavelength", it was a comment about how you could think about it like that if you find it easier to grasp that way. It's not literally true, none of the quantum models of light have it as anything other than a point particle but given you, QQ, are never going to read or do any physics more advanced than tying your shoelaces if you find it convenient to think of it as a long object, so be it. Its just you shouldn't cling to that and try to apply it to things, as Farsight has tried. And failed.

If you find answers you're given to be lacking or unclear try opening a book on the subject. There's a reason every university in the world has a library, books are excellent learning aids. If all you're willing to do is be spoon fed by people don't be surprised if you fail to understand much, it is not the fault of the people who spoon fed you from time to time, its your fault.

Probably because you and Farsight haven't tried to learn anything relevant.

James's reply was not "It is the size of its wavelength", it was a comment about how you could think about it like that if you find it easier to grasp that way. It's not literally true, none of the quantum models of light have it as anything other than a point particle but given you, QQ, are never going to read or do any physics more advanced than tying your shoelaces if you find it convenient to think of it as a long object, so be it. Its just you shouldn't cling to that and try to apply it to things, as Farsight has tried. And failed.

If you find answers you're given to be lacking or unclear try opening a book on the subject. There's a reason every university in the world has a library, books are excellent learning aids. If all you're willing to do is be spoon fed by people don't be surprised if you fail to understand much, it is not the fault of the people who spoon fed you from time to time, its your fault.
well "Strike a Ferret on the kneecap"
JamesR is not to be taken literally?

Am I supposed to apologise for my confusion generated by the contradition?
especially after I was ridiculed for agree ing with you Alphanumeric.... "unfair", she cried, "just simply unfair" :bawl:
[what do I mean by temporal? ha]

As QQ pulls the scissors out of his head as suggested by prometheus
and attaches a bloody rose to them and hands them back to prometheus with a smile and a kiss to his forehead. ~ inspiration Shakespeare

You've been spoonfed on point particles, Alphanumeric. Your textbooks cut no ice, we're writing new textbooks, and the quantum of quantum mechanics just isn't like that. It refers to E=hf where h is Planck's constant of action. Action is "kick", in the photon it's spatial momentum, and the dimensionality of action is momentum x distance. HUP applies because the photon isn't some point-particle where you have a "probability" of determining its location, but because it's an extended entity. It's delocalised. Think of it as "spacewarp", like a gravitational wave. See LIGO re length-change, though there are immersive scale change issues re measurement.

przyk: I'll get back to you properly tomorrow. Meanwhile check out Joy Christian re Bell's Theorem at:

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+christian_joy/0/1/0/all/0/1

Maybe we need a new thread on this. IMHO if one doesn't have a conceptual grasp of the photon and thence the electron, and thus a handle on the underlying reality of QED, one cannot make secure progress.

przyk: I'll get back to you properly tomorrow. Meanwhile check out Joy Christian re Bell's Theorem at:

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+christian_joy/0/1/0/all/0/1
I've had a quick look at one of his articles (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179) and I don't think his approach is going to be very helpful to you. His idea is basically to circumvent the limits of Bell's theorem by representing spin states with Clifford algebra variables (I'm not very familiar with these at all, but the essential point is that they're abstract variables with non-convential multiplication rules). To me that's a bit like saying you can violate the rule that "my bank balance squared is non-negative" by representing my bank balance with an imaginary variable. All the quantities that appear in Bell inequalities are supposed to be attributed real numbers. For instance, the fact that the variables A_{\bar{a}}(\lambda) and B_{\bar{b}}(\lambda) take on the values +1 and -1 is a choice: those values are attributed to each of two possible complementary experimental outcomes. You can also alternatively define the correlator more explicitly in terms of joint conditional probabilities (as is commonly done):


\xi(a,\,b) \,=\, P(+,\,+ \,|\, a,\,b) \,+\, P(-,\,- \,|\, a,\,b) \,-\, P(+,\,- \,|\, a,\,b) \,-\, P(-,\,+ \,|\, a,\,b) \;,

where in a local hidden variables theory the joint probabilities are supposed to admit a factorisation of the form:


P(A,\,B \,|\, a,\,b) \,=\, \int \text{d} \lambda \, \rho(\lambda) \, P(A \,|\, a;\,\lambda) \, P(B \,|\, b;\,\lambda) \;.

Bell inequalities can be proved from this factorisation, and since probabilities are by definition real numbers, Joy Christian has no opportunity to introduce Clifford algebra variables here.

Finally even if he's somehow right, he hasn't exactly disproved Bell's theorem in a way that would help you, since his counter-example really isn't the sort of thing you'd call a "classical" theory anyway. With him, instead of grappling with quantum mechanics and entanglement, you've got to grapple with what it means for spin states (and presumably other degrees of freedom including time-frequency, since we've observed entanglement there too) to be represented by Clifford algebra variables.

Basically, I really wouldn't go down that road if I were you.

I've been going down this road for almost four years pryzk. It's a very interesting one, and it's surprising who you bump into. Thanks again for a sincere and detailed response. There was a New Scientist article featuring Joy Christian back in 2007, see Quantum untanglement: Is spookiness under threat? (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626281.400-quantum-untanglement-is-spookiness-under-threat.html). Looking at your previous post more closely:


Well delocalisation is part of what a wavefunction describes but there's more to it than that. As I said, the wavefunction is a complex quantity with both an amplitude and a phase (represented as a "length" and an angle in the complex plane), and only the amplitude comes into the delocalisation.OK, but "complex" flags up "orthogonal" to me.


For example, the wavefunction of a particle with a definite momentum (in one dimension) is proportional to e^{i k x} = \cos(kx) + i \sin(kx), where p = \hbar k. The "presence" of the particle in any given place is given by the norm squared of the wavefunction. This is just a constant for a de Broglie wave (the amplitude of e^{i k x} is 1) and you're equally likely to find the particle anywhere in the universe. You don't see that a particle of well-defined momentum has any "wave-like" behaviour in this sense - it's completely contained in the phase part of the wavefunction. You'll only "see" it in position space in interference effects (eg. if you send your particle through a double slit).Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean by this. If you fire a neutron in a given direction, you don't expect to find it anywhere in the universe, but you can perform the dual slit experiment with neutrons.


Well I don't particularly like saying negative things about people or their work (I wish we could all just get along) but I'm not going to state a falsely positive opinion. To me, it looks like the authors were, in 2008, suggesting that we think of the photon as just a classical wave pulse - really nothing more than a small electromagnetic wavepacket. If I haven't misinterpreted anything, then to state my opinion bluntly: that's a really naive idea. For starters, it misses the point of even the earliest concept of the photon (a smallest "unit" of electromagnetic field), which is something that's been amply confirmed in quantum optics experiment. For instance, single photons are always either transmitted or reflected through beam-splitters; they're never split in two like a classical pulse is.I don't think it's naive przyk. But to persuade you would be difficult. It involves a reversal of the relationship of the photon and the electromagnetic field. There are some important clues in electromagnetism. Maybe I ought to start a separate thread on that.


A second reason, even if they can explain why a light pulse would hold together and act as an indivisible particle, is that a classical electromagnetic pulse is just that - a classical object. We have a way (via Bell's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem)) of distinguishing quantitatively between "classical" and "quantum" behaviour, and the results of Bell experiments involving photons render the idea of viewing photons as classical light pulses (or any other type of classical object) rather implausible.See above.


Again, this is if I've understood the article correctly. I keep adding this caveat because the idea of a photon as a classical pulse is a really surprising one to see proposed by what are apparently two working physicists.Don't be surprised to find rational scientists pursuing meaning and understanding just because this makes things "classical". The alternative is arguably mysticism. Here's a few things to mull over: the wave function is the particle, the "presence of the particle" is the centre of interaction with more of the same, different wavefunction dispositions are different particles, a spin 1/2 particle has two orthogonal real rotations, and rotations do not commute.

Sorry to wander off topic.

I've been going down this road for almost four years pryzk.
What, the possibility of describing qubit states with Clifford algebra variables?


OK, but "complex" flags up "orthogonal" to me.
What's orthogonal to what?


Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean by this. If you fire a neutron in a given direction, you don't expect to find it anywhere in the universe, but you can perform the dual slit experiment with neutrons.
If you somehow manage to prepare a neutron with a perfectly well defined momentum, then according to QM it's completely delocalised in space. Conversely, a particle completely localised at a point is completely delocalised in momentum space. Of course those are just the two extreme cases and you can have anything in between (you'd usually describe these with Gaussian wavepackets) in a way that satisfies the Heisenberg uncertainty relation \Delta x \Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}. \hbar is of the order of 10-34 in SI units, which is tiny, so there should be plenty of room for a neutrino to have a well enough defined momentum to produce a clear interference pattern, without the neutrino being delocalised to the point you don't know whether it's in your lab or not.


I don't think it's naive przyk. But to persuade you would be difficult.
Well I'm not really motivated to look for a replacement for QM unless someone can show it fails experimentally. Otherwise QM as it is really doesn't bother me (well, I think there are some consistency issues in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, but I don't subscribe to it and that's another story anyway).


See above.
See what? If you mean J. Christian's article then I've already told you what I think is wrong with it, and the more I think about it the more I'm convinced he's simply misunderstood how Bell's theorem is formulated. I'm not against theories that use Clifford algebras as a matter of principle, but the way he puts them in the Bell correlators doesn't make sense (he's apparently mistaken the variables A and B for a fundamental description of spin - they're not) and it's impossible if you use the alternative expression I posted in terms of the joint probabilities.

Note that I'm not claiming there's no way around Bell's theorem. When I said "the results of Bell experiments involving photons render the idea of viewing photons as classical light pulses (or any other type of classical object) rather implausible" there's a reason I said "implausible" rather than "impossible": Bell's theorem only rules out local classical-type theories. In addition every Bell experiment performed to date suffers from at least one of a couple of loopholes. So you might be able to come up with a "classical"-type theory that can explain away QM, but it's either going to suffer a blatantly non-local structure or it's going to have to explain some strange coincidences and how detectors "conspired" to violate a Bell inequality in every Bell experiment performed to date.


the wave function is the particle
I'm the type of person who does think of the wavefunction as something "physical" (as opposed to "tool for calculating probabilities"), but I don't think you can identify the particle and the wavefunction. The most obvious problem is with entangled states: in QM, it's possible for (say) two particles to be described by a shared wavefunction \Psi(\bar{x}_{1},\,\bar{x}_{2}) that can't be factorised into a product of wavefunctions specific to each particle - ie. wavefunctions that you can't decompose as something like \Psi(\bar{x}_{1},\,\bar{x}_{2}) \,=\, \psi(\bar{x}_{1}) \, \phi(\bar{x}_{2}). Entangled states are specifically what allows QM to violate Bell inequalities, so there's good evidence for their existence: every Bell experiment is a test for entanglement.

You've been spoonfed on point particles, Alphanumeric. Is this the kind of thing you tell yourself in order to excuse your lack of understanding and knowledge in physics? Besides, you know I've done string theory work, they aren't point particles. And neither are branes. You try to convince yourself you're putting forth new and novel ideas or notions but you aren't.


Your textbooks cut no iceYeah, whoever learnt something they could use in the real world from a textbook, other than everyone whose ever got an education beyond the age of 5. The people who designed the computer you're at learn stuff from textbooks, the usefulness and practical application of the science they contain is literally staring you in the face. Engineers, chemists, biologists, doctors, physicists, mathematicians. If textbooks didn't 'cut the ice' people wouldn't be able to apply the results and methods in them to solve real world problems.

Its one thing to say "I don't accept what this textbook says about this thing", its another to say textbooks are failing to 'cut the ice'.


we're writing new textbooksAre you using the 'Royal we' here or are you talking about the voices in your head or are you referring to real people? Your 'work' failed to get published in any journal and its been ridiculed on many forums you posted it on. Yes, new textbooks are being written and will continue to be updated as we learn more about the universe but that'll not be your doing. You really do need to face up to the fact you're not very good at mathematics or physics and certainly haven't produced anything worthy of publication.


Action is "kick", in the photon it's spatial momentum, and the dimensionality of action is momentum x distance. HUP applies because the photon isn't some point-particle where you have a "probability" of determining its location, but because it's an extended entity. It's delocalised. Think of it as "spacewarp", like a gravitational wave. See LIGO re length-change, though there are immersive scale change issues re measurement. Vomiting out a slew of buzzwords which makes little to no coherent sense and is utterly without justification or rigour or any predictive ability is hardly doing you any favours. I asked you many times on PhysOrg to name one just one phenomenon you can accurately model with your 'work' and you couldn't provide one. And I'm betting you still can't.


IMHO if one doesn't have a conceptual grasp of the photon and thence the electron, and thus a handle on the underlying reality of QED, one cannot make secure progress. Do you really think you're in a better position than the scientific community to address such things? You don't know any mainstream physics, you don't do experiments or considered raw data from other peoples' experiments and
yet you believe someone you've got a handle on the nature of the photon and electron? How do you arrive as such a conclusion? Surely if you want to examine the nature of photons and electrons you need to look at experimental results and to be able to understand them and their methodologies. You have not done any of this so its irrational for you to imply you're somehow ahead of people who have done such experiments.

But then all you're doing it making up arm wavey babbling, not one single thing can you actually model. And that makes your whining about how, in your opinion, string theory can't be science due to lack of predictive power all the more ironic. String theory can accurately model the same stuff as GR and in some cases even extends our understanding of various semi-classical things like black hole thermodynamics. You've provided nothing.


I've been going down this road for almost four years pryzkAnd in all that time you've learnt nothing. You haven't learnt any mathematical techniques or grasped quantitative predictive models for any area of physics. You simply squandered the time believing you didn't need to put in any effort to learn and understand, you believe you've got all the answers now. In 4 years you could have done an entire MSc in physics! Or an entire PhD, assuming you have a degree in something)!


OK, but "complex" flags up "orthogonal" to me.If you'd started reading about complex numbers 4 years ago you could be doing functional analysis in complex variables by now, a very powerful tool in physics. Instead you make it clear you haven't even go the understanding of an A level maths student. And thus you also demonstrate you've not learnt or read any quantum mechanics because you failed to understand what przyk meant, both the words he said and the concept in QM he was referring to. And yet you try to convince people you grasp quantum field theory well enough to be worth listening to. If you'd started doing vector calculus 4 years ago you'd know how to do a lot of quantum field theory now, that's how long it typically takes a university student to read QFT courses. But you squandered your time convincing yourself you didn't need to put in any effort as you know everyone but you is wrong. :rolleyes:


It involves a reversal of the relationship of the photon and the electromagnetic field.A photon is a disturbance in the EM field. Your comment is like saying "It involves a reversal of the relationship between dogs and animals".


There are some important clues in electromagnetism. And you have a firm grasp of electromagnetism, despite being unable to do any vector calculus which electromagnetism is formulated and modelled using, because....?

Is this the kind of thing you tell yourself in order to excuse your lack of understanding and knowledge in physics? Besides, you know I've done string theory work, they aren't point particles. And neither are branes. You try to convince yourself you're putting forth new and novel ideas or notions but you aren't.

Yeah, whoever learnt something they could use in the real world from a textbook, other than everyone whose ever got an education beyond the age of 5. The people who designed the computer you're at learn stuff from textbooks, the usefulness and practical application of the science they contain is literally staring you in the face. [ Bill Gates didn't use a text book to create Microsoft he used his vision and creativity] Engineers, chemists, biologists, doctors, physicists, mathematicians. If textbooks didn't 'cut the ice' people wouldn't be able to apply the results and methods in them to solve real world problems. [well solve them.... we are waiting and in the mean time please take your rubbish home with you]

Its one thing to say "I don't accept what this textbook says about this thing", its another to say textbooks are failing to 'cut the ice'. [same thing yes]


Are you using the 'Royal we' here or are you talking about the voices in your head or are you referring to real people? Your 'work' failed to get published in any journal and its been ridiculed on many forums you posted it on. [only by people such as you self] Yes, new textbooks are being written and will continue to be updated as we learn more about the universe but that'll not be your doing. You really do need to face up to the fact you're not very good at mathematics or physics and certainly haven't produced anything worthy of publication. [according to a moron yes]

Vomiting out a slew of buzzwords which makes little to no coherent sense and is utterly without justification or rigour or any predictive ability is hardly doing you any favours. I asked you many times on PhysOrg to name one just one phenomenon you can accurately model with your 'work' and you couldn't provide one. And I'm betting you still can't. [ you can model but you don't understand how or why the model works]
Do you really think you're in a better position than the scientific community to address such things? You don't know any mainstream physics, you don't do experiments or considered raw data from other peoples' experiments and
yet you believe someone you've got a handle on the nature of the photon and electron? [ snide sarcasm, nasty and bitter - well done] How do you arrive as such a conclusion? Surely if you want to examine the nature of photons and electrons you need to look at experimental results and to be able to understand them and their methodologies. [ something worth doing yes? given that tehphoton is being inconsitently described ] You have not done any of this so its irrational for you to imply you're somehow ahead of people who have done such experiments.

But then all you're doing it making up arm wavey babbling, not one single thing can you actually model. And that makes your whining about how, in your opinion, string theory can't be science due to lack of predictive power all the more ironic. String theory can accurately model the same stuff as GR and in some cases even extends our understanding of various semi-classical things like black hole thermodynamics. You've provided nothing.
[Peter Pan was also good at modelling stuff, like cakes and fairies and even flying]

And in all that time you've learnt nothing. You haven't learnt any mathematical techniques or grasped quantitative predictive models for any area of physics. You simply squandered the time believing you didn't need to put in any effort to learn and understand, you believe you've got all the answers now. In 4 years you could have done an entire MSc in physics! Or an entire PhD, assuming you have a degree in something)!

If you'd started reading about complex numbers 4 years ago you could be doing functional analysis in complex variables by now, a very powerful tool in physics. Instead you make it clear you haven't even go the understanding of an A level maths student. And thus you also demonstrate you've not learnt or read any quantum mechanics because you failed to understand what przyk meant, both the words he said and the concept in QM he was referring to. And yet you try to convince people you grasp quantum field theory well enough to be worth listening to. If you'd started doing vector calculus 4 years ago you'd know how to do a lot of quantum field theory now, that's how long it typically takes a university student to read QFT courses. But you squandered your time convincing yourself you didn't need to put in any effort [ no doubt because of morons like you ] as you know everyone but you is wrong. :rolleyes: [pot calling the kettle black eh what!]

A photon is a disturbance in the EM field. Your comment is like saying "It involves a reversal of the relationship between dogs and animals".

And you have a firm grasp of electromagnetism, despite being unable to do any vector calculus which electromagnetism is formulated and modelled using, because....? Summary: Vitriolic nonsense | Score : 2/10 | Result: Fail
excuse me Alphanumeric, but Far sight has every right to express himself in a civil and polite fashion, as you do in your usual ego slanted manner.
This is a discussion forum afterall and NOT a peer review journal that you seem so obsessed to think it is.

Despite your so called credentials and expertise in all manner of scientific understandings you have failed miserably where it counts the most.

You can not evidence the existence of a photon let alone describe it properly with out severe confusion.
Reason: You can not prove somethng exists when it is nonexistent!

