Incredibly huge inconsistency of modern physics

wogoga said:
Look at any visualisation of the cristal structure of diamond. The nuclei have a strong positive charge (6 protons versus 2 electrons), whereas each of the four bonds surrounding a carbon atom consists of an electron pair. The negative charge of such a pair is a strong adhesive between two neighbouring nuclei. The hardness of diamonds is due to the short distance between the positive nuclei and the negative electron pairs, resulting in huge electrostatic attraction. Because the electron pairs are (physically) stationary, a diamond is a good insulator and can only be deformed by breaking the bonds between atoms and thus resulting in fragmentation of the crystal.

Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...
Ah, I see you're using the simplified model they teach in high school to people who aren't sophisticated enough to grasp the elegant weirdness of quantum mechanics.
 
wollery said:
Ah, I see you're using the simplified model they teach in high school to people who aren't sophisticated enough to grasp the elegant weirdness of quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's not a bad handwaving model, and it's close enough to the real thing to get some of the essentials across, but as you point out, it's still wrong. In more technical terms, I don't think you can actually form an orthogonal basis set of electron states that way.
 
Reality Check said:
Just in case you are interested here is one of the tests of the fact that photons follow all paths in a system: Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester
Click to expand...


Wikipedia on Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester:

Start with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer and a light source which emits single photons. When a photon emitted by the light source reaches a half-silvered plane mirror, it has equal chances of passing through or reflecting. On one path, place a bomb for the photon to encounter. If the bomb is working, then the photon is absorbed and triggers the bomb. ​

On Mach-Zehnder interferometer:

The Mach-Zehnder interferometer is a device used to determine the phase shift caused by a small sample which is placed in the path of one of two collimated beams (thus having plane wavefronts) from a coherent light source.​

On collimated light:

Collimated light is light whose rays are nearly parallel, and therefore will spread slowly as it propagates. The word is derived from "collinear" and implies light that does not disperse with distance. ... Collimated light is sometimes said to be focused at infinity. Thus as the distance from a point source increases, the spherical wavefronts become flatter and closer to plane waves, which are perfectly collimated.​

On coherence length

In physics, coherence length is the propagation distance from a coherent source to a point where an electromagnetic wave maintains a specified degree of coherence. The significance is that interference will be strong within a coherence length of the source, but not beyond it. ... Helium-neon lasers have a typical coherence length of 20 cm, while semiconductor lasers reach some 100 m. Fiber lasers can have coherence lengths exceeding 100 km.​

In addition to an arbitrary use of statistics, the central fallacy of such experiments lies in the fact that photons are 'social particles', which tend to come into existence and travel together in the same state. Wikipedia on stimulated emission:

In optics, stimulated emission is the process by which, when perturbed by a photon, matter may lose energy resulting in the creation of another photon. The perturbing photon is not destroyed in the process (cf. absorption), and the second photon is created with the same phase, frequency, polarization, and direction of travel as the original. ​

So already the central premise of this QM thought experiment, namely that one single photon functions as two collimated beams of coherent light, is an impossibility. Coherence is a property only of groups of photons and not of single photons. A single photon cannot have different phases, frequencies, polarizations, and directions of travel. (Yes, I know, Heisenberg's authority ...).

On the one hand, it is very astonishing how little research has been done on coherence of light. On the other hand, this is understandable, because the acknowledgement that photons normally appear as coherent groups undermines even on the theoretic side the beloved strangeness of the world of quanta. Interference effects which are now assumed to result from interference of photons with themselves can then easily be explained by interference between photons belonging to a same coherence group, but having taken different paths before reuniting again.

So the meaning of this interesting quote (Wikipedia on Bell test experiments)

Nevertheless, despite all these deficiencies of the actual experiments, one striking fact emerges: the results are, to a very good approximation, what quantum mechanics predicts. If imperfect experiments give us such excellent overlap with quantum predictions, most working quantum physicists would agree with John Bell in expecting that, when a perfect Bell test is done, the Bell inequalities will still be violated. ​

actually is this (see also):

We must admit that strictly speaking, these experiments are imperfect (i.e. not good enough in order to decide the question). However, we as working quantum physicists devoutly believe that also perfect experiments would confirm that Bohr is right and Einstein wrong. ​

