Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Prince_James, Feb 4, 2007.
Ahhh.... so the wave / particle debate is over yes?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No, wave-particle duality is still an issue, because it seems to be an inherent aspect of the photon. However, I say David Bohm's photon theory is the best.
Sorry I cannot find reference to any sighting of a photon. They say that the electron at near light speed emmits light in the em spectrum, they fail to say that they observe a photon but are talking about an electron.
Also if the wave / particle debate still rages then obviously a photon has not been observed directly but only by it's effect. If the debate was over then this would because the photon has been observed.
But alas it has not been observed thus the debate continues to rage.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! [ sorry I am being a bit of a smart arse.....]
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One photon at a time is used in the modern experiment.
Also: The particle accelerator I showed you is used as a source of high-energy photons.
The double-slit experiment consists of letting light diffract through two slits, which produces fringes or wave-like interference patterns on a screen. These interference patterns will result in projected light and dark regions that correspond to where the light waves have constructively (added) and destructively (subtracted) interfered
Quote from link.
Note that the interferrance pattern is seen as light projected onto a screen. Photons and waves are inferred or asssumed but not proven.
The point is there is no evidence of a photon except by it's effect [ on a screen for example]
And resonance can not be ruled out as an alternative possibility....
This implies they know exactly what they are dealing with.
Thus we should now be able to determine the nature of the wave / particle dillema...yes?
Or is a single photon somehow a particle when we use a screen and a wave when we don't.....
If Youngs experiemnt was conclusive the debate over particle and wave would be over.
Even so the light can not be separated from the screen. The screen is logically necessary to demonstrate the light.
Simple bit of logic I know but amazing in it's implications....
You can't see the light with out a receptor/reflector......now this opens up the question of exactly what we are reflecting.
Current theory willl suggest a photon that is either particle or wave or both, but alas this is only theory and can never be proven as true, due to the inability to declare the photon as independant of the reflector. [ such is the tricky nature of light]
A photon can not be detected and monitiored in transit...from source to reflector with out using another reflector.....
There are two competing theories to account for it:
The traditional (a photon is both a wave and a particle)
Or Bohm's (the particle is guided by the wave). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-62102221.html
Also, the screen more really "saves" the result.
But anyway, I also ask this: What relevance is there that a photon can be seen most easily through its record on photographic paper?
The question is whether or not we have enough evidence to prove with out question the very existance of a photon in the first place. It is true that there are indications of such but then this is not proof but merely evidence that something is causing an effect which we deem to be light.
The photon theory whilst convenient and excellent in utility could go down as the greatest furphy in history.
Again I ask for evidence that a photon actually travels. evidence that can prove a photon in transit.
But over 3 years I have found none ,......zip....zero.....only found effect only on a reflector or reciever etc but no photon in transit.
The same could be said for Gravity.....effect only but no substance....
And if you think that this is irrelevant and not worthy of serious consideration then we may as well go to Church an pray for an answer to the big questions.
Maybe I should do what the skeptics of para-psych do and offer a money reward for any one who can show me a photon.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Would you accept proof of a photon if it was like watching a baseball being thrown to the catcher? That is ot say, that we could see it in transit?
Or would that not count?
So a photon [ baseball ] must be emmitting photons for it to be expienced as a baseball.....and if the baseball photon is emmitting photons what speed are those photons travelling at?
The question is more about what proof science should demand to support their belief in a photon. Also the question arises as to why we have supported the existance of something yet to be proven with such a passion.
The only way to prove a photon in transit is to record it's effect on an object of mass. A bit like telling something exists only by the shadow it casts.
However because the photon is the universes fastest object and also centrally placed in time it can only be experienced in temporal terms, as a memory but not as an event in itself. Because it's event is of zero duration.
It's event, however, is not of zero duration. Finite speed seems to debunk this instantneously, if all the calculations are correct, which seemingly they are.
Here, consider this experiment:
An equal power laser beam is measured in its speed a thousand times over by having it hit progressively distant photographic paper targets in as much of a vacuum as possible.
In each case, we time the amount of time it takes for the light to hit the photographic paper.
If each speed is the same, we have found the speed of light, unless of course you are willing to say that somehow we have gotten 1,000 "lucky hits"?
Even if we are not "intercepting the photon in transit".
Also, it is very possible that if the photon has miniscule mass, that eventually we will be able to detect the gravitic perturbation that it would necessarily produce.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. That just because you can do the above experiment proves nothing about our photon except the speed of reflection of that laser given a certain distance.