The holy grail of science [ the photon ] is in utter confusion when it comes to qualifying it in a way that is consistant and evidenced properly.

Farsight is quite correct in saying:


IMHO if one doesn't have a conceptual grasp of the photon and thence the electron, and thus a handle on the underlying reality of QED, one cannot make secure progress.

your response was utterly unfitting not only of a human being but a scientist.

Quoting an illusion of success in the use of the model is far from actually demonstrating the models validity.

If you would care to provide a proper accounting of the photon that is totally consistent you would go a long way to gaining credibility in your profession of choice.

Please ensure you quote the various titles of text that offer incredible confusion as the reality of the photon and possibly then offer a solution to the issue, which is what science is about. Not just quoting text books but actually applying what you read and improving upon it.
You are utterly offensive in your approach to your own inadequacies demonstrated by the intesnsity of your hatred for any one with a inth of creativity.
When you can support your credentials with real scientific process which includes creativity and vision then and only then do you have the credibiity of the label scientist.
We [ yes the royal we ] look forward to reading your correct and unambiguous accounting of what a photon is exactly including the FACT that it can not be differentiated from massive objects. [ and I would bet without any doubt that you will not be able to do so and I don't need to be a erudite scientist to know that]

So I ask again as a novice and naive innocent:

How big is a photon?
How can a photon exist with out compromising E=mc^2 ?
How can you show a photon exists as modelled apart from the effect observed upon massive objects?
How can a zero dimensional massless and charged object exist in 3 dimensional space with out being purely imaginary. [not a fluffy question I can assure you]
Why is it as observed, to be both particle and wave?
and the list goes on....

I can guarrantee there will be no single unambiguous answer to any of the above....
The reason IMO:
"Energy is only a property of mass when dealing with 4 dimensions"
"A photon is only a property, an attribute, a quality, a value placed upon mass"
it is merely a value of "work" potential and nothing more....
Conclusion:
The photon as described by science does not exist.
and all those text books that use a photon simply just don't, to use someone elses words, cut ice.
Maybe a thread on the basics of what energy is would be worth starting.
Oh sorry! it would have to be in pseudo science forum as the usual definition of energy would be deemed way too be contraversial.

QQ,
There is no contradiction in what Alpha said. What he ment by ...

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Wavelength is not the physical size of a photon, it's length of the photon path which the photon moves along over one period ...
... can be visualized with my prior demonstration. Instead of discarding the other half circle you could tape it onto the pencil. It would have to be just in frount of the other half circle (endpoints matching ... Remember my tail about endpoint?) and it has to be orientated at a nintey degree angle from the first (I left this out for simplicity sake). Now we must lable each half circle. We could call the first half circle "E" (for electro) and the other "M" (for magnetism)(electro-magnetism). This gives rise to a photons' period and its forward motion. The word "photon" is a reference to the point particles wavefunction and the word "light" refers to the photons' wave like behavior (Alpha, please correct me if I've misspoke seeing as I'm putting words into your mouth). Keep in mind that this is an overly simplistic representation. Both half circles are essentially the same wave. In other words, you can only see one half circle at a time.

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
so how big is a photon at t=0?
You have to define what you mean by t=0. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything. It's just that, t=0 doesn't mean anything.

and so how big a point particle presuming that I can barely tie my shoelace my guess that you guys consider a point particle as being zero dimensional would probably be wrong? oops! Again sorry, it appears I was trying to tie up my shoe laces...this is suprising difficult to do given I am wearing sandles.
I'm sorry for your frustration QQ but, you're not the only person who is going to read this thread. I don't know, something tells me that some fourteen year old out there will get it before you do.

so how can a zero dimensional particle exist in 4 dimensional space other than as pure imagination?
It's called Geometey.

You have to define what you mean by t=0. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything. It's just that, t=0 doesn't mean anything.

I'm sorry for your frustration QQ but, you're not the only person who is going to read this thread. I don't know, something tells me that some fourteen year old out there will get it before you do.

It's called Geometey.
oh I got it when I was 13 and that was a long time ago, it was wrong then and it is still wrong now.

In other words, you can only see one half circle at a time.
and how much time does this half circle take up?
Remember the question is "How big is a photon particle?"

I have deleted the previous posts as being inappropriate for this level of discussion

so do you know what t=0 most usually means?

excuse me Alphanumeric, but Far sight has every right to express himself in a civil and polite fashion, as you do in your usual ego slanted manner.I love how cranks call me egotistical. Farsight is claiming he's rewritten the entirity of high energy physics from the last century, without having to open a book on anything relevant and you're calling me egotistical?!

I am fully aware that I am often abrasive and condescending but I, more often than not, aim such behaviour at people who make it clear their delusional egos far exceed my ego and that they know very little (or nothing) about which they speak. In this thread Farsight is trying to convince people he's informed about QED and I've slammed him for it. Him claiming to grasp QED is stupid, as he knows nothing of it. Me claiming to know some QED is entirely rational since I have studied it, I have qualifications in it, I have publications in it. Cranks mistake my confidence in something I was literally paid to do as egotism and arrogance. They do this because they know they are lying when they claim to understand quantum field theory, lying to serve their ego, so they assume others are too. No, it was literally my day job for half a decade. If someone came into your work and started telling your business you'd respond confidently because you (should) know your business. Physics is my business.


This is a discussion forum afterall and NOT a peer review journal that you seem so obsessed to think it is.Farsight makes false claims in discussion. I point it out. I'm not expecting his posts to be journal worthy, forums aren't for 'publishing' your work. The work he has done which he claimed would be worthy of publication weren't. He fails on all counts.


Despite your so called credentials and expertise in all manner of scientific understandings you have failed miserably where it counts the most.
And you're the best person to evaluate the scientific ability and worth of other people because....? I can be perfectly civil and patiently explain things to people, if they want to learn. You and Farsight don't. The reason I'm abrasive to you is not because I'm abrasive to everyone, I'm abrasive to intellectually lazy liars.


The holy grail of science [ the photon ]
Why is it 'the holy grail'? It isn't. You're simply making things up to twist a narrative to serve your bias. The fact you're having to do such things sort of invalidates your attempts to play the person who evaluates the worth of other people's scientific knowledge/contributions.


your response was utterly unfitting not only of a human being but a scientist.
Shouldn't that be 'not only a scientist but a human being' else you're implying scientists are below human beings in some way? Besides, my pointing out he's being silly to claim some grasp of QED when he knows nothing of quantum field theory, special relativity, quantum mechanics or electromagnetism isn't 'below even a human being', its rational. Is it sensible to tell people who do know quantum electrodynamics their business when you don't know it? Farsight is trying to give scientists lessons on how to do science when he's demonstrated he's incapable of following the scientific method himself. To say my reply is inappropriate for a human being is utterly hyperbolic and demonstrates you have trouble presenting viable arguments, making your complaints about my arguments all the more ironic and hypocritical.


Bill Gates didn't use a text book to create Microsoft he used his vision and creativity
Says who? He excelled in school and got into Harvard (I think). He dropped out to spend more time working but he was extremely intelligent, hard working and well read. The reason he did so well was he had intelligence, drive and knowledge. He was willing to put in the effort to learn as much as possible to help his work. Farsight (and other cranks) hasn't put in any effort to learning anything in physics or mathematics, he's tried to convince himself he doesn't need to as its all 'wrong' and thus absolving himself of any requirement to learn (and thus find out he's unable to understand mainstream physics because he's not very good at it, which he doesn't want to accept). Cranks always associate themselves with people like Gates or Galileo, failing to realise the analogy is utterly flawed because the crank doesn't put in any of the effort and learning those people did.


well solve them.... we are waiting and in the mean time please take your rubbish home with you]
You make it sound like no one has applied physics to the real world. Every single piece of technology is the result of physics knowledge. The computer you're looking at, the phone you have in your pocket, the car, train and plane you use to travel, the TV you watch, the fridge which keeps your food fresh. Everything which elevates our society beyond the stone age is the application of science. And if you want specific examples involving photons or quantum mechanical effects there's the laser, the CPU, the Josephson gate, MRI and PET scanners. Serious money is being plowed into optical computers and quantum computers which use photons. If the science weren't viable and experimentally sound companies like Intel wouldn't be putting millions or billions into said research. Josephson gates are used in high speed, high sensitivity circuitry in mobile phone towers. PET scanners save thousands of lives every year. The CPU has revolutionised our civilisation. All the application of science to solve real world problems. So your 'we're waiting' is just flat out denial of the world around you. The fact you typed it on a computer, literally staring at the application of that science, is all the more ironic.


given that tehphoton is being inconsitently described
Citation needed. Remember, I actually do work in physics research and I've done such things as quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. If you're going to claim something about science research you're going to have to provide evidence for you claims. Provide links to papers where the photon is modelled in inconsistent ways.


[Peter Pan was also good at modelling stuff, like cakes and fairies and even flying
That's your response to my comment you post meaningless nonsense? Couldn't you at least attempt to justify yourself rather than just go into flat out denial mode. How am I supposed to get my entertainment slapping you about when you're making it too easy? ;)


no doubt because of morons like you
Yes, it's my fault cranks tell themselves lies in order to convince themselves its okay they can't do any mainstream physics. Yes, its my fault you're rubbish at physics and maths and yet you can't accept it so you lie to yourself. Yes, its my fault you couldn't do it when you were in school and you still can't. It's the "Its everyone else's fault but mine" routine. Most people realise at a fairly young age there's things they are good at and things they are bad at. I'm not particularly sharp at languages and I can't play a musical instrument. I accept that, I don't go up to musicians and say "Your instrument is rubbish, I've invented a much better one which I'm amazing at!!" or up to a French person and say "Your language is made up rubbish, English is much better and everyone should speak it!". That's what Farsight and other hacks are doing, trying to convince themselves its okay to be rubbish at mainstream science, its all wrong anyway. :rolleyes:


[pot calling the kettle black eh what!]
I think cranks are wrong. Farsight claims he's got a much better idea than all of mainstream physics. I'm not claiming that. I believe I've contributed a tiny little bit to a specific area in physics which no one else had done. You're viewing yourself with too much of an egocentric mindset. The fact I constantly tell you you're wrong doesn't mean I tell everyone they are wrong, you've reached a flawed implication. You'll find I'm happy to agree with other people in other threads, you're the cause of "You're wrong" posts by me.


Please ensure you quote the various titles of text
Why bother, you have made it clear in the past you have no intention of reading information source you're pointed at and even if you did you'd not understand them since you haven't done any mathematics or physics since high school. You lack the skills to evaluate your own 'challenge', much like Hovind and his challenge.


ou are utterly offensive in your approach to your own inadequacies demonstrated by the intesnsity of your hatred for any one with a inth of creativity.
I know you cranks like to think I 'hate' you but you give yourselves far too much credit. The 15 minutes or so a post like this takes me to type is hardly a dent in my day and your arguments and claims are so easily refuted they require no effort. You're entertainment. I can't 'hate' something I care nothing about. If you never posted again I'd not give it a second thought. I know you want to think you're 'hated', it gives you some feeling of importance, you're able to tell yourself you must be right if someone 'hates' you but you exagerate your importance. As you said in your challenge thread in pseudo, you're waiting for the media to get interested. You give yourself way too much credit and think your 'challenge' is in any way something which might worry actual scientists. Oh no an idiot online thinks he's challenging us!! That's never happened before. :rolleyes:


When you can support your credentials with real scientific process which includes creativity and vision then and only then do you have the credibiity of the label scientist.
Nice one. You dismiss my credentials by saying I don't have any creativity and vision. I don't post any original work here because actual research level physics is totally inappropriate for forum discussions here, its too high level. None of my work has been posted here and even if I had done that only about 4 people would have had any change to even vaguely understand it. You seriously have no clue what I've done or what I'm doing. I got a job within a month of finishing my PhD and it is specifically to solve real world problems others can't. They hire people they believe can think creatively and apply their knowledge to big problems in novel and imaginative ways. I am employed precisely because people who have succeeded in business by thinking creatively believe I can too. And they actually read my research and understand it, unlike yourself. Again, the reason I don't discuss research with you is not because I'm incapable of it but because I know it'd be a waste of time discussing it with you.


How can a photon exist with out compromising E=mc^2 ?
E=mc^2 doesn't apply to a photon. I suggest you open an introductory book on relativity. This is your problem, you have no relevant knowledge and so all your complaints are not actually about mainstream physics but your completely flawed understanding of it. You want to be taken seriously yet you make it clear you refuse to be intellectually honest and look at something before dismissing it.

Such 'questions' of yours completely undermine your entire challenge by demonstrating you have no intention of being honest. Thanks for making it so easily demonstrable.

hee hee

As you said in your challenge thread in pseudo, you're waiting for the media to get interested. You give yourself way too much credit and think your 'challenge' is in any way something which might worry actual scientists. Oh no an idiot online thinks he's challenging us!! That's never happened before.
there's a lot of things that haven't happened before.
The scientists may struggle to deal with it but the general population wont.

And whats more you have already demonstrated why...

What, the possibility of describing qubit states with Clifford algebra variables?No, trying to understand the fundamental reality behind quantum electrodynamics and other areas.


What's orthogonal to what?Two rotations of stress-energy-momentum propagating at c.


If you somehow manage to prepare a neutron with a perfectly well defined momentum, then according to QM it's completely delocalised in space. Conversely, a particle completely localised at a point is completely delocalised in momentum space. Of course those are just the two extreme cases and you can have anything in between (you'd usually describe these with Gaussian wavepackets) in a way that satisfies the Heisenberg uncertainty relation \Delta x \Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}. \hbar is of the order of 10-34 in SI units, which is tiny, so there should be plenty of room for a neutrino to have a well enough defined momentum to produce a clear interference pattern, without the neutrino being delocalised to the point you don't know whether it's in your lab or not.Thanks. I read about the HUP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) and see:

"In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet."

..and I'm saying, no, it's a wave. It's an extended entity. This demand for a position is building in a point-particle assumption.


Well I'm not really motivated to look for a replacement for QM unless someone can show it fails experimentally. Otherwise QM as it is really doesn't bother me (well, I think there are some consistency issues in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, but I don't subscribe to it and that's another story anyway).Fair enough. I'm not looking for a replacement either, just a better interpretation.


See what? If you mean J. Christian's article then I've already told you what I think is wrong with it, and the more I think about it the more I'm convinced he's simply misunderstood how Bell's theorem is formulated. I'm not against theories that use Clifford algebras as a matter of principle, but the way he puts them in the Bell correlators doesn't make sense (he's apparently mistaken the variables A and B for a fundamental description of spin - they're not) and it's impossible if you use the alternative expression I posted in terms of the joint probabilities.OK noted. I'll read it again.


Note that I'm not claiming there's no way around Bell's theorem. When I said "the results of Bell experiments involving photons render the idea of viewing photons as classical light pulses (or any other type of classical object) rather implausible" there's a reason I said "implausible" rather than "impossible": Bell's theorem only rules out local classical-type theories. In addition every Bell experiment performed to date suffers from at least one of a couple of loopholes. So you might be able to come up with a "classical"-type theory that can explain away QM, but it's either going to suffer a blatantly non-local structure or it's going to have to explain some strange coincidences and how detectors "conspired" to violate a Bell inequality in every Bell experiment performed to date.Interesting stuff przyk. Remember I mentioned displacement current and "spacewarp"? I think of a photon as a "pressure pulse" of spatial distortion. That's all it is, just distortion. And as a result, all the surrounding space is distorted too. Wherever there's distortion is where the photon is. So what path does it take from A to B? It takes many paths.


I'm the type of person who does think of the wavefunction as something "physical" (as opposed to "tool for calculating probabilities"), but I don't think you can identify the particle and the wavefunction. The most obvious problem is with entangled states: in QM, it's possible for (say) two particles to be described by a shared wavefunction \Psi(\bar{x}_{1},\,\bar{x}_{2}) that can't be factorised into a product of wavefunctions specific to each particle - ie. wavefunctions that you can't decompose as something like \Psi(\bar{x}_{1},\,\bar{x}_{2}) \,=\, \psi(\bar{x}_{1}) \, \phi(\bar{x}_{2}). Entangled states are specifically what allows QM to violate Bell inequalities, so there's good evidence for their existence: every Bell experiment is a test for entanglement.SOunds good. Maybe in the end entaglement won't be so much of a problem. Interesting stuff. Thanks.

Thanks for your previous comments QQ. I do wish people would try to stay friendly and calm on discussion forums like this.


So I ask again as a novice and naive innocent:

How big is a photon?
How can a photon exist without compromising E=mc^2 ?
How can you show a photon exists as modelled apart from the effect observed upon massive objects?
How can a zero dimensional massless and charged object exist in 3 dimensional space without being purely imaginary. [not a fluffy question I can assure you]
Why is it as observed, to be both particle and wave?

I can get you part of the way there. It won't be a complete or formal description, just an outline using analogies, though hopefully of some use. But you have to get a handle on electromagnetism first. To understand the electromagnetic wave, you have to understand the electromagnetic field, and that it's one field, not two. I've got to go out now, but I'll post something up later. I'll start a new thread to avoid hijacking this one.

To understand the electromagnetic wave, you have to understand the electromagnetic fieldYou will forgive my stupidity, I hope, but what have waves and fields to do with each other?


and that it's one field, not two. .Is there any assertion anywhere to the contrary? Tell me - unlike you (perhaps), I am not a physicist, and I am anxious to learn.

But I can do a little simple arithmetic, so try me out that way.

QQ:


So I ask again as a novice and naive innocent:
How big is a photon?

It doesn't have a well-defined size.


How can a photon exist with out compromising E=mc^2 ?

The full equation is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2. That applies to photons the same as everything else.


How can you show a photon exists as modelled apart from the effect observed upon massive objects?

You can't. Experiment is always the final arbiter of the accuracy of a model.


How can a zero dimensional massless and charged object exist in 3 dimensional space with out being purely imaginary.

Please give an example of a zero-dimensional massless and charged object.


Why is it as observed, to be both particle and wave?

It isn't. It is observed to behave in ways similar to a particle or a wave. That's the same for all quantum objects.

You will forgive my stupidity, I hope, but what have waves and fields to do with each other?A lot. The photon is considered to be the messenger particle of the electromagnetic interaction.


Is there any assertion anywhere to the contrary? Tell me - unlike you (perhaps), I am not a physicist, and I am anxious to learn.Apologies. I'm just an amateur, but I see a lot of people talking about the electric field and the magnetic field as if they're two totally different things, and it seems to cause problems. I presumed this would be an issue here too.


But I can do a little simple arithmetic, so try me out that way.IMHO the only way to really get it across is to refer to experiment, evidence, and observables. Or should I say get it part-way across. Then you can pick up on the mathematics to take it further.

Edit: Meanwhile here's my two-pennyworth:

Q: How big is a photon?
A: It doesn't have a size. You might think of it as being as long as its wavelength and with a given amplitude, but the question is rather like asking how big is a seismic S-wave.

Q: How can a photon exist without compromising E=mc^2 ?
A: It moves at c and so is massless, so E=hf and p=hf/c applies instead.