Cheers, Wolfgang
 
wogoga said:
Wikipedia on Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester:
Start with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer and a light source which emits single photons. When a photon emitted by the light source reaches a half-silvered plane mirror, it has equal chances of passing through or reflecting. On one path, place a bomb for the photon to encounter. If the bomb is working, then the photon is absorbed and triggers the bomb.
​
On Mach-Zehnder interferometer:
The Mach-Zehnder interferometer is a device used to determine the phase shift caused by a small sample which is placed in the path of one of two collimated beams (thus having plane wavefronts) from a coherent light source.
​
On collimated light:
Collimated light is light whose rays are nearly parallel, and therefore will spread slowly as it propagates. The word is derived from "collinear" and implies light that does not disperse with distance. ... Collimated light is sometimes said to be focused at infinity. Thus as the distance from a point source increases, the spherical wavefronts become flatter and closer to plane waves, which are perfectly collimated.
​
On coherence length
In physics, coherence length is the propagation distance from a coherent source to a point where an electromagnetic wave maintains a specified degree of coherence. The significance is that interference will be strong within a coherence length of the source, but not beyond it. ... Helium-neon lasers have a typical coherence length of 20 cm, while semiconductor lasers reach some 100 m. Fiber lasers can have coherence lengths exceeding 100 km.
​
In addition to an arbitrary use of statistics, the central fallacy of such experiments lies in the fact that photons are 'social particles', which tend to come into existence and travel together in the same state. Wikipedia on stimulated emission:
In optics, stimulated emission is the process by which, when perturbed by a photon, matter may lose energy resulting in the creation of another photon. The perturbing photon is not destroyed in the process (cf. absorption), and the second photon is created with the same phase, frequency, polarization, and direction of travel as the original.
​
So already the central premise of this QM thought experiment, namely that one single photon functions as two collimated beams of coherent light, is an impossibility. Coherence is a property only of groups of photons and not of single photons. A single photon cannot have different phases, frequencies, polarizations, and directions of travel. (Yes, I know, Heisenberg's authority ...).

On the one hand, it is very astonishing how little research has been done on coherence of light. On the other hand, this is understandable, because the acknowledgement that photons normally appear as coherent groups undermines even on the theoretic side the beloved strangeness of the world of quanta. Interference effects which are now assumed to result from interference of photons with themselves can then easily be explained by interference between photons belonging to a same coherence group, but having taken different paths before reuniting again.

So the meaning of this interesting quote (Wikipedia on Bell test experiments)
Nevertheless, despite all these deficiencies of the actual experiments, one striking fact emerges: the results are, to a very good approximation, what quantum mechanics predicts. If imperfect experiments give us such excellent overlap with quantum predictions, most working quantum physicists would agree with John Bell in expecting that, when a perfect Bell test is done, the Bell inequalities will still be violated.
​
actually is this (see also):
We must admit that strictly speaking, these experiments are imperfect (i.e. not good enough in order to decide the question). However, we as working quantum physicists devoutly believe that also perfect experiments would confirm that Bohr is right and Einstein wrong.
​
Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...

What a waste of your time - did you look at the actual experiment that verified the bomb tester?

There are plenty of single photon emitting devices around. They are a standard part of physics. They are usually diodes not lasers (devices that use simulated emission).

Bell tests have nothing to do with the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester.

But if you want somthing more to misinterpret completely then have a look at Wheeler's delayed choice experiment (also experimentally verified).
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
So already the central premise of this QM thought experiment, namely that one single photon functions as two collimated beams of coherent light, is an impossibility. Coherence is a property only of groups of photons and not of single photons. A single photon cannot have different phases, frequencies, polarizations, and directions of travel.
Click to expand...

Not so. A photon can very easily be put in a superposition state, with different components of that superposition state having different phases and directions of travel. That, in fact, is the heart of the two-slit single-photon interference effect.

Interference effects which are now assumed to result from interference of photons with themselves can then easily be explained by interference between photons belonging to a same coherence group, but having taken different paths before reuniting again.
Click to expand...

Except you can observe those same effects even when you only use one photon at a time. But perhaps you weren't aware that it's actually fairly easy to do such an experiment, and it's been done lots of times. How, pray tell, do you propose to explain that?
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
<sinped preceeding BS>....
experiments would confirm that Bohr is right and Einstein wrong. ​

Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...


So are you inferring that Einstein was correct about something?

From one of the links you provided to your writings on other forums


Simple black hole paradox refuting General Relativity:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/paradoxGR.html
Why SR does not explain MMX:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/refutationSR.html
Spaceship paradox refuting Special Relativity:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/paradox.html
Click to expand...

It would seem that the only person you think is always correct is you.
 
Reality Check said:
There are plenty of single photon emitting devices around. ... But if you want something more to misinterpret completely then have a look at Wheeler's delayed choice experiment (also experimentally verified).
Click to expand...


All the 'delayed choice' stuff of such quantum interference experiments only serves as a distraction from the essential weaknesses of such experiments. The latest experiment seems to be Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment, Science, 2007 (preprint). The authors use a 'single-photon source' "based on the pulsed, optically excited photoluminescence of a single N-V color center in a diamond nanocrystal". The following quotes are from a page dealing with exactly this 'single-photon source':

We consider the emission of a single nitrogen-vacancy (N-V) colour centre in diamond, a system which has an unsurpassed photostability even at room temperature.

The N-V centres consist of a substitionnal nitrogen atom (N) and a vacancy (V) in an adjacent lattice site. They are created by irradiation of a diamond sample with high-energy electrons followed by annealing at 800°C. At small electron exposure doses, the N-V centre density is small enough so that single N-V colour centres can be spatially isolated and detected using standard confocal microscopy. Their fluorescence then appears as bright spots when the sample is scanned with strongly focused green laser radiation.

