# How does a photon carry energy in itself?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Saint, Feb 8, 2022.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
Yes there are. 1,2,3 . . . n represents a list of numbers with different values. Apparently, energy is one of these "just a number"s.

Except that's a pretty ridiculous thing to believe. Energy has physical units, a number like 2, doesn't. Have you managed to spot that one yet?

3. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
What kind of information? How is this information transmitted from place to place, or stored?
You realise that information isn't fixed unless you decide on such things; you need to have information encoded in a physical basis.
If you don't understand what that means, just say so.

If you don't understand the difference between a number and a symbol, please also just say so.

5. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
No. energy can have many relational values, that can be codified with symbolic numbers. An electron has negative energy.
Electron

How does that work with E = Mc^2?
How does negative energy translate into positive mass? (-E = -Mc^2)?
Electron - Wikipedia

Does a wave (function) have mass?
In the end all physical properties are a patterns of organized relational values which humans have codified with symbolic numbers.

The values of the fundamental physical constants on JSTOR

p.s. I use the term "value" as a measure of inherent potential to do work.

Last edited: Mar 20, 2022

7. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
I don't think so. Actually I know so, it doesn't have negative energy. It has positive mass, so does its antiparticle.

Nothing you quoted from Wikipedia, or the other quote about physical constants, supports your claim. It isn't true. ok?

8. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
Well perhaps you should read my quotes and verify them . It is in the very first paragraph of the Wiki description.
Electron - Wikipedia

Is Wikipedia wrong in its opening statement on the "electron" .

And what does "no known components or substructure" mean? An "unstructured" (patternless), "componentless" physical object ? What is physical about this fundamental undefined value?

How Does Electrical Energy Work?
How Does Electrical Energy Work? (thoughtco.com)

9. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
How many physical units have you spotted in energy? 2, 3, -1 ?

10. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
Where exactly, does the first paragraph say an electron has negative energy? All I can see is it has a negative charge, i.e. -1, where a proton has a charge of +1. It says nothing about the energy of electrons. Nothing.

11. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
Energy has physical units, expressed in kilograms. metres, and seconds.

But those physical units are "just numbers", right? Actually, no, that's not right. It's not right at all because it's "just wrong".

12. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
No, you keep talking about numbers and numbers are human symbolic representations of values and that is where you are wrong IMO.
You are wrong in evoking numbers, which is an anthropomorpization and has no direct connection to anything in the universe.
As shown values are often contained in "inherent potential", a "latent" (enfolded) ability that may become "expressed" (unfolded) in reality". i.e. an unrealized ability to do work.

Last edited: Mar 20, 2022
13. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
Yes, humans need information to decode the natural relational values in play. The universe does not need humans to function as it does.

You misunderstand what I am saying. A deterministic universe does not need humans to function as it does.
We are but witnesses (and a very small part) of universal relational interactions.

A number is a codified symbolic representation of a natural relative value, ok? As long as you speak of numbers you are speaking subjectively. I try to address universal properties in an objective manner. A value is a neutral term that is applicable to all instances that involve interactive processes.
Input (value) --> function (mathematical interactive process) --> Output (value)

I do admit that am not always able to express myself in clear unambiguous terms, but then the science of physics still has many ambiguous interpretations and unknown properties. There are many debates on many unresolved issues.

IMO, one thing is undisputably clear and that is the fact that the Universe has a ubiquitous fundamental logical mathematical essence. If it didn't the human symbolic logical mathematics would not work and the universe could not function deterministically at all.

Last edited: Mar 20, 2022
14. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
I believe it does here;

Energy Of The Electron

Energy Of The Electron Definition
*
Learn About Energy Of The Electron | Chegg.com

* Why do electrons do not have mass?

What is the mass of an electron in MeV? – Raiseupwa.com

15. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
Ok. I see I can leave you to it.

I can't really comment on your last few posts. I can't actually understand them in the way I usually understand things.

But if it makes sense to you, well, carry on.

16. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
Please understand that I do read and consider your advice. I am learning as we go along. My statement are more probative than declarative, so I welcome all knowledgeable clarification. I do not presume to know it all.
I realize I know just enought to get me into trouble with the parts I am ignorant of......

I am merely trying to bring attention to what seems to me inconsistencies in definitions depending on specific parameters. In some of my research I have come across many instances where the very same thing actually is identified by different names depending on the branch of science using the data. That seems not only inefficient but actually confusing when specialists try to bring their knowledge to the table and each treats their nomenclature as a separate property from that which is being discussed.

It seems to me that science has become so specialized that coherence has become lost. Perhaps that is an unavoidable result of reductionism.

17. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,370
So specialised, in fact, that you are expected - quite unreasonably - to be able to distinguish energy from electric charge.

18. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
No, my understanding is that electric charge is a form of energy. If so, is it unreasonable to associate negative electric charge with negative energy?

If I am wrong it would seem a simple matter to correct me or refer me to a link that explains the difference in simple terms.

All the consternation and mud slinging is not productive exchange of scientific information and belongs more on twitter or facebook rather than a forum that offers various levels of scientific discourse from formal debate to pseudo-science.

I see no formal debate, apparently that is above the paygrade of everybody here, and on the other levels I see only derision and ad hominem, instead of honest informative exchange.

It is not the curious/interested amateurs who give this site a bad name, it is the insufferable exclusive authoritarian attitude by the supposedly "knowledgeable" members.

You don't do Sciforums proud at all as a source of scientific inquiry. It has become a smug intellectual wasteland.

Last edited: Mar 20, 2022
19. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
See if this makes sense.

In a mechanical oscillator the position of an oscillating mass is given by the displacement vector, often notated as x; in an electromagnetic oscillator x is replaced by q, a charge.

So the velocity dx/dt of an oscillating mass is equivalent to the current dq/dt in a circuit. Mechanical mass is equivalent to inductance in a circuit

20. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
And that is a form of energy, no?

21. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
An oscillating system has energy.
In a mechanical oscillator potential energy depends on the displacement, so you have Joules per metre.
In electromagnetic systems it's Joules per Coulomb (volts).

You need to be careful about comparing the two; there is an existing gravitational field for things like mechanical pendulums, in electronics there are two fields not necessarily oscillating together (in phase). These fields appear when you apply an external source of current.

And you probably know why a gravitational field appears . . .

22. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,970
Understood, I do tend to generalize, but I understand that in nature there are always exceptions, depending on extant potentials.

One thing is absolutely clear to me is that a dynamical universe is energetic in it's very essence.

Everything in our universe is made of energy (including matter).
...more
Quantum physics in structured water | MEA (meawater.com)

23. ### arfa branecall me arfValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,832
Let's try to model a photon as an oscillating system. There is zero inductance (mass), and the same two fields as seen in an electromagnetic oscillator.

The frequency is fixed. Both the electric and magnetic oscillations are equal and in phase. The only way this can change is if space gets stretched by cosmic expansion. Otherwise the fields are symmetric but orthogonal.

But photons can also be polarized, and that doesn't alter their energy, which is frequency dependent.