Q: How can you show a photon exists as modelled apart from the effect observed upon massive objects?
A: You can do pair production to create an electron and a positron out of two photons.

Q: How can a zero dimensional massless and charged object exist in 3 dimensional space without being purely imaginary.
A: It can't.

Q: Why is it as observed, to be both particle and wave?
A: Because it's a wave that delivers a "kick" of action.

I'm sorry everybody. This should be a privet message but, in light of the circumstances, I found it important to make my opinion public.

Originally Posted by Quantum Wave
I deleted the previous posts as being inappropriate for this level of discussion
So let me get this strait. I commented on a post of yours which you later deleted and yet you still commented on my post to make me out to be the ass.

oh I got it when I was 13 and that was a long time ago, it was wrong then and its is still wrong now.
What a crooked thing to do. Listen, there are a few posts on this forum that I'd like to take back as well but, there they are. I said it and now I have to face the music when the occasion arises. That's twice now (in this thread) where I've commented on a post of yours that you've deleted. Why should I ever reply to your posts again? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Please, think about what you are saying before you post it (you have all the time in the world) so that this does not happen again. Thank you.
.
QQ. If you feel the need to reply to this post then please, do it by PM. Anything less would be "inappropriate for this level of discussion".

there's a lot of things that haven't happened before.Are you familiar with sarcasm?

And I note you ignored where I explicitly demonstrated you don't know what the mainstream community says about the photon. You asked "How can a photon exist with out compromising E=mc^2 ? ", making it clear you don't know even what equations apply to the photon or how its described. You obviously don't have a firm grasp of what physicists say and yet you claim you know "that tehphoton is being inconsitently described" [sic]. You've set up a challenge to science you haven't read and declared yourself the judge. You couldn't explain why you're suitable to be a judge, given you lack knowledge, understanding and impartiality. You couldn't provide a reference to your claim the photon is modelled inconsistently. How can you even make that claim when in the same post you demonstrate you haven't even read how the photon is described!

Come on QQ, even you should grasp this. You've made is abundantly clear you haven't looked at how the photon is modelled or any experiments involving it so your claims about the mainstream are based on your ignorance and bias. And this isn't me being hateful or anything, its a justifiable opinion about your level of knowledge given your posts. I asked you to explain why you're a suitable judge of your challenge and also why you're in any way in a position to judge my abilities and contributions to physics when you don't know my work, even if you did you'd not understand it and you have made no contribution to any area of science yourself. You try to insult me by saying "Despite your so called credentials and expertise". My 'so called credentials' aren't qualifications from a diploma mill or a dodgy correspondence course in some dubious subject like 'surfing' or 'David Beckham studies', they are from actual well respected universities in academic and relevant (to this forum) areas. So they are not 'so called credentials', they are credentials. You're not the first to try insulting me for having qualifications, for having put in years of time and effort and achieving something. Cranks often have a chip on their shoulder about people who are willing to put in time and effort to learn and achieve things, as often the crank hasn't and won't. Do you say to your doctor "Well I'm not listening to you, all you've got is so called 'credentials'."? I doubt it.


The scientists may struggle to deal with it but the general population wont.Another usual crank tactic. Rather than provide justification and reasoning for your claim, so as to follow the scientific method, you try to go to the general public to swindle people who can't spot your lies so easily. Its an attempt to make science a popularity contest, which is ironic because you're complaining science clings to models popular with scientists, rather than what's true.


And whats more you have already demonstrated why...Yes, I've demonstrated you're going to fail with scientists because I'd demonstrated you're intellectually dishonest, have clear massive shortfalls in your knowledge and ability and are willing to misrepresent scientific work, on the rare occasions you actually read some science. All of those don't go down well in the scientific community. Naivety is one thing, deliberate deception and wilful ignorance are entirely something else and you have all three in spades. If I'm wrong about this please answer my questions about how you're in any position to be able to honestly and impartially evaluate any submissions to your challenge or to say "Science says..." or "The mainstream model of the photon implies..." when you have absolutely no understanding of what the mainstream says. Do you still think the mainstream says E=mc^{2} applies to a photon?

but I see a lot of people talking about the electric field and the magnetic field as if they're two totally different thingsPerhaps you should stop talking to laypersons because no one in the mainstream physics community for about 150 years has treated electric and magnetic fields are fundamental separate. Maxwell unified them in the 1800s, electrodynamics demonstrates their interplay under Lorentz transformations and their dynamics follow from the simplest non-trivial gauge theory possible.

Stop reading pop science books and open a textbook once in a while. You might learn something.


Then you can pick up on the mathematics to take it further. Is that what you tell yourself, you've got all the right qualitative understanding, you just fill in the quantitative stuff later? Hasn't worked for you thus far.

QQ {who asked how big is a photon and James replied} It doesn't have a well-defined size. ... Experiment is always the final arbiter of the accuracy of a model.


... Q: How big is a photon?
A: It doesn't have a size. You might think of it as being as long as its wavelength and with a given amplitude,...I think James I will need to count this as your error number 4, but it does depend upon exactly what you mean by "well-defined" so you can, with some shame in you face, wiggle out. Farsight though has no "wiggle room" - he is just plain wrong.

Both go here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52
to see how to measure the length of photons. I did this measurement and mine, from a modest pressure sodium lamp, were ~30 cm long.

Some from low pressure lamps are more than a meter. If also, in addition to being from a very low pressure source with few collisions during their upper state life time, that lifetime is very long lived, they can be many meters long.

For example, the "oxygen green line" produced in the Northern Lights is actual a first order forbidden line - impossible to produce in the laboratory so it's photons are many meters long. (Not impossible because they are long, but because the volume of source required is more than a very large building to get detectable light.)

I.e. in this very low density, very low transition probability, case the radiating atoms are all with exactly the same energy levels so the spread in the energy is determined by the uncertainty principle's Delta E x Delta T product.

I.e. the radiated wavelength is extremely narrow - a very "sharp" spectral line. If you know any Fourier analysis, any extremely well defined wavelength implies a huge number of cycles - I.e. to be so well defined ALL the photons from that source MUST be many meters long and exactly the same length.

AFAIK, it is impossible to measure the length of a single photon. Perhaps all are many meters long, but a measurable collection of them has an energy spread so appears / behaves as if shorter when its length is measured as described in the above link. I.e. measured spectral lines do have a width. Probably the correct classical POV when "collisions" occur during the radiation process so the upper energy level is constantly changing then the "front" of the photon will have a slightly different frequency than the "tail end" of the photon. I.e. each photon would have an energy spread but might be quite long.

... I'm just an amateur, but I see a lot of people talking about the electric field and the magnetic field as if they're two totally different things, ...Static fields in any one reference frame are two totally different things. There is no magnetic field produced by a static set of charges - only an electric field; however in any other frame these charges are moving so both fields are present.

Are you familiar with sarcasm?

And I note you ignored where I explicitly demonstrated you don't know what the mainstream community says about the photon. [It is saying a lot of different things and appears totally confused] You asked "How can a photon exist with out compromising E=mc^2 ? ", making it clear you don't know even what equations apply to the photon or how its described. [hey! I didn't need to invent dark energy and matter, 98% missing, just to make up for the error ! You did!] You obviously don't have a firm grasp of what physicists say and yet you claim you know "that the photon is being inconsitently described" [sic]. [you only have to read this thread and it becomes totally obvious or can't you read?] You've set up a challenge to science you haven't read and declared yourself the judge. [ utterly false - link required ] You couldn't explain why you're suitable to be a judge, given you lack knowledge, understanding and impartiality. You couldn't provide a reference to your claim the photon is modelled inconsistently. How can you even make that claim when in the same post you demonstrate you haven't even read how the photon is described!

Come on QQ, even you should grasp this. You've made is abundantly clear you haven't looked at how the photon is modelled or any experiments involving it so your claims about the mainstream are based on your ignorance and bias. And this isn't me being hateful or anything, its a justifiable opinion about your level of knowledge given your posts. I asked you to explain why you're a suitable judge of your challenge and also why you're in any way in a position to judge my abilities and contributions to physics when you don't know my work, even if you did you'd not understand it and you have made no contribution to any area of science yourself. You try to insult me by saying "Despite your so called credentials and expertise". My 'so called credentials' aren't qualifications from a diploma mill or a dodgy correspondence course in some dubious subject like 'surfing' or 'David Beckham studies', they are from actual well respected universities in academic and relevant (to this forum) areas. So they are not 'so called credentials', they are credentials. You're not the first to try insulting me for having qualifications, for having put in years of time and effort and achieving something. Cranks often have a chip on their shoulder about people who are willing to put in time and effort to learn and achieve things, as often the crank hasn't and won't. Do you say to your doctor "Well I'm not listening to you, all you've got is so called 'credentials'."? I doubt it.

Another usual crank tactic. Rather than provide justification and reasoning for your claim, so as to follow the scientific method, you try to go to the general public to swindle people who can't spot your lies so easily. Its an attempt to make science a popularity contest, which is ironic because you're complaining science clings to models popular with scientists, rather than what's true.

Yes, I've demonstrated you're going to fail with scientists because I'd demonstrated you're intellectually dishonest, have clear massive shortfalls in your knowledge and ability and are willing to misrepresent scientific work, on the rare occasions you actually read some science. All of those don't go down well in the scientific community. Naivety is one thing, deliberate deception and wilful ignorance are entirely something else and you have all three in spades. If I'm wrong about this please answer my questions about how you're in any position to be able to honestly and impartially evaluate any submissions to your challenge or to say "Science says..." or "The mainstream model of the photon implies..." when you have absolutely no understanding of what the mainstream says. Do you still think the mainstream says E=mc^{2} applies to a photon?
assessment: 2/10: No useful content and fails to add anyting of value to this threads topic. | fail

It is off topic but whats a guy gotta do when falsely accused such as this:
Reagarding the Photon Challenge you can add another challenge that is
that Alphanumeric provide evidence to support his credibility attacks in future. Spewing verbal crap about what someone has said with out support is terribly dishonest IMO. The fact that the moderators are allowing him to make his unsupported allegations is truely one of concern. Poster Alphanumeric is probably a high quality software package that is designed to do exatly what IT is doing until banned which will eventually after a heap of pain, be the case.

You have claimed that I intend to be the judge of The Photon Challenge.

Provide links and quotatons that state this please and be assessed by the board [ peer review ]
here is the op you refer to :

A new web site is currently being developed by myself to allow persons to provide evidence of a photon particle or wave that is free of dependancy on massive objects or objects of mass.
The evidence must unambiguously show that a photon actually travels from point A to point B across a vacumous space in a way that unambiguously demonstrates that independance of the measuring device or sensor. The full details will be made available when the site is published.
The prize currently being offerred is $100 usd. This is over the next few months expected to grow as the money makers/media and marketers decide to move on a good proposition. As the site firms up, so to will the legal requirements such as prize money trust account and methodology in assessing responses.
The intention is to highlight that the light effect model has not been evidenced in a way that excludes alternative possibilities for the effects presented to scientists. It is not the object of the challenge to offer an alternative but to open the door to the possibility of such.

The web site domain name is www.photonchallenge.com and is currently a non commercial site being developed under username/password protected security. However depending on demand the site may become commercial in the forseeable future.

http://photonchallenge.com/images/joomla_logo_black.jpg

This has occurred primarilly due to the demonstrated incredible devotion to a possibly flawed model simply because of what may be realised in the near future as an observational over sight.
If persons wish to donate to the prize pool which will be refundable upon failure of anyone winning it with in a minimum 12 month offer period, please contact me by PM.
Obviously I am confident that the evidence required is impossible to present.
Yet this fact seems to fall on deaf ears belonging to those who need to hear it the most.

the slogan "show me the photon" may yet make world headlines.....

I clearly indicated that the terms and conditions of assessment were yet to be determined. Also the means by which lodgement of claim can be made, whether in an open special forum to facilitate transperancy or by independent application via email to avoid morons from truth suppression interest groups such as JREF from flaming the board.
The Photon Challenge when published must meet transperancy requirements which are currently being assessed.

You have made numerous unsupported accusations in an attempt to destroy credibility. You will stand in front of you peers and be judged accordingly.
Sorry board memebers but the fact that I have to defend myself from such vitriol is exactly why the Photon Challenge has been launched.
Deliberately motivated truth suppression tactics and one wonders how to get on the payroll that seems to be funding it.

I'm sorry everybody. This should be a privet message but, in light of the circumstances, I found it important to make my opinion public.

So let me get this strait. I commented on a post of yours which you later deleted and yet you still commented on my post to make me out to be the ass.

What a crooked thing to do. Listen, there are a few posts on this forum that I'd like to take back as well but, there they are. I said it and now I have to face the music when the occasion arises. That's twice now (in this thread) where I've commented on a post of yours that you've deleted. Why should I ever reply to your posts again? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Please, think about what you are saying before you post it (you have all the time in the world) so that this does not happen again. Thank you.
.
QQ. If you feel the need to reply to this post then please, do it by PM. Anything less would be "inappropriate for this level of discussion".
if you were able to read my posts and respond which you appeared to not be able to do so I would have let them remain. Leaving my posts there would have served no purpose other than confusion.
You failed to show any relevance to the posts or any ineterest in resolving the issues presented.

I note you still haven't responded to the fundamental questions I asked regarding the "Duration" of the "half circle" you recommended as analoguous to the photons size at t=0

And if you can not understand the question above then I see no point further discussing this with you in this thread. Perhaps you would like to start another?
I also note that Alphanumeric has yet to demonstrate any grasp of the complexity of clarifying the definition and description of the photon in a way that clarifies all confusion ...he can't and he knows it, and as usual resorting to credibility attacks, and slander instead, to deflect suspicion of his own inadequacies when highlighted.

He is not a scientist who has any interest in science or furthering understanding of the photon for the benefit of the boards collective and the world generally.

Try this for size:
Contention:
the equation E=mc^2 is an absolutely absolute equation [ universally]. It has no exceptions available except to those who don't understand how to apply it properly or those who wish to compromise that absoluteness to serve some other inferior purpose. And No I don't have the technical expertise to detail why you are allowing an absolute equation to be compromised. That is your job not mine.
What say you: Actinoids?
this is in part, Why the Photon challenge (http://photonchallenge.com)!

To Quantum Quack:

You were provided with good proof long ago by me that an energy packet does travel between point S and D (source and detector) but you welshed on the pay out. Now you seem to be requiring this be done without any matter being involved. I.e. you say:

"... A new web site is currently being developed by myself to allow persons to provide evidence of a photon particle or wave that is free of dependancy on massive objects or objects of mass. ..."

With this new requirement you are obviously safe for paying anyone as all experiments in physic do need some masses or "objects" Only philosophy can conduct experiments without masses in objects - I.e. pure thought experiments (and even they are about some objects.)

In my procedure for measuring the length of photons there is only a slight change in the configuration of the masses, so that in my case one of two possible paths between S & D was progressively increased 30 cm.

Here again is my proof: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52

You foolishly and stubbornly refuse to admit that changing ONLY the path length does PROVE that something is traveling that path. When I first proved that there is an energy packet passing between S & D by this demonstrated great change in D produced ONLY by change in the space / path between S & D you refused to pay up - exactly as I predicted you would. I still and quite confident you will continue to welsh on the payment. Perhaps now because I do use some objects?

PS James R & Farsight need to read post 100 which has been quickly push back by QQ's long posts.

To Quantum Quack:

You were provided with good proof long ago by me that an energy packet does travel between point S and D (source and detector) but you welshed on the pay out. Now you seem to be requiring this be done without any matter being involved. I.e. you say:

"... A new web site is currently being developed by myself to allow persons to provide evidence of a photon particle or wave that is free of dependancy on massive objects or objects of mass. ..."

With this new requirement you are obviously safe for paying anyone as all experiments in physic do need some masses or "objects" Only philosophy can conduct experiments without masses in objects - I.e. pure thought experiments (and even they are about some objects.)

In my procedure for measuring the length of photons there is only a slight change in the configuration of the masses, so that in my case one of two possible paths between S & D was progressively increased 30 cm.

Here again is my proof: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52

You foolishly and stubbornly refuse to admit that changing ONLY the path length does PROVE that something is traveling that path. When I first proved that there is an energy packet passing between S & D by this demonstrated great change in D produced ONLY by change in the space / path between S & D you refused to pay up - exactly as I predicted you would. I still and quite confident you will continue to welsh on the payment. Perhaps now because I do use some objects?

PS James R & Farsight need to read post 100 which has been quickly push back by QQ's long posts.
you "proof " will be assessed along with others when the time comes and maybe the $100.usd could be considerably more then.

You have stated two things :
1.

With this new requirement you are obviously safe for paying anyone as all experiments in physic do need some masses or "objects" Only philosophy can conduct experiments without masses in objects - I.e. pure thought experiments (and even they are about some objects.)
and then:
2.

I still and quite confident you will continue to welsh on the payment. Perhaps now because I do use some objects?

so who is acting foolishly?

The challenge has always been to show the photon in a way that removes the ambiguity created by the necessity of mass involvement in any experiment or measurement of photon activity.
As you rightly state this is not possible to do. Yet you FAIL to realise what that means to science and it's future.
When you can elliminate the possibility that the photon is a myth by removing the possibility of light being derived from an effect of mass then and only then will you not only get the award offered but a Nobel as well, no doubt.

So dig deep before you accuse me of fraud again..
any ways it appears the photon is a myth even unto science regarding what it is etc ect as proved by this thread. And science has had over 100 years to clear things up and it hasn't simply because the photon simply does not exist other than as a property, value or quality of mass.

you have a chance to prove me wrong but you can't....

... you FAIL to realise what that means to science and it's future. ...No. I realize that if one can not have any matter anywhere in your experiments, NOTHING can be proven and no science can exist.
It is you who do not seem to realize the implications of disallowing matter anywhere in experiments.

I only changed the length of the space between source S & D, to make a profound change in the detector D, but did have some matter as all experiments must.

No. I realize that if one can not have any matter anywhere in your experiments, NOTHING can be proven and no science can exist.
It is you who do not seem to realize the implications of disallowing matter anywhere in experiments.

I only changed the length of the space between source S & D, to make a profound change in the detector D, but did have some matter as all experiments must.
so what does it tell you about the light effect model. That the photon could very well be a myth? oh no!

take it up in the thread running if you like as it is off topic here...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=102307

I only changed the length of the space between source S & D, to make a profound change in the detector D, but did have some matter as all experiments must.
the results may actually prove very valuable when a new approach to the light effect take shape as obviously "mass" distance* has exactly the same bearing on the effect as if a photon existed.


*mass distance: distance determined by mass [ i.e a rule made of steel] as vacuum in itself can not be used to measure anything ~ just a distinction worth emphasising IMO

If Quantum Quack gets to hijack a topic in the Physics section to go on yet another rant about his hatred for photon theory, do I get to post links to the threads where his reasons for hating this theory are explained? Can I link to the threads where he complained about members on this board attacking him with psychic mindshocks, and how he needed to disprove quantum mechanics to show that such attacks were actually possible?

so what does it tell you about the light effect model. That the photon could very well be a myth? oh no!Certainly not that it is a myth. Fact that a great change in the detector occurred when all I did was to change some empty space tells me something was passing thru that empty space.