The fluorescence spectrum of the colour centre consists of a narrow zero phonon line (ZPL) at approximatively 1.945 eV (wavelength 637.7 nm) and a broad phonon wing with a width of about 300 meV (wavelength of about 100 nm FWHM). ​

So 'single-photon sources' can be bright spots with a continuous spectrum primarily in the range between 600 nm to 800 nm.

... Furthermore, the small volume of diamond excited by the pumping laser yields very low background light. Such property is also of crucial importance for single photon emission, since residual background light will contribute to a non-vanishing probability of having more than two photons within the emitted light pulse.

Nanostructured samples are prepared by starting with type Ib synthetic diamond powder (de Beers, Netherlands). The diamond nanocrystals are size-selected by centrifugation, yielding a mean diameter of about 90 nm. ​

Diamond is said to be a Type 1b diamond, if the nitrogen atoms are evenly spread out throughout the carbon lattice (source). This type contains 500 ppm of nitrogen (source). The density of diamond is 3.5 g/cm3 and the weight of 6*1023 diamond atoms is 12 g. A spherical diamond with a diameter of 90 nm has a volume of 0.38*10-15 cm3 and a weight of 1.34*10-15 g.

So typical nano-crystals consist of around 67 million atoms and around 33 thousand potential 'color centers'. In addition to that, it seems that even more than one nano-crystal is used:

A polymer solution containing selected diamond nanocrystals is deposited by spin-coating onto the surface of a dielectric mirror, resulting in a 30-nm-thick polymer layer holding the nanocrystals. ​

'Single photons' emitted by the N-V colour centre are produced in this way:

Under pulsed excitation with a pulse duration shorter than the excited-state lifetime, a single dipole emits photon one by one. To excite the N-V colour centre in such conditions, we use a home-built pulsed laser at a wavelength of 532 nm. The laser system delivers 800 ps pulses with energy 50 pJ. ​

The energy of a 532-nm-photon is 3.7*10-19 Joule. So a pulse of 5*10-11 Joule still consists of 1.3 * 108 photons. The belief that such a pulse results in the emission of exactly one suitable photon is rather wishful thinking, especially if we also take into account (quotes from):

If an atom is already in the excited state, it may be perturbed by the passage of a photon which has a frequency v corresponding to the energy gap of the excited state to ground state transition. In this case, the excited atom relaxes to the ground state, and is induced to produce a second photon of frequency v. The original photon is not absorbed by the atom, and so the result is two photons of the same frequency. This process is known as stimulated emission. The rate at which stimulated emission occurs is proportional to the number of atoms in the excited state, and the radiation density of the light. The base probability of a photon causing stimulated emission in a single excited atom was shown by Albert Einstein to be exactly equal to the probability of a photon being absorbed by an atom in the ground state.

The critical detail of stimulated emission is that the induced photon has the same frequency and phase as the inducing photon. In other words, the two photons are coherent. It is this property that allows optical amplification, and the production of a laser system.

If the higher energy state has a greater population than the lower energy state (N1 < N2), then the emission process dominates, and light in the system undergoes a net increase in intensity.​

Cheers, Wolfgang
 
Hi Wolfgang ,
You should have read the first paragraph:
We use a single nitrogen-vacancy (N-V) color center in a diamond nanocrystal. The N-V centers are created by irradiation of type Ib diamond sample with high-energy electrons followed by annealing at 800◦C1. Under a well controlled irradiation dose, the N-V center density is small enough to allow independent addressing of a single center using standard confocal microscopy.
Click to expand...
and the description of the source:
Confocal microscopy setup. The 532 nm pulsed excitation laser beam is tightly focused on a diamond nanocrystals with a high numerical aperture (NA=0.95) microscope objective. The photoluminescence of the N-V color center is collected by the same objective and then spectrally filtered from residual pumping light. Following standard confocal detection scheme, the collected light is focused onto a 100 μm diameter pinhole. To identify a well isolated photoluminescent emitter, the sample is first raster scanned. For the center used in the experiment, a signal over background ratio of about 10 is achieved.
Click to expand...


The source collects the emission from one (a single) nitrogen-vacancy (N-V) color center in a diamond nanocrystal. A laser system is used to put this one color center into an excited state using 800 picosecond pulses. The color center has time to emit 1 (one, single, not more than 2, an integer between 0 and 2, etc.) photon to go into a stable state before the next pulse arrives.
The laser system delivers 800 ps pulses with energy 50 pJ, high enough to ensure efficient pumping of the color center in its excited level.
Click to expand...


There is no simulated emission since there is not a population of excited states to be simulated (just 1 color center is excited).

A single photon source emits single photons. That is a fact. If it was an apparatus producing multiple photons at a time then they would not call it a single photon source.
You are essentially calling the authors liars.
 