It does not prove the independance of the photon or even it's existance [as a photon] but merely it's effect. [ which is very dependant on the reflector]
If you want to postulate that a photon can be determined separately to the reflector as common theory suggests then I suggest that you do so.
Other wise the postulate has to be considered as speculation only. Until it can be proven I see no reason to hold the belief that it is real as I have no way of telling. Besides which I would have to accept a counter intuitive position [SRT] to do so and I fail to see any proof that would allow me to do so.
Just because we don't know what is actually happening regarding light, photons and waves etc doesn't mean we should accept a convenient theory and call that truth and proved when it isn't.
Just imagine that Quantum Heraclitus is a smart arse physicist that is asking for complete evidence to support the photon theory [ esp. regarding traveling ] and gives a hint as to the dependancy of using a reflector to help in the quest.
1] Should I as a physicist accept the evidence so far presented?
2] Should you as a critical thinker accept the evidence so far presented?
3] Do we just assume that a photon travels or do we prove that it does?
4] Is there an alternative POV concerning light that is more useful? That allows for the understanding of inertia and exnhillo logic?
Yet if it was merely reflection, why would the speed be constant as judged through the simple function of distance/time?
Clearly we are dealing with something, are we not? And cannot we infer its properties based off that?
Also, Quantum Heraclitus:
I don't think we've covered this in this thread: Why are you so convinced of the ex nihilio position being correct? Like, what is your reasoning behind putting it forth? What appeals to you based on it?
We were actually talking about exnhillo as an exercise in discussing how the logic in use today inhibits the logic and reasoning necessary to understand it. We then got on to the issue of infinitely small vs zero, and now we are talking about how the reasoning used to describe light phenomena and by extension our attempts to describe Gravity in similar terms and how I believe that our reasoning involving light is flawed based on the premises already discussed.
It would be ridiculous for me to venture a description of ex-nhillo logic other than what I have already when the light pheno issue is being avoided.
Show me a photon and my reasoning for exnhillo is compromised.
Or at least show me that the reality of the photon is very much in doubt and then it may be worth going on to exnhillo in more deapth.
But I bet that it aint that easy to let go of the photon theory even if there is no proof to support it. Such is our dependancy on it.
You see IMO there is no distance for the photon to travel through, so to say that it does with out proving it has no credibility to me.
Light pheno is a mass inertia event IMO and has nothing to do with particles traveling. But merely a resonance of which intensity is determined by distance [ in part ] This intensity vs inertia, in turn, determines the delay in change and causes the apparent light speed figure of approx. 300000kps.
So it is not necessary to have a photon in transit. However the exact mechanism of inertia is yet to be unravelled. But to do so means getting past the old unprovable view and in to a new and hopefully provable view.
The figures given for 'c' are still valid but exactly what they relate to is not photon speed but most likley the resistance to change vs intensity [ inertia ]
SRT and just about every 'c' associated concept would be have to be completely rewritten if what I am suggesting is found to be true.
any way...enough said....rambling now
Let me ask you this: Hvae you ever seen a slow-motion video capture of a high-powered explosion, but non-nuclear? Like say, a 500 pound bomb or something?
Also, let's talk about the distance thing again. Would you say there is a difference between "desire" and "possibility" in your system, or am I right to say "possibility"?
I sort of work it like this:
I take a statement such as:
"The past is something that has happened and is not longer present. The future is a fantasy yet to occur"
I then apply this in absolute terms and knowing that the present has zero duration [ no stasis ] and that to travel is a plan for the future [ fantasy ] then the distance to travel is also.
So to desire to travel is a desire for a future beyond that which would normally occur if travel wasn't wanted. [ therefore you have to effect change on your environment and compete with inertia ]
The change already occuring vs. the changes that you want.
Thus in this case desire makes distance a reality.
Without desire for the future distance is no-existant.
When you give something energy you are giving it a future. [like a bullet fired from a gun ]
Energy is time and when you give energy you are giving time. Thus distance is self justified by the time [energy] the object is given to travel that distance. [ instantaneous circular logic, self justification ok]
So it is desire [ will ] that generates distance. "I want....." "I will......"
No will or force of will equals, no distance.
re Buddhist teachings.....no will = no desire = non-existance = end of samsara
Therefore distance is only relevant to animated self willed entities. With out capacity to effect change [ compete with inertia] , distance is non-existant.
Separate names with a comma.