Other experiments show this "something" is transporting energy. For example, sunlight passing from sun to my body on the beach makes it warm until some object, like a cloud, enters into the space thru which those solar energy packets were passing. You are just welching on your offer - as I predicted you would.

If Quantum Quack gets to hijack a topic in the Physics section to go on yet another rant about his hatred for photon theory, do I get to post links to the threads where his reasons for hating this theory are explained? Can I link to the threads where he complained about members on this board attacking him with psychic mindshocks, and how he needed to disprove quantum mechanics to show that such attacks were actually possible?
hey I tried.... all I asked was how big a photon was...
and the rest is history...

actually you only have to explain the mechanism behind quantum entanglements and tunneling and you have your answer....
but alas this is for another thread and another day.

Certainly not that it is a myth. Fact that a great change in the detector occurred when all I did was to change some empty space tells me something was passing thru that empty space.

Other experiments show this "something" is transporting energy. For example, sunlight passing from sun to my body on the beach makes it warm until some object, like a cloud, enters into the space thru which those solar energy packets were passing. You are just welching on your offer - as I predicted you would.
please take it the approproate thread Billy T.
refer previous post as to why you can't see the answer to your problem.
Any ways all you have to do is provide the evidence as requested with out whinging about the how's and why for's of an alternative model and the money is yours.
hint: what happens to the entanglement when a "cloud" passes in between the two 1/2 particles?

I think James I will need to count this as your error number 4, but it does depend upon exactly what you mean by "well-defined" so you can, with some shame in you face, wiggle out. Farsight though has no "wiggle room" - he is just plain wrong. Both go here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52
to see how to measure the length of photons. I did this measurement and mine, from a modest pressure sodium lamp, were ~30 cm long.I read it and the rest of your post, but it doesn't say anything about how wide they are.

Edit: I've just read the rest of thread, and feel moved to say this - we won't all agree about everything, and if we did there wouldn't be any point discussing anything. But come on guys, try to keep it friendly. I've tried to put something up that I hope will help as regards this photon discussion, namely a new thread entitled The electromagnetic field (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=102392). There's some clear evidence concerning the nature of the electromagnetic field that gives a robust indication as to the nature of the photon.

QQ’s theory is that photons don’t exist. This despite they have several observable properties. Such as:

(1)Wavelength (or frequency) measured by grading spectrometers of more precisely by interferometers.
(2) Energy, measured by heating when there are many or by the max electron ejection energy in the photo-electric effect individually
(3) Momentum, measured by and in practical use now by recently launched Japanese “solar sailing” satellite.
(4) Length, measured by the interferometer as I described in link twice given now. (mine were 30 cm long).
(5) Speed of propagation, measured by dozens of different ways and known in vacuum to at least 6 significant figures (possible 10 – I’m too lazy to check) Also the very well confirmed Maxwell’s equations predict from only laboratory measurements of the magnetic permeability and dielectric constant of vacuum both the existence of EM waves (later discovered by Hertz) and a speed which is in complete agreement with this measured speed (of the nothing, which is not going between, of course. :rolleyes: )
(6) The discrete nature of optical EM waves as shown in the photo-electric effect. Especially with fast, electro-optical shutter in the path and such low intensity that only one photon exists at any one time. Very strange with nothing going between that electrons are ejected ONLY after a fixed delay from the shutter open time as it is in the path where there is nothing going thru it according to QQ. Just more magic as the explanation.

Strange that from same source, the results of these ALL these measurements are always the same – especially if QQ were correct and photons did not exist. Where are these correct, consistent, "answers" stored? (Perhaps in the "Handbook of Magic"?)

Note (5), speed of propagation, is true of all EM waves, in vacuum for all wave lengths, even those with frequencies of radars or gamma “rays.”

Also strange in QQ’s theory is how the separation between source, S, and detector, D. can possibly be known if nothing goes between.

For example the moon is slowly receding from the Earth as predicted by theory, measured first by noting the location where ancient total solar eclipses did occur (the Chinese cities that saw them). More recently in less than a month’s observation with precise timing of laser light reflected by the retro-reflector left on the moon by astronauts (and very precise timing clocks) In this case the S & D are approximately next to each other and the D responds after an exact delay which depends upon how far the moon is away from the Earth, but of course QQ is correct :rolleyes: – it is by magic that these massive bodies make that delay, to femto second accuracy, reflect their constantly changing separation. (Moon' orbit is not circular.) – Nothing is actually traveling up to the retro-reflector on the moon and then returning to D. :rolleyes:

The real conclusion of all this is that:
QQ is intellectually dishonest and welching on his offer;
as I predicted he would. IMHO, he should be permanently banned from making any scientific comments at least. Science REJECTS MAGIC.

QQ’s theory is that photons don’t exist. This despite they have several observable properties. Such as:

(1)Wavelength (or frequency) measured by grading spectrometers of more precisely by interferometers.
(2) Energy, measures by heating when there are many or by the max electron ejection energy in the photo-electric effect individually
(3) Momentum, measured by and in practical use now by recently launched Japanese “solar sailing” satellite.
(4) Length, measured by the interferometer as I described in link twice given now. (mine were 30 cm long).
(5) Speed of propagation, measured by dozens of different ways and known in vacuum to at least 6 significant figures (possible 10 – I’m too lazy to check) Also the very well confirmed Maxwell’s equations predict from only laboratory measurements of the magnetic permeability and dielectric constant of vacuum both the existence of EM waves (later discovered by Hertz) and a speed which is in complete agreement with this measured speed (of the nothing, which is not going between, of course. :rolleyes: )
(6) The discrete nature of optical EM waves as shown in the photo-electric effect.

Strange that from same source, the results of these ALL these measurements are always the same – especially if QQ were correct and photons did not exist. Where are these correct, consistent, "answers" stored? (Perhaps in the "Handbook of Magic"?)

Note (5), speed of propagation, is true of all EM waves, in vacuum for all wave lengths, even those with frequencies of radars or gamma “rays.”

Also strange in QQ’s theory is how the separation between source, S, and detector, D. can possibly be known if nothing goes between.

For example the moon is slowly receding from the Earth as predicted by theory, measured first by noting the location where ancient total solar eclipses did occur (the Chinese cities that saw them). More recently in less than a month’s observation with precise timing of laser light reflected by the retro-reflector left on the moon by astronauts (and very precise timing clocks) In this case the S & D are approximately next to each other and the D responds after an exact delay which depends upon how far the moon is away from the Earth, but of course QQ is correct :rolleyes: – it is by magic that these massive bodies make that delay, to femto second accuracy, reflect their constantly changing separation. (Moon' orbit is not circular.) – Nothing is actually traveling up to the retro-reflector on the moon and then returning to D. :rolleyes:

The real conclusion of all this is that:
QQ is intellectually dishonest and welching on his offer;
as I predicted he would. IMHO, he should be permanently banned from making any scientific comments at least. Science REJECTS MAGIC.

Evidence as requested Billy T and the money is yours.

when you get round to applying that fantastic brain of yours to the problem instead of whinging, you might actually see something you can't at the moment.

Like the last few posts ...how big does a hint have to be...font size 250px maybe....

look Billy T if you really want me to post details you are wasting your time...call me any name you want to ..the evidence will be made public globally first before I bother publishing any further detail.
any ways I don't take too kindly to false accusations of fraud so you'll have to go back to the end of the line with Alphanumeric and a few others.
I have asked for evidence as descibed in the thread link posted..

This thread is about light and so far no one has decribed it in full and adequately even to suit your own needs after 100 years of trying...sheesh! So don't talk to me about fraud.
It's not my job to explain why you can't do your job ..that's for you to do

Now either stick to the topic or I am sure JamesR will lock the thread....which is probably what you want any way.
I'll withdraw my compliment as well...
as you seem to consider I give them lightly.

so Billy T back on topic,
How wide is a photon do you reckon?

the results may actually prove very valuable when a new approach to the light effect take shape as obviously "mass" distance* has exactly the same bearing on the effect as if a photon existed....Again more magic as the effect of Mass-Distance on the interference screen (or D1) is the SAME regardless of whether the mirror in top left of drawing is moved closer or further from the detector.

I.e. the Mass-Distance law does not depend upon the distance but knows by Magic to make the same effect that photons would exhibit.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Mach-zender-interferometer.png

with full discussion here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52

Come on guys.

Billy, Quantum Quack said "The photon as described by science does not exist". See his post here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2565494&postcount=85). Alphanumeric, who considers himself to be a qualified physicist, said "A photon is certainly localised into a small region of space, even to a single point" here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2561942&postcount=44). And yet we know from the Double- slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) that interference occurs, so it isn't localised into a small region in space. If it were, the double-slit experiment would be magic. And science rejects magic. Hence this discussion.

Quantum Quack: Just to make sure I haven't misunderstood you, do you accept that electromagnetic waves exist, and that they have a quantum nature as demonstrated by Einstein in On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light (http://www.scribd.com/doc/10571708/Albert-Einstein-On-a-Heuristic-Point-of-View-Concerning-the-Production-and-Transformation-of-Light)?

Again more magic as the effect of Mass-Distance on the interferenc screen is the SAME regardless of whether the mirror in top left of drawing is moved closer or further from the detector.

I.e. the Mass-Distance law does not depend upon the distance but knows by Magic to make the same effect that photons would exhibit.
you just don't get it do you?
For the photon, even according to your own model no time is experienced therefore distance has to be zero. [ it is a zero dimensional point particle after all]

so tell me more about magic....yours that is...

I read it and the rest of your post, but it doesn't say anything about how wide they are. ...Although a large number of photons does follow classical laws, individual photons do not - they follow the laws of quantum mechanics. Some things that seem very sensible from a classical law are not defined and do not really exist in QM theory. For example an electron does not have an exact location and this fact is NOT just that we can not measure it position precisely. Its precise position does not exist so asking where it is precisely in a non-sense question.

I strongly suspect that is also true of your question - I.e. it is fundamentally a non-sense question. - Such as: "Does the tail of a unicorn touch the ground when it stands still?" is a classical non-sense question. And for the same reason I.e. neither unicorn tails not electron positions exist.

Come on guys.

Billy, Quantum Quack said "The photon as described by science does not exist". See his post here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2565494&postcount=85). Alphanumeric, who considers himself to be a qualified physicist, said "A photon is certainly localised into a small region of space, even to a single point" here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2561942&postcount=44). And yet we know from the Double- slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) that interference occurs, so it isn't localised into a small region in space. If it were, the double-slit experiment would be magic. And science rejects magic. Hence this discussion.

Quantum Quack: Just to make sure I haven't misunderstood you, do you accept that electromagnetic waves exist, and that they have a quantum nature as demonstrated by Einstein in On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light (http://www.scribd.com/doc/10571708/Albert-Einstein-On-a-Heuristic-Point-of-View-Concerning-the-Production-and-Transformation-of-Light)?
good post! it is obvious that there is major confusion over the nature of this modelled object.

Now regarding your question.

I can't really answer that in this thread even though I wouuld like to get into it as not only is it off topic what I think or believe but it would serve no purpose other than further confuse people.
Since all the flaming I have got over ths issue in 4 years of attempting to discuss it I have concluded that it is not possible to have a rational discussion on it. The ramifications are way to dramatic to allow it as demonstrated by the hysterics by fellow posters.

Although a large number of photons does follow classical laws, individual photons do not - they follow the laws of quantum mechanics. Some things that seem very sensible from a classical law are not defined and do not really exist in QM theory.I assure you that everything is sensible, even if quantum theory currently lacks an adequate interpretation of the underlying reality.


For example an electron does not have an exact location and this fact is NOT just that we can not measure it position precisely. It precise position does not exist so asking where it is precisely in a non-sense question.There's no problem with that Billy. You'll have heard saying the photon isn't a point particle, and talking about waves and displacement and distortion, and pair production, where we make an electron and a positron out of a photon. So the same applies to the electron. It isn't a point particle either.


I strongly suspect that is also true of your question - I.e. it is fundamentally a non-sense question. - Such as: "Does the tail of a unicorn touch the ground when it stands still?" is a classical non-sense question. And for the same reason I.e. neither unicorn tails not electron positions exist.What question? Surely not the one I asked of QQ? If you're referring to the width of a photon, the photon doesn't have a width. It isn't localised. For a real-world example of what I mean by this, ocean waves aren't localised either. You might think that an ocean wave is a metre high and four metres in wavelength, but under the surface the rotational wave-motion extends to a much greater depth:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Wave_motion-i18n-mod.svg/140px-Wave_motion-i18n-mod.svg.png

... Alphanumeric, who considers himself to be a qualified physicist, said "A photon is certainly localised into a small region of space, even to a single point" here (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2561942&postcount=44). ...I don't doubt he did, many physicists assume that. I did before I became a Graduate student at JHU, which is especially strong in physical optics.

For example the world's first deffraction grading ruling machine was still in the basement when I was there and "Optics" was one of the five qualifying exams before you were allowed to begin your Ph.D. research. Most all, except the high energy physics group students, did something related to physical optics for their Ph.D. I measure the shift and width of radiation lines from Argon ion in a very dense plasma - some of them "collision broadened" by stark effect, were lines more than an Angstrom wide and shifted from their normal wave length by half an Angstrom! The theory for stark effect on ions in a plasma had just been developed by Hans Griem and I provided the first measurements of it.

But to come to the point: Alphanumeric, like many good physicists, may be ignorant of fact that photons have considerable length, but unlike QQ, when shown how this is demonstrated, I am sure he can learn the truth and change. I.e. if he reads: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52 he will change his opinion on this I am confident - he is not stubborn and ignorant as QQ is. I have the impression, that he is much more well versed in the math of physics, than in some of its experiment aspects - Certainly much better than I am in the math of physic.

good post! it is obvious that there is major confusion over the nature of this modelled object.Thanks. Yes, there does seem to be confusion.


Now regarding your question. I can't really answer that in this thread even though I wouuld like to get into it as not only is it off topic what I think or believe but it would serve no purpose other than further confuse people. Since all the flaming I have got over ths issue in 4 years of attempting to discuss it I have concluded that it is not possible to have a rational discussion on it.It is. But you just have to find the right people to discuss it with.


All I will say is that you need to look at what space is properly. You need to say to yourself, If there is nothing there but a "property" called vacuum then what exactly IS there?
Pressure or lack of it is not a substance as most seem to imply in their discussions. The vacuum of space or more correctly the void of space is only what it isn't and not what it is.I have looked into this. Tussled with it even. Space certainly isn't some substance. And nor is energy.


There is no aether, in any form no matter how we try to make one exist it simply doesn't. So in absolutum what does that leave us with?Distance? And changes in distance? Or perhaps that would be better described as gauge change? Or difference? Something that causes "pressure" and "potential" and action and motion? I find it difficult to describe space in terms of anything else, because it's so unique and fundamental. I have a little saying: Space isn't made of anything. Everything is made of it.


Once you grasp the meaning of what I just wrote in full you will start to see something much better than magic.....I hope I've grasped something, and I certainly dislike magic, even quantum magic. Perhaps we won't share a common view on everything, but it's good to talk.

I don't doubt he did, many physicists assume that. I did before I became a Graduate student at JHU, which is especially strong in physical optics.That's great. I'm seeing a lot of interest in photonics these days. One guy sent me Ehrenberg and Siday's The Refractive Index in Electron Optics and the Principles of Dynamics which predicted what's usually called the Aharonov-Bohm effect, this often being presented as an "action at a distance" quantum phenomenum.


For example the world's first deffraction grading ruling machine was still in the basement when I was there and "Optics" was one of the five qualifying exams before you were allowed to begin your Ph.D. research. Most all, except the high energy physics group students, did something related to physical optics for their Ph.D. I measure the shift and width of radiation lines from Argon ion in a very dense plasma - some of the "collision broadened" by stark effect lines were more than an Angstrom wide and shifted from their normal wave length by half an Angstrom! The theory for stark effect on ions in a plasma had just been developed by Hans Griem and I provided the first measurements of it.Brilliant stuff. Hands on. Good man.


But to come to the point: Alphanumeric, like many physicists, may be ignorant of fact that photons have considerable length, but unlike QQ, when shown how this is demonstrated, I am sure he can learn the truth and change. I.e. if he reads: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52 he will change is opinion on this I am confident - he is not stubborn and ignorant as QQ is. I have the impression, that he is much more well versed in the math of physics, than in some of its experiment aspects - Certainly much better than I am in the math of physic.No comment Billy.

... So the same applies to the electron. It isn't a point particle either. ...That is true but it has a center of mass in the clasical POV which should have an exact position, but does not. I.e. the electron differs from the zero mass photon in several ways - can not travel at the speed of light, for example.

No problem Billy.

Apologies, I have to go. Please will you and QQ try to be friendly? I think you do share some common ground, rather more than you might think.

assessment: 2/10: No useful content and fails to add anyting of value to this threads topic. | failI asked you in that post you quoted and in previous posts of mine to justify how you think you're in any position to evaluate the scientific merits of other people's work/posts when you fail to meet the basic standards of science yourself. Rather than reply you say I get a 2/10, thus again demonstrating you think you're in any position to evaluate my scientific comments/contributions but are unable to justify that.


[It is saying a lot of different things and appears totally confusedI asked you for references, where are they? Can't you justify what you say about the mainstream? Surely you're going to need to provide justification for such claims about the mainstream for your website, can't you prove any now?

I have personal experience with the mainstream theories relating to the photon, electromagnetism, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory. There's no 'total confusion', the models of light are extremely successful.


hey! I didn't need to invent dark energy and matter, 98% missing, just to make up for the error ! You did!That in no way responds to my comment. I pointed out that you wondering how the mainstream can say the photon is consistent with E=mc^{2} demonstrated you both don't know what the mainstream says and that you're willing to be deceptive and just make stuff up. The mainstream never said E=mc^{2} applies to the photon, it says E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2} applies to the photon, which has m=0. Look it up. Perhaps if you bothered to find out what the mainstream said you'd realise there's no 'total confusion'.


you only have to read this thread and it becomes totally obvious or can't you read?No, the confusion comes when someone has to explain a very precise but complex theory to someone else who doesn't have much knowledge/experience of physics. By the very nature of using analogies there's only so much you can explain. If I were talking to another theoretical physicist about light I'd not need to use analogies and we'd not be 'totally confused', the exchange of information would be much much faster and much much more precise. You need to have people spoon feed you because you can't or won't learn it for yourself and you then think that if you get confused its because physicists are confused, rather than you being at fault. There's no confusion in the physics community, you simply can't accept the shortcomings lie with you.


utterly false - link requiredYou've already dismissed submissions, so you're acting as judge. You also made up the criteria without consulting any physicist to find out what the community says. You've had no input from anyone who knows the relevant physics at any step, in fact you've actively ignored it.


that Alphanumeric provide evidence to support his credibility attacks in future.I'm claiming you don't have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the mainstream to formulate your challenge properly and fairly. That's a response to your position, not a positive position in and of itself. Can you provide evidence you do have sufficient understanding of the mainstream community to formulate an honest challenge?


pewing verbal crap about what someone has said with out support is terribly dishonest IMO.Your comment about the photon and E=mc^{2} is evidence for my comments about your knowledge. All the previous times you and I have crossed paths you've failed to show any real understanding and have ignored corrections by anyone who does. Can you provide a link to any post of yours where you demonstrate what you'd consider a high degree of understanding for any particular area of physics?