Last edited:
Reaction to thread "Relativity Revised"

Unlike a Bull said:
Interesting that relativistic mass has fallen by the way-side.
Click to expand...
Ziggurat said:
You can use E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 instead, where m is the invariant mass. In the case of zero velocity (p=0), that obviously reduces to the more familiar E = mc2, but it works at nonzero velocity without needing to introduce relativistic mass.
Click to expand...


In relevant, fundamental situations, the concept relativistic mass with E = mc2 is simpler and thus more elegant than its revisionist reinvention E2 = m2c4 + p2c2. For instance, the very basic concept center of mass does not have to be forbidden or redefined, as it is now the case in orthodox mainstream physics.

It also works for massless particles like photons.
Click to expand...


E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 actually works (astonishingly) well for photons in vacuum, where light propagates at speed of light c. In water or glass however, photons do not propagate at c, so the application of the revisionist formula based on a mass concept quite similar to the pre-relativistic concept becomes quite complicated and thus ugly.

Cheers, Wolfgang
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
In relevant, fundamental situations, the concept relativistic mass with E = mc2 is simpler and thus more elegant than its revisionist reinvention E2 = m2c4 + p2c2. For instance, the very basic concept center of mass does not have to be forbidden or redefined, as it is now the case in orthodox mainstream physics.




E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 actually works (astonishingly) well for photons in vacuum, where light propagates at speed of light c. In water or glass however, photons do not propagate at c, so the application of the revisionist formula based on a mass concept quite similar to the pre-relativistic concept becomes quite complicated and thus ugly.

Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...


Light in a vacuum is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field with no electric charge or electric current. So a photon in a vacuum travels with the speed of a disturbance with an electromagnetic field. The constant c is a constant that characterizes disturbances in the electric and magnetic field independent of any electric charge.

If the light wave or photon particles scatters from anything containing electric charge, there is a phase shift corresponding to a time delay. You can imagine an electromagnetic wave being scattered by either a free electron or an entire atom. The electric and magnetic field are pushing the electric charges in the electron or atom. The moving electric charges 'push back' by generating another disturbance that partially cancels the original disturbance in the vacuum.

The electromagnetic wave is 'slowed down' because it is pushing the electric charges each of which have a rest mass greater than zero. A better heuristic picture may be that the photon is absorbed by the electric charges, only to be remitted after a certain time delay. In any case, the scattered wave/particle has a time delay because of the participation of electric current. The light in a vacuum has an electric field component and a magnetic field component ONLY.

It the atoms are close together in a body, then the material in the body is called a medium. Light passed through the medium is not a disturbance in a pure electromagnetic field. The light has an electric field component, a magnetic field component and an electric current component. Thus, it is not a pure electromagnetic wave. The time delay in individual atoms adds up to a reduction in the effective speed of light.

The quantum of energy in a medium may be called a photon, but it is different from the quantum of energy in a vacuum. The photon in the medium is carrying baggage. The baggage is electric current. The photon in a medium consists of an electric field, a magnetic field, and an electric current. There is a property of the medium called the complex dielectric function that has no counterpart in the vacuum. The complex dielectric function characterizes the electric current.

So the photon in a medium is really a photon from the vacuum which has become 'dressed' with an electric current. It may still be called light but it no longer is pure electromagnetic radiation.
 
This is pretty silly.

The actual equation is E² - p²c² = m²c⁴. If you set p = 0, which is the same as having a body be at rest, you get E² = m²c⁴, and if you take the square root of both sides, you get E = mc². Light is always going at c, though, and the mass is zero. So E² - p²c² = 0 for light. It has energy and momentum but no mass.

The concept of "relativistic mass" has been out of fashion for about 50 years. Once people thought it would help people understand, but they seem to have been wrong, and it confuses more than it elucidates.

The quantity E² - p²c² is very interesting, because the absolute value of the quantity never changes relative to reference frames. It also transforms in the same way the interval X² - t² (or x² + y² + z² - t²) does. (You may notice that the signs are reversed, but that's a matter of convention; t² - x² - y² - z² works just as well, and that's what in fact you use if you use quaternions instead of those weird Minkowsky vectors.)

Which of course is the Pythagorean theorem in Minkowskian space-time instead of just space, which you can use to work out all of special relativity by drawing triangles. The c's, which some people call the speed of light in a vacuum, are really conversion factors between units of space and time, because we normally use different units for space and time, and we shouldn't. At least it's best to use units where c = 1, which is a nanosecond of time and about a foot of space.

Which also means that momentum and energy are connected in the same way that space and time are connected. This is important for Noether's theorem, one of the most beautiful theorems ever, which connects the conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum with symmetry over time, space, and rotation.

I find it quite sad that there is a holiday honoring Ada Lovelace, who was pretty much a dunce, and none for Emmy Noether, who was truly amazing.
 
This is pretty silly.

The actual equation is E² - p²c² = m²c⁴. If you set p = 0, which is the same as having a body be at rest, you get E² = m²c⁴, and if you take the square root of both sides, you get E = mc². Light is always going at c, though, and the mass is zero. So E² - p²c² = 0 for light. It has energy and momentum but no mass.

