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:
    20,121
    Well firstly I can see it in transit from an angle perpendicular to it's vector from a position or perspective remote to it's location. across my vision ok...

    A photon would need something to obstruct it's path and reflect it towards me [ according to current thinking] but of course I don't see the photon as all I actually see is the reflector all lit up like [ which of course is stationary]. Take the reflector out of the stream of photons and they are not discernable and the reflector is not lit up.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    You're focusing on photons again.
    Are you disputing that light travels, or that photons travel?

    If a flash of light in the middle of a diffuse dust cloud illuminates the dust first in the middle, then a bit further out, then further out again... does that not indicate traveling light?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    20,121
    I know this may be frustrating but no it doesn't
    It could indicate that the intensity of the effect is increasing on the particles of dust in a way that gives the impression of light traveling.

    Actually a 600,000 km diametre diffuse dust cloud would be a good example gedanken in a future discussion
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Montec Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    248
    Hello Quantum Quack

    There is always the Sagnac effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

    The physical apparatus rotates independently from the light beams to give a phase variance in the observed interference of the light beams. If the light does not exist independent of the apparatus then how could rotating the apparatus change the interference?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    So there is "an effect" of some kind that travels?
     
  9. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    That thrown ball that crosses your vision. You need photons to see it. And if you claim that these are merely some divine belief, where does that leave your ball? And where does that leave you? The truth is that you can prove nothing.

    All this religious belief in divinity is something of an insult to me. I dislike religion intensely, because blind faith is the antipathy of logical thought and scientific thinking. I take pride in my ontological approach. I look very carefully at the things that I observe and I consider what I'm seeing in great detail. I think, therefore I am, and I take great pains to think about what I see and work out what's really there. Some of the things that we talk about aren't actually there, things like a length of time. But light is. And distance is. It's there, I can see it, and I see it with light.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2007
  10. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Please QQ, since the EM waves are a solution of Maxwell's equations, which part of Maxwell's equation you do not accept?
     
  11. ecclesiastes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    82
    quantum quack,
    how would you describe an unambiguous proof? are you looking for a mathematical proof? or a physical proof of the existence without any sort of interaction? or maybe an interactive experiment (using reflectors) but with a form of control or varying the surface in order to rule out the possibility that its a 'reflector event'?
     
  12. Singularity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,287
    So can u tell us how to affect this EM wave with magnetism or electricity ?
     
  13. Singularity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,287
    I hope u r aware that waves of light have been photographed. What i mean is that if light reached instantly (for its frame) then there will be no time for the wave oscillations.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    The impression suggests something is traveling not unlike a a string of coloured LED's that are lit in a manner to suggest that a coloured spot is traveling along the string.

    an effect at the reflector and not an effect to the reflector
     
  15. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    And all I am pointing out is that a photon is consistent with everything we know about physics.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    farsight:
    If we could use a ball to prove the existance of a photon in the same way you use a photon to prove the existance of the ball we would have something.
    The difference between a photon and a ball I think I correctly described earlier. Neither can be ultimately proved as per extremes of philosophy but one [ the ball ] requires less proving than the other.


    well said and I hope I have not insulted you when I suggest that this issue of the photons existance needs to be rigourously shown to be absolutely unambiguous due to the incredible amount of influence this "abstraction" or theory has as I am sure you would agree.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    ahhh then it is easy to see why to challenge the almighty photon is such a provocative thing to do. And one that invariably fails to be treated seriously.

    Once all the "hub bub" of threat to science is worn out then maybe we can sit down and actually take an objective view of it.

    For example I have poorly explained the bell analogy earlier or you have misinterpreted my explanation, either way I take full responsibility.

    Try this:
    The space between the bells is "nothing" a void, a distanceless vacuum. The bells are actually touching even though they may be light years apart. They resonate in sympathy and when one resonance changes so to does the other however distance mitigates intensity even though distance is an illusion thus the changes in resonance gives the impression of 'c' and that suggests Em travels to accomodate the time delay. However it is the inertia of the bells structure that provides the time delay and not the illusionary diistance.

    You can see that to even get through the first sentance one has to seek to understand way to many radical dimensional concepts. So I think it is not useful to get to involved here until it can be properly presented.

    But essentially it is like saying that all Em and Gravity events occur AT the location and not TO the location. By switching perspectives one could even suggest that light events are an entanglement phenomena. [ spooky action at a distance]
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    Also I just realised I am actually supporting the formula E=mc^2 as the value of 'c' is used in it but not the photon iteself. The value of 'c'^2 being applied to the value of 'm'.
     
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    I really have no idea how you can prove a photns exstance when it can only be detected when blocking it's vector. Can not be detected perpendicular to it's vector. is 2 dimensional in one perspective and three dimensional in another, has time yet no time etc etc..... so paradoxed is our humble photon.

    the need would be for hard evidence that it is not just an abstraction to describe a reflector event.

    IN other words if we take a good hard look at the reflector [ mass] and ask ourselves what is actually happening with out assuming the validity of an independent photon or wave we might be surprised to find that all our science could be explained more efficiently and more accurately using other abstractions. Because let there be no doubt we are not trying to explain reality here, we are really trying to explain our scientific beliefs.
    Once done then maybe we can move onto reality.
     
  20. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    QQ, you seem to keep returning to visible light photons in your discourse and rarely touch on the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. So I would ask you that if nothing is moving, how can we use EM waves (photons) to carry intelligence to distant locations? As in radio, TV, etc.

    And by the same token, what do you suggest is carrying the information down strands of fiber-optic cables if it's not the photons?
     
  21. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    A more better question would be to ask:
    "By what means does the existing information at the distant destination change?"
    answer:
    As the intensity of that information changes relative to distance there appears to be a time delay as the inertia of the "receiver reflector" inhibits the change required. There is no distance to be travelled by the information however there is a need for the reciever to change to the appropriate intensity. And as the rate of change in the reflector cannot exceed 'c' [ inertia] the false impression given is that the time delay is due to distance of travel.
    [note:if the reflector mass changes exceed the rate of 'c' time dilation occurs. so if the antenna is moving away or towards the source [ relative velocity ] the frequency will shift accordingly.]

    [ sorry if I am confusing as this theory has yet to be fully presented ]

    optical fibre is just the same but more complex to explain.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,121
    readonly,
    The problem I have is that to present my Zero Point Theory properly would be a massive task. I would have to unravel every single held belief and then go on to suggest an alternative. Every preconception about space and time and so on.....way too big a challenge I am sorry to say.....too many years of work in trying to do that. [ not to mention having to go to university and study science and math in the first place.]
    So I am not trying with these responses to change any ones beliefs in fact I would be surprised if I did so as they the responses are presented so poorly.

    However what I did want to achieve is confirm for myself that the answer to the threads question is No and that means I can continue to ponder my thoughts and ideas with a degree of confidence.

    I might be seen as a crackpot in some persons eyes and so I should be until I have done the work needed to present properly [ science journals experimental evidences etc...etc ] however I am not stupid and take my use of time very seriously and the amount of time needed to present such a theory is way to great to even consider given the amount of preconception obstacles to be removed.....so we just stretch our imaginations a little instead.
     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    to QQ:

    You seem to be ignoring my disproof of your "it all in the reflections" position. Why?

    In post 41 many pages back now, I said:

    "I think it safe to assume that the interaction between the reflector and EM is local. Thus fact that it take longer for light reflected by a reflector left on the moon to return to Earth based laser source than if the reflector on the other wall over there, must not be attributed to the reflector alone. I.e. there must be something else."

    There is more back in post 41, but that dependancy on distance is the essence of the argument that somthing else (the photon) is envolved.
     

Share This Page