The fact that the moderators are allowing him to make his unsupported allegations is truely one of concernIt's a 'concern' that I point out when you misrepresent the mainstream community?


Poster Alphanumeric is probably a high quality software package Brilliant, complain I'm making 'unsupported allegations', which is a 'concern', and then make one of your own! Not only that but your 'allegation' (not that I'd call it that personally) would mean, if true, you can ignore me as why bother arguing with a software routine?

You're really grasping at straws with this one!


You have made numerous unsupported accusations in an attempt to destroy credibility.You seem to be assuming you have credibility to begin with. Credibility is earnt. If you want credibility in regards to your views of physics then you need to demonstrate you have informed views. You demonstrate the opposite in every thread about physics you post in. You never had any credibility.


orry board memebers but the fact that I have to defend myself from such vitriol is exactly why the Photon Challenge has been launched.You seem to have a tendency to exaggerate. You've previously said I show 'hatred', that my comments are unbecoming a human being, that I'm 'vitriolic'. You seriously over estimate how much thought I give to you and other cranks here. You're amusement, you don't incite hatred in me, I hold you in vague contempt (I consider intellectual dishonesty and wilful ignorance as extremely bad traits a person can have). I have no reason to hate you because I have little interest in you or your opinions and I can't have strong feelings about something I barely acknowledge. Cranks often want to convince themselves I 'hate' them because it means they are worrying me or 'rocking my world' but not one crank has even caused the slightest tremor in my world view. Take Reiku for instance, he likes to think I have some special interest in him, that I worry he might be smarter than me and hence my jealousy becomes hatred and that's why I'm unpleasant to him. Not only do I think he is far too stupid to ever do anything in science beyond high school level but he's entertaining. I didn't reply to his threads a lot out of loathing, I enjoyed slapping him about. Same goes for my replies to Farsight, he isn't endangering science I've done, he's amusement. I think all of you just need to accept no one really gives a hoot about your whinings about science.

I asked you in that post you quoted and in previous posts of mine to justify how you think you're in any position to evaluate the scientific merits of other people's work/posts when you fail to meet the basic standards of science yourself. Rather than reply you say I get a 2/10, thus again demonstrating you think you're in any position to evaluate my scientific comments/contributions but are unable to justify that.

I asked you for references, where are they? Can't you justify what you say about the mainstream? Surely you're going to need to provide justification for such claims about the mainstream for your website, can't you prove any now?

I have personal experience with the mainstream theories relating to the photon, electromagnetism, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory. There's no 'total confusion', the models of light are extremely successful.

That in no way responds to my comment. I pointed out that you wondering how the mainstream can say the photon is consistent with E=mc^{2} demonstrated you both don't know what the mainstream says and that you're willing to be deceptive and just make stuff up. The mainstream never said E=mc^{2} applies to the photon, it says E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2} applies to the photon, which has m=0. Look it up. Perhaps if you bothered to find out what the mainstream said you'd realise there's no 'total confusion'.

No, the confusion comes when someone has to explain a very precise but complex theory to someone else who doesn't have much knowledge/experience of physics. By the very nature of using analogies there's only so much you can explain. If I were talking to another theoretical physicist about light I'd not need to use analogies and we'd not be 'totally confused', the exchange of information would be much much faster and much much more precise. You need to have people spoon feed you because you can't or won't learn it for yourself and you then think that if you get confused its because physicists are confused, rather than you being at fault. There's no confusion in the physics community, you simply can't accept the shortcomings lie with you.

You've already dismissed submissions, so you're acting as judge. You also made up the criteria without consulting any physicist to find out what the community says. You've had no input from anyone who knows the relevant physics at any step, in fact you've actively ignored it.

I'm claiming you don't have sufficient knowledge and understanding of the mainstream to formulate your challenge properly and fairly. That's a response to your position, not a positive position in and of itself. Can you provide evidence you do have sufficient understanding of the mainstream community to formulate an honest challenge?

Your comment about the photon and E=mc^{2} is evidence for my comments about your knowledge. All the previous times you and I have crossed paths you've failed to show any real understanding and have ignored corrections by anyone who does. Can you provide a link to any post of yours where you demonstrate what you'd consider a high degree of understanding for any particular area of physics?

It's a 'concern' that I point out when you misrepresent the mainstream community?

Brilliant, complain I'm making 'unsupported allegations', which is a 'concern', and then make one of your own! Not only that but your 'allegation' (not that I'd call it that personally) would mean, if true, you can ignore me as why bother arguing with a software routine?

You're really grasping at straws with this one!

You seem to be assuming you have credibility to begin with. Credibility is earnt. If you want credibility in regards to your views of physics then you need to demonstrate you have informed views. You demonstrate the opposite in every thread about physics you post in. You never had any credibility.

You seem to have a tendency to exaggerate. You've previously said I show 'hatred', that my comments are unbecoming a human being, that I'm 'vitriolic'. You seriously over estimate how much thought I give to you and other cranks here. You're amusement, you don't incite hatred in me, I hold you in vague contempt (I consider intellectual dishonesty and wilful ignorance as extremely bad traits a person can have). I have no reason to hate you because I have little interest in you or your opinions and I can't have strong feelings about something I barely acknowledge. Cranks often want to convince themselves I 'hate' them because it means they are worrying me or 'rocking my world' but not one crank has even caused the slightest tremor in my world view. Take Reiku for instance, he likes to think I have some special interest in him, that I worry he might be smarter than me and hence my jealousy becomes hatred and that's why I'm unpleasant to him. Not only do I think he is far too stupid to ever do anything in science beyond high school level but he's entertaining. I didn't reply to his threads a lot out of loathing, I enjoyed slapping him about. Same goes for my replies to Farsight, he isn't endangering science I've done, he's amusement. I think all of you just need to accept no one really gives a hoot about your whinings about science.
uhm just wondering when you may actualy be interested in discussing the topic or providing input into the issues for the benefit of the readers and yourself?

Let's discuss the mass-energy-momentum relationship and the photon. You asked how the photon can be consistent with E=mc^{2}. I've repeatedly pointed out that the mainstream never said that, the mainstream said something different. I'm trying to get you to discuss what you think the mainstream says about the photon. You're refusing because you know if you did discuss it you'd make it clear to everyone you haven't a clue what the mainstream says.

Let's discuss the mass-energy-momentum relationship and the photon. You asked how the photon can be consistent with E=mc^{2}. I've repeatedly pointed out that the mainstream never said that, the mainstream said something different. I'm trying to get you to discuss what you think the mainstream says about the photon. You're refusing because you know if you did discuss it you'd make it clear to everyone you haven't a clue what the mainstream says.
Alphanumeric, You may think other wise but I am not totally with out intelligence.
Of course mainstream must conclude a non issue regarding the issue of consistency with E=mc^2 after all the photon is modelled is it not?

I was not quoting mainstream with my question, after all why would I do that?
I was deliberately asking for how this is so?

How mainstream can take an absolute universal equation such as this one and allow an exception with out expecting an absolute equation to be come less than absolute?

Accordingly the photon is an exception and does not apply nor does it infringe upon the equation.

But IMO it should and it doesn't which I find perplexing due to the nature of an absolute universal equation such as E=mc^2.
So the photon which can not be proved to exist independent of mass is a special case. Why? That is all I asked.
further:
What forces us to accept that it's special status is necessary?
What is the imperative that drives the need to exempt it from having mass as required by the equation?
And presuming that it can't be evidenced to be as commonly described why should I or any novice or erudite layperson believe you?

You will eventually find, I suspect that this is only the case due to the fact that no other possible alternative was available at the time of successfully creating the photoelectric model. [circa 1905]

Alphanumeric, You may think other wise but I am not totally with out intelligence.And yet you come out with :


How mainstream can take an absolute universal equation such as this one and allow an exception with out expecting an absolute equation to be come less than absolute?

Accordingly the photon is an exception and does not apply nor does it infringe upon the equation.
I've told you and other people have told you in this very thread that E=mc^{2} is a special case of the actual 'universal equation', E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}. For all on-shell particles that equation is true, the electron, the photon, the graviton, the Higgs boson, everything. For particles with no mass you have m=0 and the equation becomes E=pc. If you use De Broglie's formula for p you get E = hf. That's the equation for the photon energy! Its all consistent! E=mc^{2} comes from E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2} if you set p=0. But you can't set p=0 for a particle with no mass because particles with no mass always move at the speed of light. Thus E=mc^{2} is the equation you get for a particle with mass at rest. Any particle which is moving will not[b] obey E=mc^{2} because E=mc^{2} is about [b]REST MASS.

You have just demonstrated you not only won't read what the mainstream says but even when more than one person spells it out for you in this thread you don't get it. And yet you think you're worth listening to when you complain about the mainstream?! You clearly haven't got a clue what the mainstream says. Someone with only 30 minutes of reading about energy and mass on Wikipedia wouldn't make the mistakes you are!

And yet you come out with :

I've told you and other people have told you in this very thread that E=mc^{2} is a special case of the actual 'universal equation', E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}. For all on-shell particles that equation is true, the electron, the photon, the graviton, the Higgs boson, everything. For particles with no mass you have m=0 and the equation becomes E=pc. If you use De Broglie's formula for p you get E = hf. That's the equation for the photon energy! Its all consistent! E=mc^{2} comes from E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2} if you set p=0. But you can't set p=0 for a particle with no mass because particles with no mass always move at the speed of light. Thus E=mc^{2} is the equation you get for a particle with mass at rest. Any particle which is moving will not[b] obey E=mc^{2} because E=mc^{2} is about [b]REST MASS.

You have just demonstrated you not only won't read what the mainstream says but even when more than one person spells it out for you in this thread you don't get it. And yet you think you're worth listening to when you complain about the mainstream?! You clearly haven't got a clue what the mainstream says. Someone with only 30 minutes of reading about energy and mass on Wikipedia wouldn't make the mistakes you are!
I understand your angst, but you are like most scientists, presuming that massless particles exist when they don't so all the equation variations you have cited are by default just mathematical contiviances explaining an observation of an effect demonstrated by mass and using mass.

The photon Challenge is about highlighting this presumption as it is so entrenched that any question is immediately buried with the presumption of an objects existence when this has never been evidenced independant of mass.

The existence of a massless particle has to be evidenced first independant of mass before it has any "legs" with me at all.
Of course an imaginary massless particle can have any attributes needed to support the belief in it's existence.

Ah so you complain about how the mainstream fiddle the equations until someone points out you don't know what the mainstream say about equations and suddenly you change your tune and all the equations are "just mathematical contiviance" anyway.....

Great backtracking there QQ. You've realised you have demonstrated your ignorance and now you're making excuses. The fact remains you just demonstrated you have no clue what the mainstream says, whether or not the equations are "just mathematical contiviances" is irrelevant to your claims about how the mainstream are 'totally confused'. How can you possibly know what the mainstream is or isn't confused about when you have no clue what it says?

The graviton?
The Higgs Boson?
all theoretical and given the belief in a photon impossible to be revealed nor understood.

The Higgs Boson is an inverse point particle [re: inverse sphere ] and has absolutely no mass unless you consider negative mass a susbstance.
Gravitons do not exist as gravity is just spacial volume collapsing from 3 dimensions toward zero dimensions using time [ energy ] as the governing factor
see..totally off the wall to any one who considers the universe in mechanistic Einstien/Minkowsky terms.

Alphanumeric I know you are fishing. I also know you know that the Higgs has been discounted years ago from being a serious pursuit and the so called Graviton is mere speculation. [ for lack of any alternative ]

The problem is that even if you got all the info you are fishing for you will not be able to do a damn thing with it..you wanna know why?
You wanna know how to open a star gate? or construct a stable wormhole? of uncover the TOE?
sorry to disappoint you but ....

I'll repeat the question I listed in response to your post

The photon which can not be proved to exist independent of mass is a special case. Why? That is all I asked.
further:
What forces us to accept that it's special status is necessary?
What is the imperative that drives the need to exempt it from having mass as required by the equation?
And presuming that it can't be evidenced to be as commonly described why should I or any novice or erudite layperson believe you?
Essentially it is askiing:
Why do we need to have a model that requires massless particles?
What is it that makes it imperative to physics to use massless particles in it's modelling?
This I do not know, from a mainstrem perspective, and I wonder if any one does now that it is lost to time [ since 1905]

Alphanumeric and others that want to use abuse as a way of getting me to divulge information. It wont work the way you want it to as most of what I have been talking about has already been known on this planet for some time but they do not have the final keys to it and that will not be available for comment.
just to tease you even more see if you can read the small print:


A screen shot of the www.zeropointtheory.com web site.


http://photonchallenge.com/images/siteproper/generalimages/zptscs.jpg
and it will not be published until the evidence needed to support is publically demonstratable globally.

The graviton?
The Higgs Boson?
all theoretical and given the belief in a photon impossible to be revealed nor understood.The whistling sound you're probably hearing is my point flying over your head.

My point is that you said "The mainstream says [X] and it also says [Y], how are these compatible?!". In fact the mainstream doesn't say [X] and [Y], you have failed to find out or understand what the mainstream actually says. Since all of your whining is about how you perceive a state of "total confusion" and "inconsistency" in the mainstream the fact you don't know what the mainstream actually says completely undermines your whining.

When I commented that E=mc^{2} doesn't apply to the photon you complained that surely that means the mainstream are making a special case for the photon. To quote you exactly : "How mainstream can take an absolute universal equation such as this one and allow an exception with out expecting an absolute equation to be come less than absolute?". I then had to explain to you AGAIN that E=mc^{2} is not a universal expression, its a particular case of a universal expression. The expression E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2} is applied universally to all particles in mainstream physics and to illustrate that I mentioned particles which are entirely theoretical, the Higgs and the graviton, to demonstrate that all particles, observed and not, have that equation apply to it. So you complaint that physicists claim a universal equation which isn't applied universally is wrong, both on the equation which is said to be universal and also which particles the mainstream applies it to.

Whether or not the Higgs or graviton exist is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the models of them in the mainstream apply 'a universal equation' to them. They do. There's no inconsistency. You are wrong in your claims and understanding of the mainstream. The fact you're now saying "Oh it doesn't matter, they don't have evidence anyway" is irrelevant, you claimed something about how the mainstream models them and thus the only relevant issue is the theoretical models. Which you got wrong.


The Higgs Boson is an inverse point particle [re: inverse sphere ] and has absolutely no mass unless you consider negative mass a susbstance.
Gravitons do not exist as gravity is just spacial volume collapsing from 3 dimensions toward zero dimensions using time [ energy ] as the governing factor
see..totally off the wall to any one who considers the universe in mechanistic Einstien/Minkowsky terms.So its bad for physicists to use logic and rigour to make predictions about gravity and the Higgs but its okay for you to just make shit up? Are you that blind to your hypocrisy?


I also know you know that the Higgs has been discounted years ago from being a serious pursuitAre you deliberately making up lies or do you believe what you're saying? I spent the last 4 years in a physics research group in a university working along side a great many people who examine the Higgs model and calculate the effects such a model would have at the LHC and Fermilab, both of which many of them have visited and/or worked at. You only need to look at the theoretical physics section of www.arxiv.org to see that the Higgs is a serious and active area of research. Last year Fermilab published results which narrows down the range of energies the LHC needs to explore. The main motivation for the LHC is the Higgs boson and the unitary completion of the Standard Model.

I seriously can't understand why you would knowingly lie to someone who has hands on experience of particle physics research about particle physics research!! I know you're used to speaking to people who aren't in the physics research community and thus are unlikely to know what precisely is or isn't taken seriously but you and I have crossed paths enough times for you to know I'm not one of those people. You could lie to me about what is or isn't serious research in biochemistry, I have no real active knowledge about it, but you can't pull the same trick with particle physics research.


and the so called Graviton is mere speculation. [ for lack of any alternative ]Speculation motivated by previous knowledge of particle physics. You obviously think, given what you just said about the Higgs and graviton, that any random speculation is just as valid. You have no clue as to the scientific method.


The problem is that even if you got all the info you are fishing for you will not be able to do a damn thing with it..you wanna know why?What do I need to 'fish' for? You're providing everything up front! You just demonstrated you don't know what the mainstream describes mass-energy-momentum relationships with, you don't know how the mainstream models the photon, you are willing to lie about said things you don't know, you lie to physics researchers about physics research, you have demonstrated a complete lack of integrity and honesty. I don't have to go 'fishing' for anything.


You wanna know how to open a star gate? or construct a stable wormhole? of uncover the TOE?
sorry to disappoint you but .... You're trying to change the subject. I haven't said anything about any of those things and the existence of the Higgs and/or graviton is immaterial to any of those things really. Rather than learning your 'science' from pop science magazines which exaggerate and twist the findings of actual scientists I suggest you read some books and papers. And all of those things are irrelevant to the point I was making, that you don't know what the mainstream says about the photon or anything else. Your challenge stems from what you perceive to be 'total confusion' and 'inconsistency' in the mainstream but since you obviously have no understanding or knowledge of the mainstream your challenge is based on your problems, not the mainstreams. And you're too lacking in maturity and intellectual honesty to accept its your fault you don't understand.

The whistling sound you're probably hearing is my point flying over your head.

My point is that you said "The mainstream says [X] and it also says [Y], how are these compatible?!". In fact the mainstream doesn't say [X] and [Y], you have failed to find out or understand what the mainstream actually says. Since all of your whining is about how you perceive a state of "total confusion" and "inconsistency" in the mainstream the fact you don't know what the mainstream actually says completely undermines your whining.

When I commented that E=mc^{2} doesn't apply to the photon you complained that surely that means the mainstream are making a special case for the photon. To quote you exactly : "How mainstream can take an absolute universal equation such as this one and allow an exception with out expecting an absolute equation to be come less than absolute?". I then had to explain to you AGAIN that E=mc^{2} is not a universal expression, its a particular case of a universal expression. The expression E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2} is applied universally to all particles in mainstream physics and to illustrate that I mentioned particles which are entirely theoretical, the Higgs and the graviton, to demonstrate that all particles, observed and not, have that equation apply to it. So you complaint that physicists claim a universal equation which isn't applied universally is wrong, both on the equation which is said to be universal and also which particles the mainstream applies it to.
I never said that mainstream said this and maintsream said that ....link please. I am asking what mainstream says....


Whether or not the Higgs or graviton exist is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the models of them in the mainstream apply 'a universal equation' to them. They do. There's no inconsistency. You are wrong in your claims and understanding of the mainstream. The fact you're now saying "Oh it doesn't matter, they don't have evidence anyway" is irrelevant, you claimed something about how the mainstream models them and thus the only relevant issue is the theoretical models. Which you got wrong.