The concept of "relativistic mass" has been out of fashion for about 50 years. Once people thought it would help people understand, but they seem to have been wrong, and it confuses more than it elucidates.

The quantity E² - p²c² is very interesting, because the absolute value of the quantity never changes relative to reference frames. It also transforms in the same way the interval X² - t² (or x² + y² + z² - t²) does. (You may notice that the signs are reversed, but that's a matter of convention; t² - x² - y² - z² works just as well, and that's what in fact you use if you use quaternions instead of those weird Minkowsky vectors.)

Which of course is the Pythagorean theorem in Minkowskian space-time instead of just space, which you can use to work out all of special relativity by drawing triangles. The c's, which some people call the speed of light in a vacuum, are really conversion factors between units of space and time, because we normally use different units for space and time, and we shouldn't. At least it's best to use units where c = 1, which is a nanosecond of time and about a foot of space.

Which also means that momentum and energy are connected in the same way that space and time are connected. This is important for Noether's theorem, one of the most beautiful theorems ever, which connects the conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum with symmetry over time, space, and rotation.

I find it quite sad that there is a holiday honoring Ada Lovelace, who was pretty much a dunce, and none for Emmy Noether, who was truly amazing.
Click to expand...

To pull the meat out of this, E² = m²c⁴+ p²c² is not revisionist at all, it's Einstein's original equation. It's fundamentalist, if anything.

If you're going to comment on Einstein's theories, it helps to at least read his own words about them (such as the book "Relativity", written by old Al himself).
 
Hellbound in #93 said:
To pull the meat out of this, E² = m²c⁴+ p²c² is not revisionist at all, it's Einstein's original equation.
Click to expand...


It is obvious that E² = m²c⁴+ p²c² is not Einstein's original equation. Quote from Einstein, 1905:

If a body gives off the energy E in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by E/c2. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that:

The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by E, the mass changes in the same sense by E/9x1020, the energy being measured in ergs [10-7 Joule], and the mass in grams.

It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test.

If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies. (DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?)​

I've also found the following quote from Einstein (1948):

1) It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M=m/(1-v2/c2)1/2 of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the 'rest mass' m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion.

2) Page 528: The sentence … (see Okun, The concept of mass, Phys. Today,1989)​

There is no doubt that in many situations it makes much more sense to mention both momentum and (kinetic or total?) energy than to only mention relativistic mass. For instance in a particle accelerator, an electron can have the same relativistic mass as a proton, yet by knowing both momentum and energy, we can distinguish between electron and proton.

The question is whether 1) refers to a special case or whether Einstein recommends it as a general rule, which would undermine his previous "center of mass" arguments for mass-energy-equivalence.

In any case, Einstein uses "the mass" for relativistic mass, and " 'rest mass' " for what has been renamed to "invariant mass" (nevertheless varying depending on temperature, chemical state, rotation and so on).

Cheers, Wolfgang
www.pandualism.com
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
This could be the most concise formulation of a central contradiction of modern orthodox physics: Equivalence between mass and energy on the one hand, but energy without mass on the other hand. How is it possible that educated persons accept such a huge inconsistency?

See also:
Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...


Nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding movement / energy with each other!

that expanding movement which pushing out from expanding nucleus of atoms have a nature of expanding electrons and also nature of expanding light!

also photons expanding and recycling expanding movement / energy with each other!

new expanding light get old expanding light redshifting!

space dont expanding or curving at all!

Space is eternal and infinity place which is nothing!

EternalRecycling
 
wogoga said:
E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 actually works (astonishingly) well for photons in vacuum, where light propagates at speed of light c. In water or glass however, photons do not propagate at c, so the application of the revisionist formula based on a mass concept quite similar to the pre-relativistic concept becomes quite complicated and thus ugly.

Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...

Photons in a material don't propagate at c, but their paths through space-time are still at c.

Since this seems to be the invasion of the High School robots in this thread, I'll try an oversimplification. A photon can't go straight through glass, because theirs stuff in the glass (namely, you know, glass), and if it "tried" to go straight through, it would either bounce off the stuff (which some of it does) or just be absorbed, and you'd just have opaque, warmer glass. So it doesn't go straight through.

How it goes, you need a relativistic quantum field theory like QED for that, because it isn't a classical path. But it's longer than a straight line through a vacuum. In QED, you'd work out the maximum probability path of the amplitudes of the photon as they interact with the amplitudes of the electron density, and you get something wiggly.

Furthermore, if your relativistic quantum field theory is sufficiently relativistic, you stop worrying about whether it takes longer in space or time, because it works out the same. For the sort of I-don't-want-to-take-any-classes subculture here, you can think either of the matter as being like the flags in a slalom or toll booths, or whatever helps you understand with a minimal effort.

In practice, it gets very abstract and confusing, but to a zeroth approximation knowing that the path isn't straight will get you pretty far.
 
With the consequent application of the mass-energy equivalence E=mc2, the question of energy, mass and momentum of photons in transparent media with refractive indices n is clear and simple.

