The unambiguous proof of light actually traveling - does it exist?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Quantum Quack, May 10, 2007.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Can the Em radiation be proven to exist by means other than it's effect on an object of mass?


    In the past I have posted this question and received unsatisfactory results. By this I mean that as yet no one has proven conclusively that light theory is actually valid with regards to light be it photon or wave actually traveling.

    By traveling I mean in the usual sense that being from source to destination at the commonly held speed of approximately 300,000 kms per second.

    Let me explain my concern if I may...

    Light as per commonly held belief is often described as one would describe a particle or bullet or wave in that it travels from source to destination and is reflected to go on to complete another journey.

    The problem is this:
    Can light be observed with out a reflector be it the eye or a mirror or any other object of mass to be in transit from source to destination?
    I presume the answer to this is no as no evidence to support a "free of reflector" photon exists and by it's very nature cannot be seen to exist without a reflector [simple circular rational yes?].

    So this leaves us with a conundrum that light can only be experienced in reflection and not any other way. Which unfortunately leaves us with the dilemma of whether we are experiencing light as commonly held or we are experiencing something else.

    So this leads on to the question:
    How do we rule out the possibility that light maybe a "reflector" [ mass] event and not a light event as commonly described. That light as manifested is an effect of inertia.
    How can we differentiate between light and reflector isolating the reflector from the observation? Impossible I would surmise.

    So this raises the incredible question of what are we actually measuring when we measure the speed of light? Are we measuring the speed at which a reflector's surface changes [inertia by default] or are we measuring the speed of a photon?

    The same question is very relevant to the issue of gravity.
    "If an object is not in a gravity field does the gravity field exist?"
    "Can the force of gravity be measured with out something actually being in a gravity field"
    "Can the force of gravity be measured near by that object with out using an object of mass to do so?"
    Can we differentiate between gravity and the mass it attracts? Are they separate things? or are they one and the same?

    So as you can see may be in my naivety I have raised a can of worms [ again] and maybe someone can set me straight by providing unambiguous proof that light indeed travels free of a reflector and that the effect of light is not simply the reflector or the effect of the reflector itself?

    If I haven't made my position clear please let me know and maybe the question can be put more succinctly.
    Looking forward to evidence... I want to believe I really do.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    note: [ on the presumption that no evidence will be forthcoming]
    Just because we do not know what the mechanism is for the manifestation of light on a reflector does not mean we should ignore the possibility of error in our observations

    Care to discuss?

    It would make a great question for high school students to try and answer I reckon: "Write an essay that proves conclusively that light is independent of a reflector and show unambiguously that light indeed travels?"
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    QQ, as to the bit about light traveling/not traveling, you're fighting a very loosing battle.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Light is simply an electromagentic wave just like any other form of EM radiation like radio waves and microwaves and all the rest. The only difference is the frequency. We can very carefully and accurately measure the transition time of the traveling wave - in fact, that's the very basis of radar range-finding.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There are many more examples but just that one should be enough to put the question to rest in your mind.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Thanks for your post and yes it does appear on the surface to be the case. However I would ask you with what are you measuring these transition times and what premises are you assuming when doing so.

    True we can say that a signal takes say 1 second to reach receiver but we must use a reciever to measure this. Can we detect radio waves in transit without a receiver [ reflector ]?
    Can you show me conclusively that the effect is not simply a receiver event. And that radio waves actually exist independently?

    bear with me...I know it sounds crazy.....to ask such a question
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    maybe I should simply ask a blunt question:

    Can you prove that EM radiation exists other than by it's effect on an object of mass?
     
  8. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Well, then I would point you to the heating effect caused by the absorption of microwaves and lasers. There's no "receiver" in the electronic sense nor is there any actual reflector involved in direct transmission and absorption. And if the distance is large enough there is a measurable time element between emission and contact.
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    correct but is that time element the distance between source and destination [ absorbing would be IMO reflecting] or is it the time taken for the absorbtion [ reflecting ] to take place.

    It takes time for the changes to occur...true.
    but is it this because of transit times or because of the inherant inertia of the reflector?

    So I shall repeat the question :

    Can the Em radiation be proven to exist other than by it's effect on an object of mass?

    d/t equations would not be conclusive I would think
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I have amended the thread starter to reflect this question:
    Can the Em radiation be proven to exist by means other than it's effect on an object of mass?
     
  11. Singularity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,287
    I am more curious about the double slit experiment, ie. how can one photon split, conclusion there are many.

    Anyway, on the proof part, let me ask again, if Light is EM wave then how to use electromagnetism to interact/detect the photons ?
     
  12. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Seriously, I cannot imagine what you're trying to accomplish with this. We know, for example that when a photon strikes an atom and is absorbed by it that it causes an electron to move to a higher energy level. And after a period of time, that electron falls back to it's base level and emits a photon.

    We can also measure - precisely - the time it takes for an EM signal to reach a space probe (or a Martian rover) and for that device to respond. Also, we're all too keenly aware of the transit time involved in sending a signal up to a satellite and having it relay that signal down to a different point. And we use the reflectors left on the Lunar surface to bounce a laser beam back to us in order to determine the precise distance between the Earth and the Moon be measuring element of time involved.

    So... where are you trying to go? Exactly what is to be achieved by questioning the clearly proven obvious?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    hmmmmm.....but as yet the photons very existance has yet to be conclusively proven.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    well then it should be really easy to do so ...prove the Em radiation exists by means other than it's effect on an object of mass and I shall rest my case.

    I propose that it cannot be proven without the use of an object of mass. therefore we have an ambiguous proof.

    Is it possible that the time involved is not a photon travel time but rather a change of reflector time?
     
  15. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Tell me precisely what you mean by " a change of reflector time."
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    simply an answer to the question of the reality of EM radiation.


    note an atom is an object of mass and I assume an electron is also. The photon emitted is observed using what? [ another object of mass ]

    yes however this does not provide proof in response to the question of the reality of a photons existance as independant of a reflector. If anything it reinforces the notion that it is entirely dependant on a reflector to be observed.


    For me personally not much except it opens the door to possibilities.
    If it can be proven as requested then theories on the nature of inertia would have to be dumped.
    If it cannot be proven then an alternative view on the reality can be legitimately put forward
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2007
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    At the moment it is not really relevant, maybe later when the question of ambiguity is resolved it would be.
    The first problem is for me to show and see that the issue of a photons existance has not been proved adequately and thoroughly.
    There are other possible explanations for the effect that we call Light or EM radiation. However to put them forward here and now would be premature and unecessarilly confusing.

    If we can accept that the Answer to the question is proven as NO, Em radiation can not be observed independantly of a reflector or object of mass then we are making an incredible discovery or revelation with this fact alone.

    Can the Em radiation be proven to exist other than by it's effect on an object of mass?
    Can Gravity be proven to exist other than by it's effect on an object of mass?


    If we can admit that we can not differentiate between Em radiation and object of mass [reflector] what ramifications does this potentially have to our understanding of what we have come to believe as absolutely true about space time and energy?
     
  18. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    This is a naive question, and I think the answer may be no. Off the top of my head, the only particles which we know about in our universe which interact with the photon are massive, so in a sense, any interaction with the electromagnetic field is between the field and the massive particle. Another way to say this is that the photon interracts with electrically charged particles, and all the electrically charged particles we have in our universe are massive.

    Further, before spontaneous symmetry breaking (in the first 10^-12 seconds), there were no photons! Photons only exist when the electro-weak symmetry breaks.

    This is where the questions become more naive

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    We have predicted and tested QED, the quantum theory of light, more accurately than any theory in the history of mankind---to better than one part in 10^13.

    This seems to involve non-locality---that is, two uncorrelated things are somehow correlated across space and time. And the disturbance would somehow have to travel exactly at the speed of light and never faster. This is all perfectly explained by a photon propogating from point A to point B. No. You're wrong.

    Everything we know is right. I promise. You won't get a crackpot count cause you were polite enough to phrase your posts as questions

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Yes. Gravity affects photons. They change course, see the Shapiro Effect or Gravitational lensing. Gravity also causes gravitational redshift, see the Pound-Rebka Experiment.

    Yes. But I can't quote an actual experiment. Photons are EM radiation that have energy but have no "mass". And it's mass/energy that results in gravity, not just mass. This means photons contribute to gravity, albeit it in a small way. If you confined a massless photon in an internally-reflecting box, that box would have additional mass by virtue of the extra energy and E=mc2.

    However there is a "no" answer to your question. Neutrinos are almost massless, and whilst you can't really call them EM radiation, in some respects they are akin to rather odd photons. They're very difficult to detect because they do not interact with matter very much. They tend to sleet right through it. If they did not interact with matter at all, we would have to infer their existence from energy losses. This is in fact how they were discovered. If we extend this thinking to "dark energy" or "dark matter", we know that something is causing surplus gravity, but we can't prove what it is.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2007
  20. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I disagree. I can't think of any similarities between neutrinos and photons.

    Maybe you could enlighten us?
     
  21. Singularity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,287
    I think they are both capable of hitting the core of the atoms
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Not completely sure, but think you are wrong on first part. I.e. traveling free, a photon creates no gravity.* If it did then two traveling to Earth from a distant star would merge into a single beam from their mutual gravitational attraction, but they do not. - We know that by type of stellar interometer that can be used to measure the diameter of the star - interference from geometry different paths associated with photons from the opposite sides ot the star. -i.e. Star light is not exactly one beam.

    Also if photons mutually attracted each other then the starlight would collapse into a multitude of "spikes" sort of like the sea-urchine quils. If this were the case, then you, standing beside me, could not see the same stars that I see!

    In case of confined photons bouncing around in a box, yes, it will be heaver in a gravity field if there are more photons in it. As they "fall down" in the gravity field they gain energy and rebound (or absorbed) on the floor of the box with more impulse than on the ceiling of the box. By Newton's 3d law, if the Earth pulls harder on the photon filled box than an empty one, then the photon filled box also pulls harder on the Earth - Only way it can do this is by gravity.

    If the photon box is not in an external gravity field I think they also produce slight gravity extra over that of the box alone, but I am not sure of this.
    ----------------------------
    *Sun is not pulling on the photon as it passes, so argument I just gave about photons in box on Earth does not apply. The sun is "bending space" so really photon is just going alone a straight line in this bent space. All this must be treated at a higher level than I can, but over the years I have found / invented the following simple rule, which seems to give same results as the more sophisticated math. I.e. "Energy" which is the same in all inertial frames, does make gravity (For example, a hot brick makes more gravity than a cold one with both having exactly the same number and types of atoms.) but energy which changes magnitude as you change from one inertial frame to another does not make gravity. (For example, the hydrogen Lyman Alpha photon has more energy if I am running towards it than if I am running away from it, so by my rule, it is not making any gravity.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2007
  23. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    No charge, travel almost at the speed of light, standard model says massless but they must have a small mass if they travel at less than c. So would a photon travelling in a tight spiral. I'm not saying it "is" a photon, I said akin. Annihilation turns an electron and a positron into two gamma photons, so the boson/fermion distinction maybe isn't quite as hard and fast as you think.
     

Share This Page