See above~

So its bad for physicists to use logic and rigour to make predictions about gravity and the Higgs but its okay for you to just make shit up? Are you that blind to your hypocrisy?
vitriol again....


Are you deliberately making up lies or do you believe what you're saying?
what am I saying again? links please...



I spent the last 4 years in a physics research group in a university working along side a great many people who examine the Higgs model and calculate the effects such a model would have at the LHC and Fermilab, both of which many of them have visited and/or worked at. You only need to look at the theoretical physics section of www.arxiv.org to see that the Higgs is a serious and active area of research. Last year Fermilab published results which narrows down the range of energies the LHC needs to explore. The main motivation for the LHC is the Higgs boson and the unitary completion of the Standard Model.
Looking for a particle that doesn't exist should keep you occupied for another 20 years or so...


I seriously can't understand why you would knowingly lie to someone who has hands on experience of particle physics research about particle physics research!! I know you're used to speaking to people who aren't in the physics research community and thus are unlikely to know what precisely is or isn't taken seriously but you and I have crossed paths enough times for you to know I'm not one of those people. You could lie to me about what is or isn't serious research in biochemistry, I have no real active knowledge about it, but you can't pull the same trick with particle physics research.
links to support your vitriolic allegation please...

Speculation motivated by previous knowledge of particle physics. You obviously think, given what you just said about the Higgs and graviton, that any random speculation is just as valid. You have no clue as to the scientific method.
well said....go on...


What do I need to 'fish' for? You're providing everything up front! You just demonstrated you don't know what the mainstream describes mass-energy-momentum relationships with, you don't know how the mainstream models the photon, you are willing to lie about said things you don't know, you lie to physics researchers about physics research, you have demonstrated a complete lack of integrity and honesty. I don't have to go 'fishing' for anything.
I am not provding everything up front as I said....more to come...


You're trying to change the subject. I haven't said anything about any of those things and the existence of the Higgs and/or graviton is immaterial to any of those things really.
Obviously so to is the photons existence irrelevant to physics. Imagine what would happen if you sent the last 4 years trying to prove the photons existence instead of other more remote objects such as the Higgs or the Graviton?


Rather than learning your 'science' from pop science magazines which exaggerate and twist the findings of actual scientists I suggest you read some books and papers. And all of those things are irrelevant to the point I was making, that you don't know what the mainstream says about the photon or anything else. Your challenge stems from what you perceive to be 'total confusion' and 'inconsistency' in the mainstream but since you obviously have no understanding or knowledge of the mainstream your challenge is based on your problems, not the mainstreams. And you're too lacking in maturity and intellectual honesty to accept its your fault you don't understand.
eh what can I say...just more vitriol

When yout theoretical Higgs Bosun can account for Cosmic Expansion including the length expansion and maintaining the Gravitational constant universally simultaneously, may be we can swap notes about the Higgs again....

until then...

repeat the questions ad nauseum and watches alphanumeric squirm like a worm on a hook as he avoids addressing them by attacking credibility and applying deliberate diversion tatics.


Essentially it is askiing:
Why do we need to have a model that requires massless particles?
What is it that makes it imperative to physics to use massless particles in it's modelling?
This I do not know, from a mainstrem perspective, and I wonder if any one does now that it is lost to time [ since 1905]

Opinion :
E=mc^2 predates E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2} and is by far more pivotal. Afterall the momentum equation is derived from what?
It is also a necessary outcome of relativistic effects determined by ..yep you guessed it.... our modelled only photon.

SRT of course is totally dependent on our photons independence or source and destination mass and it's supposed ability to travel across a void.
Invariance demands this of course as you well know.
so.....take a way the photon and you will need to rework the momentum equation with something surprisingly not that much different. And SRT will become a historical icon just like the photon will.

I never said that mainstream said this and maintsream said that ....link please. I am asking what mainstream says....You asked how the mainstream could be consistent when talking about the photon and also E=mc^{2}. Do you deny this? You said the mainstream is 'totally confused'. I asked you for references but you failed to provide. Do you deny this?


what am I saying again? links please...
I quoted you saying "I also know you know that the Higgs has been discounted years ago from being a serious pursuit ", why do I need o provide a link when I quoted you from the above post?! Its only been an hour or two, don't you remember saying that?


vitriol again....Doesn't negate my point. You've made it clear you're not worth treating politely, you don't listen to anyone who corrects you politely.


Looking for a particle that doesn't exist should keep you occupied for another 20 years or so...Doesn't negate my point. You claimed the Higgs wasn't an area of serious pursuit and you claimed I know it. I've pointed out you are wrong, you are wrong about the mainstream's view of searching for the Higgs and you simply made up the claim I 'know it' too. This isn't me accusing you of lying without evidence, I'm pointing out that you've lied clear as day. Can't you respond to that?


I am not provding everything up front as I said....more to come...You're right, you haven't provided any demonstration you know anything relevant to your claims. And I'm sure there's more ignorance and lies to come from you.


Obviously so to is the photons existence irrelevant to physics. Imagine what would happen if you sent the last 4 years trying to prove the photons existence instead of other more remote objects such as the Higgs or the Graviton?
You still fail to grasp my point. You have made claims about the models involved. You've claimed they are 'totally confused' and 'inconsistent'. You've demonstrated you don't know those models. Thus your claims about them are baseless and simply things you've made up to convince people (mostly yourself) you're right. Again, I ask you to provide two or more models used by the mainstream which are inconsistent.


eh what can I say...just more vitriol
You could explain why you think you're able to evaluate people work you haven't read and which you don't understand. I know you don't like it when people point out you're ignorant of physics but its not 'vitriol' to state the truth, no matter how much it might not be pleasant to hear.


E=mc^2 predates E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2} and is by far more pivotal. Afterall the momentum equation is derived from what?
It is also a necessary outcome of relativistic effects determined by ..yep you guessed it.... our modelled only photon.
In his 1905 paper (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) where he derived the relevant results he goes beyond just E=mc^{2} and provides the energy due to the motion of a particle, m \left( \gamma - 1 \right)c^{2}, which is a different way of writing \sqrt{(mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}} - mc^{2}, in terms of velocity rather than momentum. He does it for an electron. You have again demonstrated you have not looked at what Einstein or anyone else in the mainstream said, you're willing to simply make things up. Again and again you demonstrate you're dishonest and I can't fathom why you continue. You know you're making things up, you know you're talking to people who actually know what the mainstream history is and yet you tell the lies anyway. Are you an obsessive compulsive liar?

You asked how the mainstream could be consistent when talking about the photon and also E=mc^{2}. Do you deny this? You said the mainstream is 'totally confused'. I asked you for references but you failed to provide. Do you deny this?

so you think asking an expected question about how a photons massless state could be consistent with E=mc^2 is making a statement about mainstream thinking?
uhmm.... hows that...?
confusion is evident right through out this thread and just about every forum on the net....how many links do you want?


I quoted you saying "I also know you know that the Higgs has been discounted years ago from being a serious pursuit ", why do I need o provide a link when I quoted you from the above post?! Its only been an hour or two, don't you remember saying that?
wiki~

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are no known elementary scalar particles in nature. The existence of the particle is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in current theoretical physics, and attempts are being made to confirm the existence of the particle by experimentation, using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Other theories exist that do not anticipate the Higgs boson, described elsewhere as the Higgsless model.

The Higgs boson is the only Standard Model particle that has not been observed and is thought to be the mediator of mass. Experimental detection of the Higgs boson would help explain the origin of mass in the universe. The Higgs Boson would explain the difference between the massless photon, which mediates electromagnetism, and the massive W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak force. If the Higgs boson exists, it is an integral and pervasive component of the material world.
yes uhm well you are not the only one who makes presumptions.
The reading I had done seriously doubted the value of Higgs research as it was generally thought at the time [ sic 8 years ago] that it was way too hypothetical to consider seriously. I presumed that was common knowledge.

my mistake...
Of course you can't find the Higgs so keep looking....because until you get rid of the notion of a photon you will never understand what the Higgs is.

So maybe you are caught between two obsessions.
1] your support for SRT [ aka the photon ]
2] your search for a particle Higgs, that can not be found under the SRT paradigm.
..... are you in trouble! as both may very well be non existent....[chuckle]
and now I know why you are so shi*tty with me....and others who even hint that they are interested in questioning the value of SRT.

The reason why I find this amusing is that I know what the Higgs is and I am about to prove it very soon....that is one of the key evidences I have been talking about.
so Hi Alphanumeric, nice to meet ya!

just as an aside:
Have you ever asked yourself why gravity conforms to the the inverse square rule?
or have you just accepted it as a "just is" like most people?

my post:

E=mc^2 predates and is by far more pivotal. Afterall the momentum equation is derived from what?
It is also a necessary outcome of relativistic effects determined by ..yep you guessed it.... our modelled only photon.
your post:

In his 1905 paper where he derived the relevant results he goes beyond just and provides the energy due to the motion of a particle, , which is a different way of writing , in terms of velocity rather than momentum. He does it for an electron. You have again demonstrated you have not looked at what Einstein or anyone else in the mainstream said, you're willing to simply make things up. Again and again you demonstrate you're dishonest and I can't fathom why you continue. You know you're making things up, you know you're talking to people who actually know what the mainstream history is and yet you tell the lies anyway. Are you an obsessive compulsive liar?
am I wrong...nope...E=mc^2 is the pivotal equation unless you are suggesting by your accusation of my lying that the momentum equation came prior to E=mc^2?

QQ: If your MassDistance theory can calculate anything or make any prediction, please correct this “Nothing & None” answer in 2nd paragraph of my reply by telling how to calculate something or what it has predicted.

I'll repeat the question I listed in response to your post Essentially it is asking:
Why do we need to have a model that requires massless particles?
What is it that makes it imperative to physics to use massless particles in it's modeling?...Answer to both is that they exist in nature, or at least experiment results are best calculated and predicted as if they do. That is what science is all about. - Building a model with which one can calculate observational results and predict new test results. Anything explanation which can not calculate or predict is a "it works by MAGIC" theory.

What result can you calculate with your MassDistance model? What phenomena does it predict?
Answer: Nothing & None. Thus it is not science. It is MAGIC. Worse, it postulates that "nothing" (photons do not exist) has the following precise properties standard theory associates with the photon:

(1) Energy transport thru vacuum (Sun to Earth etc.)

(2) Momentum (as used in solar sailing satellite)

(3) Definite measured wavelengths, or frequencies, which correspond linearly (and exactly to at least 8 significant figures) to difference between the various energy levels of the hydrogen atom that can be calculated by standard atomic theory also to better than 8 significant figures.

(4) Definite delay between source and detector linearly proportional to their separation, This fixed "speed of propagation" can be computed from the magnetic permeability and dielectric constant of the material or vacuum between the source and detector! This speed was first computed by Maxwell from laboratory measurements of these seemingly unrelated characteristics and later confirmed by Michelson and others earlier.

(5a) Interference patterns with spacing between the bright and dark lines a linear function of the wavelength.
(5b) The position of photographic film darkening in a spectrograph is exactly as predicted by the "grading equation" which assumes photons with a definite wavelength travel from source, interact with the grading, and then travel on to the film. (If nothing is going between the source and the film, why would the space between very fine (too fine to even see) linear scratches of the grading enter into the grading equation? They certain are not making any difference in either the masses used or the distances between masses, but that spacing between invisible scratches makes a huge (and exactly as predicted) difference as to where the film is darkened.

(6) The magnitude of reflection coefficient when metal is used as the reflector is given exactly as Maxwell's Equations predict. (This is a “boundary layer” math problem which also tells how deeply into the metal the EM wave goes in complete agreement with the observed intensity that is transmitted thru very thin metal films)

(7) When not incident at 90 degrees to the metal surface, each of the orthogonal polarization reflects differently. One has zero reflection at a particular angle of incidence, called the Brewster angle. This is sometimes used to produce polarized X-rays. I.e. an unpolarized beam reflected at the Brewster’s angle is 100% polarized when reflected. All exactly as predicted by Maxwell’s Equations. (I have done this with X-rays to simplify the analysis of crystals and also produced polarized X-rays by the volumetric scattering of them within a block of carbon when observed at 90 degrees.)

(8) Fact that the setting sun appears not to be round like when it is high yet there is absolutely no change in either the mass of the Earth or the distance to the sun – I.e. a MassDistance theory’s inputs (if there were any calculation possible in it) would be identical for both cases but by MAGIC the results are different. Sort of like requiring 2+5 = 6 at sunset and 2+5 = 7 at high noon. (Same inputs give different outputs.) Be careful in explaining this. You might be tempted to say "something" is passing thru different amounts of air, but your MassDistance theory assumes nothing is and is stuck with fact there is no change in either masses or distances of the Sun/Earth system between noon and sunset.

(9)** That specific wavelengths from specific sources have the two path interference pattern fade out if the path length difference exceeds a certain length – In experiment I did** with modest pressure sodium lamp that was ~30 cm. Note also that result is same if one of the paths is increased or decreased by 30 cm. How can same result occur in your MassDistance theory for two different distances and identical masses?

(10) The photo-electric effect (and other effects that show Quantum Theory’s prediction for quantized energy packets are correct.)

These 10 experimental observation are well understood by assuming photons do exist, which are correctly modeled by Maxwell’s equations (when many) or by Quantum Theory and atomic theory of energy levels, when considered one at a time. (BTW this is not two separate theory selectively applied as Quantum Theory predicts that in large numbers the classical theory will be valid.)

I could list many more, for example the exact shape of black body radiation curve follows from quantum theory applied to quantized energy packets Planck called "photons." etc. but 10 observations that your MassDistance theory can neither explain nor predict seems adequate to show it is NONSENSE. If I am wrong and you can explain any or all of these 10, please do so – but show your assumptions and calculations. (Words alone are the claim: "It happens by magic.")
Now either put up or shut up.

--------------
** See full discussion of this at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52 I.e. another problem with your NONSENSICAL MassDistance theory is that your "nothing" has a definite, measurable length. 30 cm in the case discussed at this link. (Photons are not tiny little balls as most people believe. Some are more than a meter long and why those that are is well understood. Has mainly to do with the radiative decay life-time of the upper state of the transition. (Also to get observably meter+ long photons, the source must be a low pressure gas.)

Billy T the difference between your model and mine is that Mine can predict with 100% accuracy, the following observable phenonema.
1] Gravitational constant even whilst cosmic expansion/contraction is under way. [And explains why it has to be exactly constant]
2] Inertia and metastability
3] Consciousness, the physics of.
4] Freewill, the physics of.
5] Objectivity, the physics of.
6] Invariance of those constants.
7] The light effect data already achieved and observed including BE Condensate, Crompton Scattering and a host of other intriguing displays.
8] and the list continues....

but most importantly it predicts with 100% accuracy that the Photon is a non existent construct that was damn useful in helping man kind understand the nature of invariance and the concept of "Relativity" [logically and rationally] even though it was applied incorrectly.

now you have modelled a photon and the challenge rests with you not I.
so I shall place the burden where it belongs of your challenge:
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

This ...... is the Photon Challenge....:D

... Mine can predict with 100% accuracy, the following observable phenonema.
1] Gravitational constant even whilst cosmic expansion/contraction is under way.
2] Inertia and metastability
3] Consciousness, the physics of.
4] Freewill, the physics of.
5] Objectivity, the physics of.
6] Invariance of those constants.
7] The light effect data already achieved and observed including BE Condensate, Crompton Scattering and a host of other intriguing displays.
...An impressive list, but still just words making claims, no demonstration of any prediction or any explanation of how these thing occur or are calculated by the MassDistance theory. - I.e. still just: "magic makes it happen."

You cannot claim 100% accuracy unless you can calculate result values, so do it for the simplest thing in your list:

The simplest thing listed is Compton scattering. Derive from your theory the intensity vs. scattering angle equation.
Or even less demanding, show that 90 degree scattering of an initially unpolarized beam makes a polarized beam.

I know you don't want to even admit there is a beam, so just explain why a detector placed behind a polarizer (in what I would call the scattered and now polarized beam) responds with amplitude / intensity measured as;

I = (Imax) cos(A)

Where Imax is intensity of the detector response when the angle A = 0.
(And does not respond at all when A = 90 degrees.)
No need to speak of "beams" just derive this very simple "detector response equation" with your theory.

I.e. Produce / derive this simple equation which shows intensity vs. rotation angle of the polarizer in front of the detector with your MassDistance theory and I will admit there is more to your alternative theory than just “hot air words” and “claims of magic.”

Otherwise stop posting your verbal only NONSENSE

Billy T an experiment you or any one can peform at home. 'tis real easy...

requirements
1] two full body length mirrors about the same as one your wife probably uses.
2] two incandescent lights [ bed side lights will do marvelously.]
3] One red laser light emmitting device [ like the pointer some teachers use to harrass students with.]

Now
method:

Place the mirrors approximately 0.5 meter apart parallel facing each other
so that one mirror is offset in the arrangement. Exactness of position is not important. Close to parallel will suffice

ie.
_____
... ______

Now place your three light sources so that the light falls on the exposed offset of one of the mirrors and the laser is pointing so that it.s angled reflection is multiple as it travels back and forth between both mirrors.
Now sit down with a cafe com latte if you take milk and a ciggy if you smoke, a note pad and pen and with about 2 hours at your disposal fully described what you are seeing in "physics" terms of the three lights, the mirrors and their reflections as viewed from the output side of the assembly. [including any background information witnessed in the reflections]

Fully describe it in photonic terms, [What you see and most importantly what you don't see] and you will notice that the photon has considerably more than just a particle /wave like duality to it...

http://new.zeropointtheory.com/images/siteproper/generalimages/mirrortest.jpg

best of luck!
P.s. I did this experiment about 6 years ago...no mathematics just simply observation and understanding what you are observing.
Oh and BTW, make sure the mirrors are a little dirty with the usual oily residue that is found on typical homewear in warm humid rooms and if you can mask the laser from direct site all the better.

A topic has been started here :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=102430
Should be an interesting exercise...

An impressive list, but still just words making claims, no demonstration of any prediction or any explanation of how these thing occur or are calculated by the MassDistance theory. - I.e. still just: "magic makes it happen."

You cannot claim 100% accuracy unless you can calculate, so do it for the simplest thing in your list:

The simplest thing in your list is Compton scattering. Derive for me the intensity vs. scattering angle equation.
Or even less demanding, show that 90 degree scattering of an initially unpolarized beam makes a polarized beam.

I know you don't want to even admit there is a beam, so just explain why a detector placed behind what I would call the scattered and now polarized beam responds with amplitude / intensity measured as;

I = (Imax) cos(A)

Where Imax is intensity of the detector response when the angle A = 0.
(And does not respond at all when A = 90 degrees.)
No need to speak of "beams" just derive this very simple "detector response equation" with your theory.

Produce / derive this simple equation which shows intensity vs. rotation angle of the polarizer in front of the detector with your MassDistance theory and I will admit there is more to your alternative theory than just “hot air words” and “claims of magic.”