Under normal conditions, photons leave a window with the same energy they enter. If the photon would transport less or more energy inside than outside, an accumulation of energy at the entry or exit side of the window would be the result. So we conclude that transported energy E=h f and (relativistic) mass m=h f /c2 in a medium are the same as in vacuum.

Momentum is transfer of mass, resp. of total transferred energy. From simple (both classic and "relativistic") center-of-mass reasonings we conclude that momentum p is proportional to both transferred mass m and transfer velocity v. For a photon in vacuum we get this momentum:

pvac = m v = h f /c2 c = h f /c​

In a transparent medium with refractive index n, transfer velocity is lower: vn = vvac / n (whereas transferred energy remains unchanged). As momentum we get:

pn = pvac / n = h f /c /n​

In the case of a glass with n=3/2, momentum of a single photon is reduced to 2/3, whereas relativistic mass and transferred energy are unchanged.

The applications of E² = m²c⁴+ p²c² (and of QED) for photons in a medium with refractive index n becomes quite confusing. (See for instance post #90.) In this "revisionist" formula the meaning of m is invariant mass:

m = sqrt[E² - p²c²]/c² = sqrt[(hf)²-(hf/n)²]/c² = hf/c² sqrt[1-n-2]​

In the case of diamond with n=2.42, this invariant mass m turns out to be sqrt[1-1/2.422] = 91% of the relativistic mass. What is the assumed concrete physical effect of this 91% of relativistic mass? Does anybody know?

According to Minkowski, who could be the main responsible for this "revisionist" mass concept, momentum of a photon in a refractive medium is not pn = pvac / n but pn = pvac x n. (See The enigma of optical momentum in a medium). Thus invariant mass m = hf/c2 sqrt[1-n2] would be even imaginary as 1-n2 < 0. See also Momentum of waves in general.

Cheers, Wolfgang
---
The Lorentz transformation is comparable with the circle of pre-Keplerian astronomy: very productive, but eventually wrong
 
wogoga said:
With the consequent application of the mass-energy equivalence ...snipped ignorance...
Click to expand...
Yes, wogoga, a display of ignorance is clear and simple :p!

E=mc2 says that photons have no energy (m is rest mass, photons have no rest mass). That is just wrong. E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 is the full SR equations that is applicable to both massive and massless particles.

E=mc2 is not that energy is conserved. The law of energy conservation says that energy is conserved :eek:.

Under normal conditions, photons leave a window with less energy than they entered . That is why windows heat up when the Sun shines on them. The photons scatter from the glass molecules, heat them up and lose energy. The reason that windows do not heat up until they melt is that hot things radiate light. So the window heats up until the amount of energy it radiates because it is hot matches the energy that it is absorbing from the photons.

The refractive index n is basically a parameter describing that scattering.

There is no relativistic mass for photons because they do not even have rest (invariant) mass! The m in E2 = m2c4 + p2c2 is zero. For photons and other massless particles E=pc.
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
Wikipedia on Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester:

Start with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer and a light source which emits single photons. When a photon emitted by the light source reaches a half-silvered plane mirror, it has equal chances of passing through or reflecting. On one path, place a bomb for the photon to encounter. If the bomb is working, then the photon is absorbed and triggers the bomb. ​

On Mach-Zehnder interferometer:

The Mach-Zehnder interferometer is a device used to determine the phase shift caused by a small sample which is placed in the path of one of two collimated beams (thus having plane wavefronts) from a coherent light source.​

On collimated light:

Collimated light is light whose rays are nearly parallel, and therefore will spread slowly as it propagates. The word is derived from "collinear" and implies light that does not disperse with distance. ... Collimated light is sometimes said to be focused at infinity. Thus as the distance from a point source increases, the spherical wavefronts become flatter and closer to plane waves, which are perfectly collimated.​

On coherence length

In physics, coherence length is the propagation distance from a coherent source to a point where an electromagnetic wave maintains a specified degree of coherence. The significance is that interference will be strong within a coherence length of the source, but not beyond it. ... Helium-neon lasers have a typical coherence length of 20 cm, while semiconductor lasers reach some 100 m. Fiber lasers can have coherence lengths exceeding 100 km.​

In addition to an arbitrary use of statistics, the central fallacy of such experiments lies in the fact that photons are 'social particles', which tend to come into existence and travel together in the same state. Wikipedia on stimulated emission:

In optics, stimulated emission is the process by which, when perturbed by a photon, matter may lose energy resulting in the creation of another photon. The perturbing photon is not destroyed in the process (cf. absorption), and the second photon is created with the same phase, frequency, polarization, and direction of travel as the original. ​

So already the central premise of this QM thought experiment, namely that one single photon functions as two collimated beams of coherent light, is an impossibility. Coherence is a property only of groups of photons and not of single photons. A single photon cannot have different phases, frequencies, polarizations, and directions of travel. (Yes, I know, Heisenberg's authority ...).

