How does a photon carry energy in itself?

[arfa brane]

There are not "just" numbers.

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?

 

[arfa brane]

Of course there is information without human symbolized numbers.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

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

The electron is a subatomic particle (denoted by the symbol e⁻ or β⁻) whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge.

Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family, and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure. The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton.

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

Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle.

Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.

Electron - Wikipedia

Does a wave (function) have mass?

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?

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.

 

[arfa brane]

An electron has negative energy.

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?

 

[Write4U]

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?

Well perhaps you should read my quotes and verify them . It is in the very first paragraph of the Wiki description.

The electron is a subatomic particle (denoted by the symbol e− or β−) whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge.[9] Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family,[10] and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure.[1]

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?

Electrical energy is a form of energy resulting from the flow of electric charge. Energy is the ability to do work or apply force to move an object. In the case of electrical energy, the force is electrical attraction or repulsion between charged particles.

Electrical energy may be either potential energy or kinetic energy, but it's usually encountered as potential energy, which is energy stored due to the relative positions of charged particles or electric fields. The movement of charged particles through a wire or other medium is called current or electricity. There is also static electricity, which results from an imbalance or separation of the positive and negative charges on an object. Static electricity is a form of electrical potential energy. If sufficient charge builds up, the electrical energy may be discharged to form a spark (or even lightning), which has electrical kinetic energy

How Does Electrical Energy Work? (thoughtco.com)

 

[Write4U]

Energy has physical units, a number like 2, doesn't. Have you managed to spot that one yet?

How many physical units have you spotted in energy? 2, 3, -1 ?

 

[arfa brane]

Well perhaps you should read my quotes and verify them . It is in the very first paragraph of the Wiki description.

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.

 

[arfa brane]

How many physical units have you spotted in energy? 2, 3, -1 ?

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".

 

[Write4U]

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".

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.

Anthropomorphization is a cognitive bias that can be defined in many ways, but it usually involves attributing human characteristics to non-human objects or animals. For example, we might believe that an animal who understands our thoughts must be intelligent because intelligence is associated with humans.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

I believe it does here;

Energy Of The Electron

Energy Of The Electron Definition

On interacting with a photon, an electron can absorb an energy quantum and get excited to a higher state. In addition to this, the electron can absorb energy because of thermal excitations, applied electric fields, entering a region of magnetic field or simply because of its mass i.e., its rest mass energy.

*

An electron can possess different forms of energy - kinetic energy when it is accelerated through a potential difference, potential energy when it is placed in the vicinity of a positive or negatively charged ion, rotational energy because of its motion around the nucleus and around its own axis or it can gain energy from thermal fluctuations in the surrounding environment.

Learn About Energy Of The Electron | Chegg.com

* Why do electrons do not have mass?

Electrons are fundamental particles and therefore have no volume. Interaction with the Higgs field (Higgs boson) gives the electron an attribute identical to mass (said another way, the Higgs field gives the electron its mass). Our common conception is that something has mass because it is made of stuff.

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

 

[arfa brane]

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

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

 

[Write4U]

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

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.

 

[arfa brane]

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

 

[Write4U]

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

And that is a form of energy, no?

 

[arfa brane]

And that is a form of energy, no?

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 . . .

 

[Write4U]

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).

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).

At the beginning of time there was a large amount of energy confined in a very small volume. Afterwards, as the universe expanded, energy eventually condensed into mass (stars, minerals, water, plants, etc.). Photons present at that time collided with each other and formed particles with mass (eg. electrons, protons).

Mass or the type of particle formed depends upon the energy of photons (light). Magnetic fields are made of photons. The reason that you don’t see them is simply because your eyes are not sensitive enough. Electric fields are also made of photons, and you do not see them either. Also, you don’t see infra-red or ultra-violet radiation, because your eyes are only sensitive to very specific photon energies.

Photons are particles (as in the photoelectric effect or photo electrons: a phenomenon in which electrically charged particles are released from or within material when it absorbs electromagnetic radiation). Energy is not light (although light photons have energy) and photons are more than just energy (they have other quantum dimensions). Also, the photons from light and the photons from magnetism are the same thing, however with different energy signatures.

...more
Quantum physics in structured water | MEA (meawater.com)

 

[arfa brane]

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.