Otherwise stop posting your NONSENSE

The solution is actually made easier when you realise that to have something so absolutely absolute, it has to be absolutely absolute and totally immutable or irreducable...
And there is only one thing the universe has to accommodate to achieve such an absolute absolute and we use it every day in all things we do.
I dont use theory to prove anything.
I use theory to try an explain what is already proven.

You cannot claim 100% accuracy unless you can calculate,
in a self justifying system that this universe is once the fundamental constant is known and the basic logic is understood there is simply not much more to calculate except to extrapolate for other reasons. Simply because it IS a self justifying system.

Billy T:


Both go here [snip] to see how to measure the length of photons. I did this measurement and mine, from a modest pressure sodium lamp, were ~30 cm long.

From the post you quoted it looks like you were measuring the wavelength of the photons rather than the length of the photon wavepacket. Can you please clarify if I'm wrong about that.

Billy T: From the post you quoted it looks like you were measuring the wavelength of the photons rather than the length of the photon wavepacket. Can you please clarify if I'm wrong about that.I don't see how you could think that. 30 cm is the lenght I measured.

In fact I did not measure any wavelength. I used a sodium lamp as my source and some simple yellow only pass glass filters. Thus both of the slghtly different yellow sodium radiation lines (called the sodium D lines) were present in the interference pattern. With two different wave lenghts I could not have measured a wavelength even if I were trying too, which I was not.

The fundamental thing you MUST understand is that each photon goes by both paths and when "recombined" at the screen INTERFERES ONLY WITH ITS SELF. Thus, when the distance the "part" going the longer of the two paths is greater than the length of the "part" of the photon energy that traveling the longer path arrives too late to interfere with the part that went the shorter path - I.e. the interference pattern "washes out" as the path difference length become as large as the length of the photons.

Note I am fully aware that photons are quantum beasts can not actually be divided by a half-silvered beam splitter etc. but in ways impossible for humans to understand each photon does know about all the possible paths. So to describe this strange to humans part of physics one does speak of the photon going thru both slits of the Young's two slit interferometer or traveling both paths after passing thru a wave-front-division two beam interferometer. What "really" happens and how it happens, only the photon knows.

Have you read how I explained this all in the color thread? If yes and not completely clear, ask specific questions.

Link to that "color thread" here soon.

Billy T: From the post you quoted it looks like you were measuring the wavelength of the photons rather than the length of the photon wavepacket. Can you please clarify if I'm wrong about that.I don't see how you could think that. 30 cm is the length I measured. - Certainly that is not the wavelength of a photon.

In fact I did not measure any wavelength. I used a sodium lamp as my source and some simple yellow only pass glass filters. Thus both of the slightly different yellow sodium radiation lines (called the sodium D lines)* were present in the interference pattern. With two slightly different wave lengths present, I could not have measured a wavelength even if I were trying too, which I was not.

The fundamental thing you MUST understand is that each photon goes by both paths and when "recombined" at the screen INTERFERES ONLY WITH ITS SELF.* Thus, when the distance the "part" going the longer of the two paths is greater than the length of the photons, the "part" of the photon energy that is traveling that longer path arrives too late to interfere with the part of the photon energy that went the shorter path. - I.e. the interference pattern completely "washes out" (Uniformly illuminated screen) as the path difference length become as large as the length of the photons. When the path length difference is half the length of the photo, 15 cm in my case, then only the "front half" of the energy going the longer path arrives at the screen in time to interfere with the "back half" (last part) of the energy going the shorter path. Thus there is no longer any completely dark lines (or any twice intensity bright lines) on the screen. I.e. as the path difference increases the interference pattern gets progressively smoothed out into uniform screen illumination.

Note I am fully aware that photons are quantum beasts can not actually be divided by a half-silvered beam splitter etc. but in ways impossible for humans to understand each photon does know about all the possible paths. So to describe this strange to humans part of physics one does speak of the photon going thru both slits of the Young's two slit interferometer or traveling both paths after passing thru a wave-front-division two beam interferometer. What "really" happens and how it happens, only the photon knows.

Have you read how I explained this all in the color thread (link below)? If yes and not completely clear, ask specific questions.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52

* This, by the way, is why interference is possible with incoherent light sources with not much spread of different wavelengths present. Many people (perhaps you?) think that two different photons cancel each other out to make the nulls of an interferences pattern, but that would only be possible with coherent light from for example, a LASER.

-----------
* "...These lamps produce a virtually monochromatic light averaging at a 589.3 nm wavelength (actually two dominant spectral lines very close together at 589.0 and 589.6 nm). As a result, the colors of illuminated objects are not easily distinguished since they are seen almost entirely by their reflection of this narrow bandwidth yellow light. ..." From wiki

Billy T:

I'll have to re-read the description you gave in the other thread, since I'm still not clear exactly what you observed.

It seems to me like you had a standard Michelson interferometer setup. The interference effects you see as you change the length of one path have nothing to do with the wavepacket size, but only the relative phase difference between the two paths introduced by the difference in propagation distance.

If you use a very large interferometer, then issues of coherence length may also become relevant, but I can't recall offhand what the average coherence length of a sodium lamp is.

Billy T: I'll have to re-read the description you gave in the other thread, since I'm still not clear exactly what you observed....

It seems to me like you had a standard Michelson interferometer setup. The interference effects you see as you change the length of one path have nothing to do with the wavepacket size, but only the relative phase difference between the two paths introduced by the difference in propagation distance.

If you use a very large interferometer, then issues of coherence length may also become relevant, but I can't recall offhand what the average coherence length of a sodium lamp is.I observed a typical interference pattern - bright and dark parallel lines on a screen. Initially, with equal path lengths, the dark lines had no light and the light in the bright lines had twice the intensity it would have had if just illuminated by the lamp - I.e. no energy was lost - what should have been on the screen where the dark lines were was where the bright lines were - I did not actually measure this, but believe in conservation of energy. I just looked at the pattern with my eye.

You really do not understand yet what I did or what the 30cm result means. I have now rewritten part of my first reply to you - trying to make that as clear as the link's text in that first reply. Perhaps, just reading the longest paragraph in my first reply to you (post 154) will make it clear to you what I did and what it means.

... I can't recall offhand what the average coherence length of a sodium lamp is.It is essentially without any coherence between the different photons emitted by different Na atoms. Again, you MUST understand and accept that each photon ONLY interferes with itself - not with others.

This is so hard for most to believe / accept that in the original post (at link given in first rely) I give links to three different ivy league universities, each of which has a different class-room demonstration of this strange truth. Each photon "knows" all of the possible paths it can take. In all three demonstrations very low intensity light is used so there is only one photon present at a time, yet the interference occurs. (In the old day, we just made time exposure of film for many hours to show this.)

The type of "coherence" you are thinking of has NOTHING to do with light interference effects (LASERS excluded). I am tempted to call that error 5, but as you did not actually say an error, I will not. Each photon is obviously "self coherent" but that is not what you were speaking of. I am almost certain you have some false ideas in your head on this. (I.e. "unstated error 5")

PS we are on opposite sides of the world - I waited 20 minutes to see if you made quick reply but am going to bed now as here it is 2:12 AM.

so you think asking an expected question about how a photons massless state could be consistent with E=mc^2 is making a statement about mainstream thinking?
uhmm.... hows that...?How many times do you need to be told that E=mc^{2} doesn't apply to the photon!!! No one in the physics community has ever said that. They have said E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2} applies to it. If you can't even ask relevant viable questions your entire contribution to this and any other thread in regards to the photon is undermined.


confusion is evident right through out this thread and just about every forum on the net....how many links do you want?Since when is the mainstream physics community made up of internet forums? It isn't. While there's 'interested people' on this forum there's very few people who are actually doing physics research. Ben, Prometheus, myself, Guest and CptBork are actually in the physics or maths research communities. Yes, there's plenty of confusion on internet forums but thats because the people on said internet forums are not actively studying mathematics or physics so they are not aware precisely of what the mainstream community does. You're not looking at the mainstream community and yet you're claiming there's confusion. How can you not see that its stupid to evaluate the research community without looking at the research community. If you claim something about the mainstream community then you should be looking at textbooks and papers, not forums. If there's confusion in the research community it should be evidence at places like www.arxiv.org, where you'll find research papers from the majority of the community.

If you can't even look at the right material you have no right to complain people aren't doing things properly.


wiki~
yes uhm well you are not the only one who makes presumptions.How is that Wikip quote relevant? It doesn't back up your claim the Higgs isn't a serious pursuit, it does the opposite.


The reading I had done seriously doubted the value of Higgs research as it was generally thought at the time [ sic 8 years ago] that it was way too hypothetical to consider seriously. I presumed that was common knowledge.What reading? You haven't read any books or papers. You have no information which comes from the research community directly, you seem to get all your information second or third hand via forums or pop science articles. Your research doesn't seem to involve doing anything active.


So maybe you are caught between two obsessions.
1] your support for SRT [ aka the photon ]
2] your search for a particle Higgs, that can not be found under the SRT paradigm.
..... are you in trouble! as both may very well be non existent....[chuckle]
and now I know why you are so shi*tty with me....and others who even hint that they are interested in questioning the value of SRT. The existence of the photon and the nature of SR are seperate things. SR can be invalid yet our experimental results for the photon will be unchanged. The photon could not exist (if your ramblings are vaguely right, which they aren't) and yet SR would remain. You have made the mistake of making them equivalent. And the Higgs is a prediction of quantum field theory which is built on quantum mechanics and special relativity. The prediction of the Higgs would not have been made without special relativity because otherwise you don't have quantum field theory.

That's the reason I'm shitty with you, you just make things up about topics you have absolutely no knowledge of. I am not shitty with you because I fear you or anything like that, I don't lose a nanosecond of sleep about anything you've said, you're a nut who'll amount to nothing. I'm shitty with you because I dislike wilful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty in people and you have it in spades. You lie again and again and you lie about something I know about. You're effectively telling me my job when you know nothing about my job. When you piss on someone's shoes don't be surprised when they aren't pleasant to you. I know you desperately want to validate yourself by convincing yourself you're making the mainstream community worried but you aren't. You're just a pathetic hack who is desperately lying to convince yourself you aren't a failure in physics.


just as an aside:
Have you ever asked yourself why gravity conforms to the the inverse square rule?
or have you just accepted it as a "just is" like most people? Its due to the dimensionality of large scale space. Anyone whose seen generalised Schwarzchild solutions or done string theory knows why we see gravity have an inverse square law. You're not putting forth any new ideas QQ and you'd know that if you bothered to open a book and not just read internet forums.


Billy T the difference between your model and mine is that Mine can predict with 100% accuracy, the following observable phenonema.
1] Gravitational constant even whilst cosmic expansion/contraction is under way. [And explains why it has to be exactly constant]
2] Inertia and metastability
3] Consciousness, the physics of.
4] Freewill, the physics of.
5] Objectivity, the physics of.
6] Invariance of those constants.
7] The light effect data already achieved and observed including BE Condensate, Crompton Scattering and a host of other intriguing displays.
8] and the list continues....Those are flat out lies. Provide a quantitative accurate model for one, just one, phenomenon. To be '100% accurate' you must have a quantitative model. Given you can't do even high school mathematics I don't believe your claim. If you can't justify these claims you'll be (again) demonstrating you're a massive hypocrite by complaining the mainstream is supposedly not justifying their claims while you just make shit up and never justify it.

Ok in case you didn't get it the first time I'll post it again....

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
so you think asking an expected question about how a photons massless state could be consistent with E=mc^2 is making a statement about mainstream thinking?
uhmm.... hows that...?
I would be confident that just about every student serious about physics would at some stage ask that question in some form... ...in fact I would be equally confident that you asked that question or a version of it at some point in your studies and found an answer that you are satisfied with.
But if asking questions is making a statement about mainstream thinking according to you, Alphanumeric, paranoia seems to be the only verdict.

Billy T:


It is essentially without any coherence between the different photons emitted by different Na atoms.

Yeah, that makes sense. I wasn't thinking clearly.


Again, you MUST understand and accept that each photon ONLY interferes with itself - not with others.

I understand that very well, and accept it. I have studied quantum physics quite extensively, you know.


PS we are on opposite sides of the world - I waited 20 minutes to see if you made quick reply but am going to bed now as here it is 2:12 AM.

No worries. I was and am multi-tasking as I respond to you here. Now, I'm about to head home from work.

How many times do you need to be told that E=mc^{2} doesn't apply to the photon!!! No one in the physics community has ever said that. They have said E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2} applies to it. If you can't even ask relevant viable questions your entire contribution to this and any other thread in regards to the photon is undermined.

Since when is the mainstream physics community made up of internet forums? It isn't. While there's 'interested people' on this forum there's very few people who are actually doing physics research. Ben, Prometheus, myself, Guest and CptBork are actually in the physics or maths research communities. Yes, there's plenty of confusion on internet forums but thats because the people on said internet forums are not actively studying mathematics or physics so they are not aware precisely of what the mainstream community does. You're not looking at the mainstream community and yet you're claiming there's confusion. How can you not see that its stupid to evaluate the research community without looking at the research community. If you claim something about the mainstream community then you should be looking at textbooks and papers, not forums. If there's confusion in the research community it should be evidence at places like www.arxiv.org, where you'll find research papers from the majority of the community.

If you can't even look at the right material you have no right to complain people aren't doing things properly.

How is that Wikip quote relevant? It doesn't back up your claim the Higgs isn't a serious pursuit, it does the opposite.

What reading? You haven't read any books or papers. You have no information which comes from the research community directly, you seem to get all your information second or third hand via forums or pop science articles. Your research doesn't seem to involve doing anything active.

The existence of the photon and the nature of SR are seperate things. SR can be invalid yet our experimental results for the photon will be unchanged. The photon could not exist (if your ramblings are vaguely right, which they aren't) and yet SR would remain. You have made the mistake of making them equivalent. And the Higgs is a prediction of quantum field theory which is built on quantum mechanics and special relativity. The prediction of the Higgs would not have been made without special relativity because otherwise you don't have quantum field theory.

That's the reason I'm shitty with you, you just make things up about topics you have absolutely no knowledge of. I am not shitty with you because I fear you or anything like that, I don't lose a nanosecond of sleep about anything you've said, you're a nut who'll amount to nothing. I'm shitty with you because I dislike wilful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty in people and you have it in spades. You lie again and again and you lie about something I know about. You're effectively telling me my job when you know nothing about my job. When you piss on someone's shoes don't be surprised when they aren't pleasant to you. I know you desperately want to validate yourself by convincing yourself you're making the mainstream community worried but you aren't. You're just a pathetic hack who is desperately lying to convince yourself you aren't a failure in physics.

Its due to the dimensionality of large scale space. Anyone whose seen generalised Schwarzchild solutions or done string theory knows why we see gravity have an inverse square law. You're not putting forth any new ideas QQ and you'd know that if you bothered to open a book and not just read internet forums.

Those are flat out lies. Provide a quantitative accurate model for one, just one, phenomenon. To be '100% accurate' you must have a quantitative model. Given you can't do even high school mathematics I don't believe your claim. If you can't justify these claims you'll be (again) demonstrating you're a massive hypocrite by complaining the mainstream is supposedly not justifying their claims while you just make shit up and never justify it.

I'll quote from wiki which appears to give a reasonsable account of the Higgs.
Notice the bits that are highlighted.

The Higgs boson particle is one quantum component of the theoretical Higgs field. In empty space, the Higgs field has an amplitude different from zero; i.e., a non-zero vacuum expectation value. The existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation plays a fundamental role: it gives mass to every elementary particle that has mass, including the Higgs boson itself. In particular, the acquisition of a non-zero vacuum expectation value spontaneously breaks electroweak gauge symmetry, which scientists often refer to as the Higgs mechanism. This is the simplest mechanism capable of giving mass to the gauge bosons while remaining compatible with gauge theories. In essence, this field is analogous to a pool of molasses that "sticks" to the otherwise massless fundamental particles that travel through the field, converting them into particles with mass that form, for example, the components of atoms. Prof. David J. Miller of University College London provided a simple explanation of the Higgs Boson, for which he won an award.[9]

In the Standard Model, the Higgs field consists of two neutral and two charged component fields. Both of the charged components and one of the neutral fields are Goldstone bosons, which act as the longitudinal third-polarization components of the massive W+, W–, and Z bosons. The quantum of the remaining neutral component corresponds to the massive Higgs boson. Since the Higgs field is a scalar field, the Higgs boson has no spin, hence no intrinsic angular momentum. The Higgs boson is also its own antiparticle and is CP-even.

The Standard Model does not predict the mass of the Higgs boson. If that mass is between 115 and 180 GeV/c2, then the Standard Model can be valid at energy scales all the way up to the Planck scale (1016 TeV). Many theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV-scale, based on unsatisfactory properties of the Standard Model. The highest possible mass scale allowed for the Higgs boson (or some other electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism) is 1.4 TeV; beyond this point, the Standard Model becomes inconsistent without such a mechanism, because unitarity is violated in certain scattering processes. Many models of supersymmetry predict that the lightest Higgs boson (of several) will have a mass only slightly above the current experimental limits, at around 120 GeV or less.

Supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model (so called SUSY) predict the existence of whole families of Higgs bosons, as opposed to a single Higgs particle of the Standard Model. Among the SUSY models, in the Minimal Supersymmetric extension (MSSM) the Higgs mechanism yields the smallest number of Higgs bosons: there are two Higgs doublets, leading to the existence of a quintet of scalar particles: two CP-even neutral Higgs bosons h and H, a CP-odd neutral Higgs boson A, and two charged Higgs particles H±.

There are over a hundred theoretical Higgs-mass predictions.[10]

...and yet there appears to be no mention of how the Higgs generates the constancy of Gravity. Nor how the Higgs can accommodate Cosmic Expansion and maintain the constancy of gravity universally and simultaneously whilst adhereing to the relative simultaneity issues generated by SRT. Given that the proposed Higgs Bosun has mass up to and beyond 1.4TeV plus.

Would you agree that the universe as a whole is expanding uniformally and universally?

Regarding my theory I have tried in the past to discuss it, but unfortunately it proved impossible to do so. I am certainly not going to bother again.
I am just a web designer and not so good one at that trying to find a way to explain the evidence I have in a way that makes sense to you guys. That's all...

I have no ability nor time to spend 8 years plus in University courses that wouldn't guarantee success any way given the calibre of the math , calculus and physics languages skills needed to compete on the scientific stage. So we shall wait until the evidence is presented and you guys can ask your questions then.

Ok in case you didn't get it the first time I'll post it again....What you don't get is we are not interested in your meaningless words.

Derive some very well confirmed equation from you non-standard models. Calculate some numerical result that agrees with experimental measurements with your meaningless words. It does not increase your creditability as a physicist to just keep repeating words.

Your words have the same validity as this explanation: "Magic makes it so." That, like your words, can calculate no result, predict nothing, and explain nothing because neither your words nor "Magic makes it so" can produce any numeral results.

Yet even though you have no numerical computation power, you CLAIM your theory is 100% accurate!
That claim should be posted in the thread: "Jokes and funny stories."

Regarding my theory I have tried in the past to discuss it, but unfortunately it proved impossible to do so.Link to said thread. I have asked you repeatedly to provide the work related to one, just one, phenomenon in the universe which your work can actually model accurately. You haven't provided any such example. I asked you to provide justifications for your claims and you refused. If you think that me asking you to justify your claims is making discussion 'impossible' then you're a hypocrite, because you're demanding someone provides you with evidence for mainstream claims and models. You've made huge claims like saying you can model consciousness and you provide nothing. The reason its proved impossible to discuss your 'work' is because you won't answer any questions on it which ask for anything beyond vacuous superficial arm waving.


I am certainly not going to bother again.You never bothered in the first place.


I am just a web designer and not so good one at that trying to find a way to explain the evidence I have in a way that makes sense to you guys. That's all... That explains it, you're making a website about something in physics so you can convince yourself you're doing science, not just wasting your time playing with HTML.


I have no ability nor time to spend 8 years plus in University coursesYou've got the time to write webpages and come up with your own theory but you haven't got time to open a short introductory book on anything relevant? Bull.

Though that's assuming you even have the capacity to understand university level physics or maths, which I don't believe for one second.


that wouldn't guarantee success any way given the calibre of the math , calculus and physics languages skills needed to compete on the scientific stage.Pathetic excuse. If everyone thought like that no one who isn't the best in the world would bother to learn anything. I'm not able to compete with the best people in physics but the knowledge I've learnt certainly has helped me, both in my understanding of the world and in getting employment. Learning is not about becoming the best or competing on the world stage, its about expanding your horizons, challenging yourself and ultimately providing you with useful tools and understanding you can make use of. Stop trying to give excuses as to why you've done absolutely zero work or reading before then spouting ignorant claims on a subject you know nothing about.


So we shall wait until the evidence is presented and you guys can ask your questions then.And now you have another reason to ignore any and all things people say to you about your challenge, as you are using it as an excuse not to back up your own claims. Excuse after excuse, you are trying to convince yourself you haven't failed at science because its someone else's fault. After all, why bother reading a book on a subject you know to be wrong? Of course one might ask how you can know something to be wrong when you won't read it?

What you don't get is we are not interested in your meaningless words.

Derive some very well confirmed equation from you non-standard models. Calculate some numerical result that agrees with experimental measurements with your meaningless words. It does not increase your creditability as a physicist to just keep repeating words.

Your words have the same validity as this explanation: "Magic makes it so." That, like your words, can calculate no result, predict nothing, and explain nothing because neither your words nor "Magic makes it so" can produce any numeral results.

Yet even though you have no numerical computation power, you CLAIM your theory is 100% accurate!
That claim should be posted in the thread: "Jokes and funny stories."


my theory is 100% accurate because it has to be..
any way this is not about physics but more about paranoia.

And now you have another reason to ignore any and all things people say to you about your challenge, as you are using it as an excuse not to back up your own claims. Excuse after excuse, you are trying to convince yourself you haven't failed at science because its someone else's fault. After all, why bother reading a book on a subject you know to be wrong? Of course one might ask how you can know something to be wrong when you won't read it?

If I am wrong I loose the money... the existing $100 usd is out of my own pocket the rest will be someone elses and all will be secure knowing you will never be able to support your physics.

and that just pisses you off doesn't it?
your constant ranting is ample evidence of that.
I can prove my theory but you can't... now aint that a joke!

my theory is 100% accurate because it has to be..And why does it 'have to be'? If I'd provided that as a response to your challenge, "QED is 100% right because it has to be" you'd never have accepted that. You're oozing hypocrisy by demanding the mainstream provide evidence (and then ignoring any and all things put in front of you) yet you make BIGGER claims, like 100% accurate models of consciousness, and provide nothing.


any way this is not about physics but more about paranoia.Its about your inability to accept you're not very good at maths and physics so you're trying to convince yourself you don't need to understand it, you've made up your own.


If I am wrong I loose the money... the existing $100 usd is out of my own pocket the rest will be someone elses and all will be secure knowing you will never be able to support your physics.I'll bet $1000 your work won't get published in a reputable theoretical physics journal. Your convoluted construction of an unwinnable challenge doesn't void all the experimental evidence for photon based phenomena in science. There's plenty of experimental evidence for the photon and its properties (which are accurately modelled without 'total confusion' in the mainstream models), you're having to make so many caveats which have no basis in mainstream models in order to avoid accepting evidence. I'll make my challenge much simpler, all you need to do is get published in a reputable physics journal.

And why does it 'have to be'? If I'd provided that as a response to your challenge, "QED is 100% right because it has to be" you'd never have accepted that. You're oozing hypocrisy by demanding the mainstream provide evidence (and then ignoring any and all things put in front of you) yet you make BIGGER claims, like 100% accurate models of consciousness, and provide nothing.

Its about your inability to accept you're not very good at maths and physics so you're trying to convince yourself you don't need to understand it, you've made up your own.

I'll bet $1000 your work won't get published in a reputable theoretical physics journal. Your convoluted construction of an unwinnable challenge doesn't void all the experimental evidence for photon based phenomena in science. There's plenty of experimental evidence for the photon and its properties (which are accurately modelled without 'total confusion' in the mainstream models), you're having to make so many caveats which have no basis in mainstream models in order to avoid accepting evidence. I'll make my challenge much simpler, all you need to do is get published in a reputable physics journal.

ah ha... gotta ya.... $ 1000.00 is that usd or something else...you is on Alphanumeric you is on....

work published in a reputable theoretical physics journal... yes...care to list the titles you consider reputable so that we can nail this bet down?

btw the HIggs and consciousness including unconsciousness are essentially the same thing....

wanna go a bit more after all $1000.00 usd only pays for a few postage stamps these days...

And why does it 'have to be'? --[re:100% accurate]
well for starters the gravitational constant is 100 % constant so it obvously has to be predicted 100% accurately doesn't it.

Hint: and there is only one possible way that can be formulated that includes every single bit of matter in this universe simultaneously and allows for inperceptable and perceptable cosmic expansion and contraction.

go on have a guess ?

If I am wrong I loose the money... the existing $100 usd is out of my own pocket the rest will be someone elses and all will be secure knowing you will never be able to support your physics.
Running any sort of competition can be problematic, after all offering up a prize requires someone to act as a mediator, the overall "rules" have to be plainly written so as not to cause misinterpretation and the overall Judgement would normally be done by a panel or some sort of peer review (like a Jury system)

If it's left to a persons own "Prove me wrong and you'll get $100" it becomes problematic, after all your pet theory might change depending on what arguments are sought, which means you'd never part with your $100 on the grounds that your theory has room for growth.

You can get an idea of just how pulled apart such contest are by looking at the Randi prize and how the rules and documentation over the years have changed to attempt to deal with all the people that would otherwise try to find loopholes.


I'll bet $1000 your work won't get published in a reputable theoretical physics journal.
I would suggest not betting that, after all the Nobel prize have been given to persons of ill repute before that have no way benefited Science or global stability. It would be very easy to suggest that various journal's could easily be swayed to print pseudoscience (especially if the Yes men (http://theyesmen.org/) have anything to do with it.)

Running any sort of competition can be problematic, after all offering up a prize requires someone to act as a mediator, the overall "rules" have to be plainly written so as not to cause misinterpretation and the overall Judgement would normally be done by a panel or some sort of peer review (like a Jury system)

If it's left to a persons own "Prove me wrong and you'll get $100" it becomes problematic, after all your pet theory might change depending on what arguments are sought, which means you'd never part with your $100 on the grounds that your theory has room for growth.

You can get an idea of just how pulled apart such contest are by looking at the Randi prize and how the rules and documentation over the years have changed to attempt to deal with all the people that would otherwise try to find loopholes.


I would suggest not betting that, after all the Nobel prize have been given to persons of ill repute before that have no way benefited Science or global stability. It would be very easy to suggest that various journal's could easily be swayed to print pseudoscience (especially if the Yes men (http://theyesmen.org/) have anything to do with it.)
It is a bit silly because as already agreed by many posters, including Alphanumeric and Billy T, the prize, no matter how big it is or how many independent jusdges are involevd will never be won. Simply because it is impossible to win. In fact on the currently developing web site front page it states to the effect of such quite clearly.
But it also states why such an absurd award is needed given the impossibility of it.
However the general public do not know this and that is the target audience or at least those who believe incorrectly that light is as modelled and science has evidence to support it's position. Which it does not and can not.

I would bet even the President of the US of A believes that light effect model has been evidenced as all literature even remotely related presumes this to be the case.
It is the attitude of posters such as Alphanumeric and his cohorts at JREF that have provoked me into talking this step and that is all I can say about it.
With a bit of luck I will make some money on top of it simply because of the sheer arrogance and paranoia demonstrated. [ I may donate that money if worth doing so to the research for an alternative.]

These details are yet to be decided upon, and depend on other parties involved in the marketing and implimentation of the campaign.

Of course transperancy of assessment and awarding the prize has to be spot on.

However it is simlpy the need to provide the evidence demonstrating how matter is not implicated in a way that would compromise the clarity of the result.
I can tell you now and I think most would agree this is utterly impossible to do.
After a while of the "no end unil resolved" campaign sure I am going to look like a fool to some but I can assure you I wont be the only one....and to be honest I have nothing to loose anyway.

As far as my alternative theory [zero point theory] is concerned this may very well be resolved prior to launching the web campaign making the whole idea of a photon challenge redundent and obsolete.

I end up with a great web site template to use [ if I remain interested as a hobby] and get $1000 from Alphanumeric if he repeats his offer, when he and every one else sees the evidence and it's generalised explanation on probably all the journals and not just a select few.
and I may consider donating the $1000.00 to the mathematical interpretations needed to ensure technological advancement.

as the aquisition of money will not be an issue because as you can imagine what sort of money is involved far exceeds any possible comprehension and you know what I couldn't give a hoot. Why? Global Mental Health budget to start with...not to mention the energy market but it is essentially about the mental health of this planet that is involved most of all....as zero point theory and the evidecne to go with it alters the understanding of mental health, asthma and a whole host of health issues dramatically. Yeah Asthma and similar respiratory [throat] conditions are actually mental health issues - along the lines of respiratory paranoia. [ linked almost directly to the oppressive behaviour similar to that demonstrated by a certain nasty poster in this thread. and no they are currently totally unaware of their contribution to the Asthma pandemic]

Here is an print screen review of the developing opening or landing page of www.photonchallenge.com

http://photonchallenge.com/images/siteproper/generalimages/psc4.jpg

Well I have a theory on zero-point energy, it's based upon Smale's horseshoe and takes into consideration that spacetime has been stretch and folded. As for the number of times, well I couldn't say, as these folds aren't necessarily localised to a Universe frame of reference but a smaller composite acting as the universe. (say on a per atom proximity.)

It's very similar to how fragmentation occurs on a computer's harddrive, smaller composite programs take up a certain amount of space only leaving some areas of free space, when a larger datafile is applied it has to be split between free spaces around those already taken, causing fragmentation. Fragmentation in a way is a good argument for relativity and non-locality, since it places things in different spaces while being maintained as one instance.

Well I have a theory on zero-point energy, it's based upon Smale's horseshoe and takes into consideration that spacetime has been stretch and folded. As for the number of times, well I couldn't say, as these folds aren't necessarily localised to a Universe frame of reference but a smaller composite acting as the universe. (say on a per atom proximity.)

It's very similar to how fragmentation occurs on a computer's harddrive, smaller composite programs take up a certain amount of space only leaving some areas of free space, when a larger datafile is applied it has to be split between free spaces around those already taken, causing fragmentation. Fragmentation in a way is a good argument for relativity and non-locality, since it places things in different spaces while being maintained as one instance.
nice, I am glad you are demonstrating an interest in physics as the critical thinking required can do wonders for your computer skills...:)

fragmentation or breaking of sym-etry [e23t] also offers a certain protection against viruses, did you know that?

nice, I am glad you are demonstrating an interest in physics as the critical thinking required can do wonders for your computer skills...:)

Well my analogy is slightly flawed because computer fragmentation "Splits" files, when dealing with a universe of "folded" spacetime, you wouldn't "split", instead you would fold and create a vector that is maintained as an instance. From it's perspective however it would be oblivious to the spacetime distortion, unless of course by design, it's suppose to be observed from that perspective.

It's actually part of my argument for identifying that the Universe is actually an Emulation since to my knowledge it's functions can be replicated mathematically and applied to simulations. (I define emulation since people play games and shoot at sims, I wouldn't want everyone to reason since we are a sim we could be shot at, so emulation makes more sense. Emulations also open the way for emulative tunneling, that would be tunneling between recursive emulated layers.)

Well my analogy is slightly flawed because computer fragmentation "Splits" files, when dealing with a universe of "folded" spacetime, you wouldn't "split", instead you would fold and create a vector that is maintained as an instance. From it's perspective however it would be oblivious to the spacetime distortion, unless of course by design, it's suppose to be observed from that perspective.

It's actually part of my argument for identifying that the Universe is actually an Emulation since to my knowledge it's functions can be replicated mathematically and applied to simulations. (I define emulation since people play games and shoot at sims, I wouldn't want everyone to reason since we are a sim we could be shot at, so emulation makes more sense. Emulations also open the way for emulative tunneling, that would be tunneling between recursive emulated layers.)
but the sims are somewhat entangled are they not, all those relationships going 0n as they have been...hmmm....Stryder, Gandaf may wish to speak to you given your knowledge of the.......wait for it.......

three sim rings....:bugeye:

fragmentation or breaking of sym-etry [e23t] also offers a certain protection against viruses, did you know that?

Ah but Fragmentation can also allow for Stenography, upon defragmentation you'll lose your secret message and even your cereal packet decoder ring won't be able to help.

In the case of the universe that wouldn't be so much a secret message as the viability to observe another parallel universe, as when you defragment, you would be fragmenting it from observation.

Ah but Fragmentation can also allow for Stenography, upon defragmentation you'll lose your secret message and even your cereal packet decoder ring won't be able to help.

In the case of the universe that wouldn't be so much a secret message as the viability to observe another parallel universe, as when you defragment, you would be fragmenting it from observation.
did I ever tell you the true story of the Flamingo Child?

http://photonchallenge.com/images/siteproper/greater-flamingo-1.jpg

you see there was this guy who stumbled upon a secret and not just any old secret but THE secret and not just a petty human one either....and well the sims were history after that.

the wrote a book on it to clarify his thoughts

http://photonchallenge.com/images/siteproper/center%20of%20time.jpg
disguised as a sci fi thriller and never published in the shops. All about the universe during 1985/86. Earth time.

Happy now?:D

http://photonchallenge.com/images/siteproper/greater-flamingo-1.jpg

you see there was this guy who stumbled upon a secret and not just any old secret but THE secret and not just a petty human one either....and well the sims were history after that.

I wouldn't know anything about that, however it does neglect the rather twisted variant of how the universe could be wielded like a bulletproof jacket although any nut hellbent on killing themselves and anyone else would obviously shoot your protagonist.

In some respects it's very similar to Norse Legend in regards to Baldr's death by Loki's inadvertent hand.

So don't go wielding that universe like a bulletproof jacket.

QQ, one query though, does this mean you are actually more a Quantum Hack than Quack?

... You're oozing hypocrisy by demanding the mainstream provide evidence (and then ignoring any and all things put in front of you) ... There's plenty of experimental evidence for the photon and its properties (which are accurately modelled without 'total confusion' in the mainstream models), you're having to make so many caveats which have no basis in mainstream models in order to avoid accepting evidence. ...Yes. I gave 10 separate proofs of energy packets traveling between source and detection here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2567589&postcount=146
But as you say, he will not accept and pay no matter what proof is supplied. No.8 was so simple a bright 7 year old* has noticed it and yet strongly shows something (we call light) is traveling thru the air between sun and your eye:

(8) Fact that the setting sun appears not to be round like when it is high yet there is absolutely no change in either the mass of the Earth or the distance to the sun – I.e. a MassDistance theory’s inputs (if there were any calculation possible in it) would be identical for both cases but by MAGIC the results are different.

Sort of like requiring 2+5 = 6 at sunset and 2+5 = 7 at high noon. (Same inputs give different outputs.) Be careful in explaining this. You might be tempted to say "something" is passing thru different amounts of air, but your MassDistance theory assumes nothing is and is stuck with fact there is no change in either masses or distances of the Sun/Earth system between noon and sunset.

--------------------
*QQ demonstrates less intelligence than a bright 7 year old and uses circular logic. (My theory is correct because it is 100% correct - thus it has to be correct.)

PS Since QQ's theory is only words, he keeps changing the name. I have stuck with "MassDistance" as cannot (and don't think name important) keep up with his changing names. Recently it has been the "light effect" theory, but now seems to be the "zero point" theory. I call it the "Magic does it" theory as that too can predict nothing and calculate nothing, so seems like a more honest description.

Yes. I gave 10 separate proofs of energy packets traveling between source and detection here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2567589&postcount=146
But as you say, he will not accept and pay no matter what proof is supplied. No.8 was so simple a bright 7 year old* has noticed it and yet strongly shows something (we call light) is traveling thru the air between sun and your eye:

(8) Fact that the setting sun appears not to be round like when it is high yet there is absolutely no change in either the mass of the Earth or the distance to the sun – I.e. a MassDistance theory’s inputs (if there were any calculation possible in it) would be identical for both cases but by MAGIC the results are different.

Sort of like requiring 2+5 = 6 at sunset and 2+5 = 7 at high noon. (Same inputs give different outputs.) Be careful in explaining this. You might be tempted to say "something" is passing thru different amounts of air, but your MassDistance theory assumes nothing is and is stuck with fact there is no change in either masses or distances of the Sun/Earth system between noon and sunset.

--------------------
*QQ demonstrates less intelligence than a bright 7 year old and uses circular logic. (My theory is correct because it is 100% correct - thus it has to be correct.)

PS Since QQ's theory is only words, he keeps changing the name. I have stuck with "MassDistance" as cannot (and don't think name important) keep up with his changing names. Recently it has been the "light effect" theory, but now seems to be the "zero point" theory. I call it the "Magic does it" theory as that too can predict nothing and calculate nothing, so seems like a more honest description.

hmmm...so what other mistakes are you making?

If you are not reading my posts and are just posting to flame then why bother!?

Billy T,

posted by Alphanumeic:
And why does it 'have to be'? [re:100% accuracy]


well for starters the gravitational constant is 100 % constant so it obvously has to be predicted 100% accurately doesn't it.

Hint: and there is only one possible way that can be formulated that includes every single bit of matter in this universe simultaneously and allows for inperceptable and perceptable cosmic expansion and contraction.

go on have a guess ?

Even if light is considered as mass-less, they do need certain impetus to guide them in their motion. Otherwise, as inertia is not applicable to mass-less bodies, light would never able to travel in straight line at regulated speed; this it does. Although light is considered to have no mass, it does not prevent it having matter content. Light is mass-less because no external effort, in the direction of its motion, can affect its motion.

Light is continuous flow of photons through universal medium. Universal medium creates the photons, initiates and sustains their motions at constant level. Photons cannot survive without their motions. Universal medium supply required energy no initiate and sustain photons’ motions. For details, kindly refer to ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’