On the one hand, it is very astonishing how little research has been done on coherence of light. On the other hand, this is understandable, because the acknowledgement that photons normally appear as coherent groups undermines even on the theoretic side the beloved strangeness of the world of quanta. Interference effects which are now assumed to result from interference of photons with themselves can then easily be explained by interference between photons belonging to a same coherence group, but having taken different paths before reuniting again.

So the meaning of this interesting quote (Wikipedia on Bell test experiments)

Nevertheless, despite all these deficiencies of the actual experiments, one striking fact emerges: the results are, to a very good approximation, what quantum mechanics predicts. If imperfect experiments give us such excellent overlap with quantum predictions, most working quantum physicists would agree with John Bell in expecting that, when a perfect Bell test is done, the Bell inequalities will still be violated. ​

actually is this (see also):

We must admit that strictly speaking, these experiments are imperfect (i.e. not good enough in order to decide the question). However, we as working quantum physicists devoutly believe that also perfect experiments would confirm that Bohr is right and Einstein wrong. ​

Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...

Dead and zombie cats!!
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
Wikipedia on Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester:

Start with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer and a light source which emits single photons. When a photon emitted by the light source reaches a half-silvered plane mirror, it has equal chances of passing through or reflecting. On one path, place a bomb for the photon to encounter. If the bomb is working, then the photon is absorbed and triggers the bomb. ​

On Mach-Zehnder interferometer:

The Mach-Zehnder interferometer is a device used to determine the phase shift caused by a small sample which is placed in the path of one of two collimated beams (thus having plane wavefronts) from a coherent light source.​

On collimated light:

Collimated light is light whose rays are nearly parallel, and therefore will spread slowly as it propagates. The word is derived from "collinear" and implies light that does not disperse with distance. ... Collimated light is sometimes said to be focused at infinity. Thus as the distance from a point source increases, the spherical wavefronts become flatter and closer to plane waves, which are perfectly collimated.​

On coherence length

In physics, coherence length is the propagation distance from a coherent source to a point where an electromagnetic wave maintains a specified degree of coherence. The significance is that interference will be strong within a coherence length of the source, but not beyond it. ... Helium-neon lasers have a typical coherence length of 20 cm, while semiconductor lasers reach some 100 m. Fiber lasers can have coherence lengths exceeding 100 km.​

In addition to an arbitrary use of statistics,
'Arbitrary' here means that you dismiss the facts with no reason. You don't understand probability theory so you dismiss it as arbitrary. There isn't any experimental science that doesn't require probability and statistics to analyze the data.

>the central fallacy of such experiments lies in the fact that photons are 'social >particles', which tend to come into existence and travel together in the same >state.

Part of your problem is that 'single photon' is a statistical concept. The way experimenters interpret this is the following. If a photon source is considered a single source, the probability that more than one photon is in the volume between slit and detector is very small. The probability determines the precision of the experiment. There is a simple way to decrease the probability to any level one likes. One only has to use a dim light source.

A light source can be considered single photon if it is so dim that within the response time of the detector, the probability of finding one photon in the apparatus is much greater than the probability of finding two photons in the apparatus. One counts the photons over time periods much longer than the response time of the detector.

The probability of finding two photon events is determined by Poisson statistics. Poisson statistics govern the noise of most experimental data, including the statistics of classical physics experiments.

'Single photon sources' are determined both by the parameters of the instruments and statistics of quantum mechanics. It is the parameters of the instruments that you don't understand. Single photon refers to the photons that excite the detector within the response time of the detector.



Scientists are working on making intense 'single photon' sources. These will make quantum devices more cost effective. However, even without such intense sources we can use weak (i.e., dim) sources of photons.

One can't do an experiment with dim sources of light without using statistics. Quantum mechanics was largely successful with explaining what happened in experiments using dim sources of light.

A 'single photon source' in your references actually means a 'very dim source of light'. Photons can't be detected with strong light sources because the photons come too close together. An intense source of light can be considered a 'classical source' of light because the photons come too close together.
Click to expand...
 
I cast my vote for this thread to be merged with similar ones, be renamed as "wogoga's theories of ..." physics, relativity, the unified field of **** or whatever, and be moved to religion and philosophy, like "Maartens100's ...".

This repetitive pattern already went from hilarious to sad.
 
aleCcowaN said:
I cast my vote for this thread to be merged with similar ones, be renamed as "wogoga's theories of ..." physics, relativity, the unified field of **** or whatever, and be moved to religion and philosophy, like "Maartens100's ...".

This repetitive pattern already went from hilarious to sad.
Click to expand...

Please add Doron Shadmi's thread 'Deeper than primes'. It also needs an observer created reality.
 
aleCcowaN said:
I cast my vote for this thread to be merged with similar ones, be renamed as "wogoga's theories of ..." physics, relativity, the unified field of **** or whatever, and be moved to religion and philosophy, like "Maartens100's ...".

This repetitive pattern already went from hilarious to sad.
Click to expand...


Very interesting comment, also from the psychological point of view!


Reality Check said:
Is this you admitting your mistake in thinking that Einstein's actual 1905 SR paper does not contain E=mc2 by quoting a part of another paper published in 190) that does contain E=mc2, wogoga?
Click to expand...


I was dealing with "Einstein's original equation" of "1905" (see #99). Here you replace it with "actual 1905 SR paper".

But even in this "actual 1905 SR paper" (published in September, two month before the mass-energy paper) we find this formula for the kinetic energy of an electron (replacing W by Ekin, V by c and Greek Mu by m):

Ekin = m c2 { (1-v2/c2)-0.5 – 1 }​

Cheers, Wolfgang

For Darwin123: Simultaneity, Contraction & Expansion in Special Relative and Lorentz Ether Theory
 
aleCcowaN said:
I cast my vote for this thread to be merged with similar ones, be renamed as "wogoga's theories of ..." physics, relativity, the unified field of **** or whatever, and be moved to religion and philosophy, like "Maartens100's ...".

This repetitive pattern already went from hilarious to sad.
Click to expand...

Please do not mention me as an example, thank you.
 
wogoga said:
I was dealing with "Einstein's original equation" of "1905" (see #99). Here you replace it with "actual 1905 SR paper".
Click to expand...
No - I point out that when you say Einstein + 1905 + paper" without stating which paper it is then this is the "actual 1905 SR paper".

And in this "actual 1905 SR paper" there is no E=mc2 :eek:.

There is this formula for the kinetic energy of an electron (replacing W by Ekin, V by c and Greek Mu by m):

Ekin = m c2 { (1-v2/c2)-0.5 – 1 }​

Cheers Reality Check
 
wogoga said:
For Darwin123: Simultaneity, Contraction & Expansion in Special Relative and Lorentz Ether Theory
Click to expand...


You did not address my comments about single photons. I found nothing in your link addressing the issue of photons in quantum mechanics. In fact, I found nothing about intensity, single photons or sociability among photons in that link. There wasn't a single thing said about quantum mechanics at all.

There was some misuse of the phrase, 'Lorentz invariant', in that link. I hypothesize that you conflated 'relativistic Doppler shift' with "Lorentz invariance'. So let me quote from this iconoclastic link.

'A spherical light wave is Lorentz invariant:

x2 + y2 + z2 = (c t)2 --> x'2 + y2 + z2 = (c t')2

But I don't think that all segments corresponding to given solid
angles are Lorentz invariant in the same way. We can for instance
divide the original spherical wave into two parts separated by
the circularly propagating wave'

Okay, a light wave can not be Lorentz invariant. Maybe you meant the wave front is Lorentz invariant? However, that doesn't make much sense either. The shape of the wave front will vary with the relative velocity of the light source and the observer because of relativistic Doppler shift.

I conjecture that this is what you meant is that the shape of the wave front does vary with velocity of the source. According to special relativity, this is not due to a variation in the speed of light. This has more to do with the phase of the light source which can vary with direction. I suspect that you conflated the definition of 'proper time' with the definition of 'spherical'.


Nor can a wave be 'circularly propagating' unless there is some force that makes the light wave move in a circle. If there is reflective body like a mirror, a very strong gravitational force, or wave interference, then the light wave can move on a curved path. However, the spherical wave front is not consistent with any of this.

Thank you for the snow on Christmas !-)
 
That's not the half of it.

A "photon" is a particle. Yet all matter has mass. So a "photon" isn't really matter at all because it has no mass, thus its not even a particle.

'round and 'round we go where we stop nobody knows!!

Contradictions are very numerous in establishment physics. Good luck calling these people out on it.
 
I can list many dozens of contradictions, but it would be a waste of time. I've found out its just mathematicians confusing math formulas for reality. That's all it is.

Arguing with them is like playing chess with a pigeon. They will strut around victorious, **** all over the board and claim victory without actually moving any pieces.
 
jeffreyw said:
A "photon" is a particle. Yet all matter has mass. So a "photon" isn't really matter at all because it has no mass, thus its not even a particle.
Click to expand...

Using the definition of "mass" (i.e. rest mass) which makes photons massless, there is no law of physics which demands that the second sentence above should be true.
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
Equivalence between mass and energy on the one hand, but energy without mass on the other hand. How is it possible that educated persons accept such a huge inconsistency?
Click to expand...
In the spirit of necrophilia, let me add my 2c:

The formula E = mc2 / (1 - v2/c2)0.5 gives the relativistic kinetic energy for a particle of mass m traveling at speed v.

For a massless particle traveling at the speed of light (m=0, v=c) this formula reduces to 0/0 which is an indeterminate form (ie the formula tells us nothing about its kinetic energy).

I can list 6 possibilities about such a particle:
* The particle has zero kinetic energy
* The particle has finite positive kinetic energy* The particle has infinite positive kinetic energy
* The particle has finite negative kinetic energy
* The particle has infinite negative kinetic energy
* The particle does not exist.

We know from observation that the second possibility is the correct one but to calculate its energy we need to use a different formula (one derived from wave or quantum mechanics).

I don't know why you call it an inconsistency but it certainly is not a logical inconsistency.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom