ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags photons

Reply
Old 1st October 2008, 03:42 AM   #1
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Proof of the photon that is unambiguous?

Care to explore the possibility that the photon as a travelling particle or wave does not in fact exist?
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 03:59 AM   #2
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Sure.

Without photons, how do you explain the photoelectric effect?
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:01 AM   #3
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Sure.

Without photons, how do you explain the photoelectric effect?
so the photon is evidenced only by it's effect I take it, or maybe you means something else?
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:02 AM   #4
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it?
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:05 AM   #5
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
so the photon is evidenced only by it's effect I take it, or maybe you means something else?
I think that's pretty much it.

Linda
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:06 AM   #6
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
That's true of everything.

We only know of the existence of anything by the way it interacts with the rest of the universe, and, directly or indirectly, with ourselves.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:08 AM   #7
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it?
I think you've got it. The effects that are attributed to God can be better* explained by other processes.

Linda

*Better = necessary, sufficient and useful
fls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:09 AM   #8
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
That's true of everything.

We only know of the existence of anything by the way it interacts with the rest of the universe, and, directly or indirectly, with ourselves.
so I take it that means you have proof of god yes....nah don't bother answering I was only kidding...and off topic...

So how do we know that the photon actually exists as a travelling particle or wave? by it's effect yes?
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:10 AM   #9
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it?
You first have to show that he has some effect.

With light, this is easy. We use it to see. We can use it to cut steel girders.

That doesn't demonstrate that light is made up of photons, but it demonstrates that light exists. The same cannot be said for God.

The second part of the question then is how we know that light is made up of photons. And the simplest answer, the one Einstein won the Nobel Prize for, is the photoelectric effect.

The photoelectric effect is very real. Millions of people depend on it every day. And it is explained by the fact that light is made up of photons.

If you want to dispute this, you need to do two things: First, provide a reason why light cannot be made up of photons; second, provide an alternate and at least as accurate explanation for the photoelectric effect.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:13 AM   #10
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post

If you want to dispute this, you need to do two things: First, provide a reason why light cannot be made up of photons; second, provide an alternate and at least as accurate explanation for the photoelectric effect.
the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected?
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:14 AM   #11
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,251
The photoelectric effect can only be explained by light being absorbed by electrons in packets that we call photons.
Quote:
When a metallic surface is exposed to electromagnetic radiation above a certain threshold frequency, the light is absorbed and electrons are emitted. In 1902, Philipp Eduard Anton von Lenard observed that the energy of the emitted electrons increased with the frequency, or colour, of the light. This was at odds with James Clerk Maxwell's wave theory of light, which predicted that the energy would be proportional to the intensity of the radiation. In 1905, Einstein solved this paradox by describing light as composed of discrete quanta, now called photons, rather than continuous waves. Based upon Max Planck's theory of black-body radiation, Einstein theorized that the energy in each quantum of light was equal to the frequency multiplied by a constant, later called Planck's constant. A photon above a threshold frequency has the required energy to eject a single electron, creating the observed effect. This discovery led to the quantum revolution in physics and earned Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921.
And yes we only observe photons by their effect. Just like we only observe light waves by their effect, gravity by its effect, any other physical phenomena by its effect.

Last edited by Reality Check; 1st October 2008 at 04:16 AM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:15 AM   #12
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,251
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected?
The answer is easy - electrons.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:15 AM   #13
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 32,809
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Care to explore the possibility that the photon as a travelling particle or wave does not in fact exist?

Can you read this?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:16 AM   #14
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
say for example you wish to measure the speed of light in any ambience you choose to what must you do first to prove light is present in the first place.

Last edited by ozziemate; 1st October 2008 at 04:22 AM.
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:25 AM   #15
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
ok, I'll cut the crappy style ok...I apologise for being so uhmm...leading..

The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present.

do you agree?
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:30 AM   #16
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,010
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Sure.

Without photons, how do you explain the photoelectric effect?
And how do you resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe?

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:32 AM   #17
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And how do you resolve the ultraviolet catastrophe?

Dave
I am going to answer by saying I have no real idea how to explain these effects and was hoping maybe you could offer some ideas [ effect without travelling photons]
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:35 AM   #18
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected?
I keep linking to the Wikipedia article, which contains an excellent explanation of the effect, but okay:

The photoelectric effect was first discovered in the 19th century. At its simplest, it can be observed by putting a metal plate in a strong light source. The metal plate will gather a positive electric charge.

The reason for this is that the light is knocking electrons off the surface of the plate - ionising the atoms there.

The discovery that lead to the photon model of light is this: The brighter the light, the more electrons are knocked off the surface of the metal plate. But making the light brighter or dimmer does not change the energy of the electrons. The only thing that makes a difference is the wavelength of the light.

A long wavelength (red) light source will release low-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very bright, it will release lots of them, but they will all be low energy.

A short wavelength (blue) light source will release high-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very dim, it will only release a few of them, but they will all be high energy.

And here's the kicker: If the wavelength is too long, then no matter how bright the light is, you won't get any electrons at all.

It takes a certain minimum amount of energy to knock an electron free from an atom (depending on what element you're using in the metal plate). But a very bright red light produces no electrons, when a dim blue light - with much lower total energy output - does.

The explanation for this is that light is quantized - made up of individual packets of energy, which were later named photons. All photons of a given wavelength have the exact same energy. And red photons just don't have enough energy to knock electrons out of a metal plate (depending on the metal), while blue ones do.

The photoelectric effect is used today in solar cells, in every form of digital camera, in night vision goggles, and many other applications. It behaves exactly as Einstein described it in 1905.

And that's the first (of many) ways we know photons exist.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:36 AM   #19
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
In all instances light can only be detected in reflection.
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:36 AM   #20
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,251
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ok, I'll cut the crappy style ok...I apologise for being so uhmm...leading..

The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present.

do you agree?
If by "object of mass" you mean something that can detect light (and so probably has mass) then I agree. Some of these things are the receptors in your retinas.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:37 AM   #21
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,251
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
In all instances light can only be detected in reflection.
Light can also be detected in absorption. That is how your eyes work.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:37 AM   #22
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ok, I'll cut the crappy style ok...I apologise for being so uhmm...leading..

The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present.

do you agree?
No. Light need not be reflected if what you are looking at emits light itself. (Which everything does, technically; it's just that most of that "light" is invisible to the human eye.)
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:39 AM   #23
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
In all instances light can only be detected in reflection.
The photoelectric effect immediately disproves this.

Shine a light on a solar cell. Out comes electricity. Nothing needs to be reflected off anything else.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:40 AM   #24
Fredrik
Graduate Poster
 
Fredrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,912
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
The obvious answer is that you have to place an object of mass for the light to reflect off for us to be aware that light is present.

do you agree?
No reflection is necessary. Even if you're in a room where the walls absorb all light, your eyes would still detect the light that goes directly from a lamp (or whatever light source you have in that room) into one of your eyes (or whatever you use as a detector).

...and I'm clearly much too slow.
Fredrik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:41 AM   #25
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I am going to answer by saying I have no real idea how to explain these effects and was hoping maybe you could offer some ideas [ effect without travelling photons]
These effects are explained by photons, by the quantization of light.

If you want to claim that photons don't exist, you have to come up with a better explanation for all the things that photons already explain.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:42 AM   #26
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Some will say that God is evidenced by his effect but that is hardly proof of his existance is it?

Can God knock discrete energy packets off a charged plate that have discrete energy levels unrelated to the total energy of the knocking particle? (I think that is the effect)
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:42 AM   #27
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
I keep linking to the Wikipedia article, which contains an excellent explanation of the effect, but okay:

The photoelectric effect was first discovered in the 19th century. At its simplest, it can be observed by putting a metal plate in a strong light source. The metal plate will gather a positive electric charge.

The reason for this is that the light is knocking electrons off the surface of the plate - ionising the atoms there.

The discovery that lead to the photon model of light is this: The brighter the light, the more electrons are knocked off the surface of the metal plate. But making the light brighter or dimmer does not change the energy of the electrons. The only thing that makes a difference is the wavelength of the light.

A long wavelength (red) light source will release low-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very bright, it will release lots of them, but they will all be low energy.

A short wavelength (blue) light source will release high-energy electrons from the metal plate. If it's very dim, it will only release a few of them, but they will all be high energy.

And here's the kicker: If the wavelength is too long, then no matter how bright the light is, you won't get any electrons at all.

It takes a certain minimum amount of energy to knock an electron free from an atom (depending on what element you're using in the metal plate). But a very bright red light produces no electrons, when a dim blue light - with much lower total energy output - does.

The explanation for this is that light is quantized - made up of individual packets of energy, which were later named photons. All photons of a given wavelength have the exact same energy. And red photons just don't have enough energy to knock electrons out of a metal plate (depending on the metal), while blue ones do.

The photoelectric effect is used today in solar cells, in every form of digital camera, in night vision goggles, and many other applications. It behaves exactly as Einstein described it in 1905.

And that's the first (of many) ways we know photons exist.
there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok..
however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons.

The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass.

So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect.
Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall.

Last edited by ozziemate; 1st October 2008 at 04:44 AM.
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:42 AM   #28
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I am going to answer by saying I have no real idea how to explain these effects and was hoping maybe you could offer some ideas [ effect without travelling photons]
I'm confused. You ask for unambiguous proof of photons. You're given some. Then you want alternatives to the unambiguous proof?
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:44 AM   #29
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
No reflection is necessary. Even if you're in a room where the walls absorb all light, your eyes would still detect the light that goes directly from a lamp (or whatever light source you have in that room) into one of your eyes (or whatever you use as a detector).

...and I'm clearly much too slow.
Don't worry. I'm down with a tummy bug at the moment, and good for nothing but browsing the web for fun arguments in between sudden dashes for the bathroom. Once I'm feeling better my latency will increase drastically.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:44 AM   #30
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
the effect as we call it is happening all the time but tell me what exactly is being effected?

Theories (words and thoughst) are models that approximate the behavior of reality. The actual substrate is unknowable to some extent. We can only approximate, However the model of the photons has a very high predictive value.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:47 AM   #31
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok..
however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons.

The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass.

So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect.
Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall.
Duuude, you can't directly observe anything man. You can no more directly observe mass than you can a photon.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:49 AM   #32
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok..
however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons.
Sure we can.

If you shine a light on a shiny thing, and reflect the light off that shiny thing onto a solar cell, you get an electric current again.

As we've already seen, that's explained by photons.

So the reflective surface has to be reflecting photons.

Quote:
The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass.
That makes no sense.

A photon is a photon. A shiny thing is a shiny thing. They're completely different classes of objects.

Quote:
So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect.
A "mass model" of light that makes provides all the correct equations for the behaviour of light would be identical to the photon model in every respect except for the name.

Quote:
Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall.
Nothing is observed directly, only by its interactions. Observation itself is an interaction.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:50 AM   #33
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
These effects are explained by photons, by the quantization of light.

If you want to claim that photons don't exist, you have to come up with a better explanation for all the things that photons already explain.
I am not claiming that they do not exist, you are though, claiming that they do , and the burden of proof lies with you.

Prove the photon exists in a way that disqualifies the effect as being a mass event.
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:52 AM   #34
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,251
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
there is no doubt that the various sources of the explanation comes from real brilliance ok..
however in all cases we can not know whether it is the reflective mass that showing light effects with out photons or whether the reflective mass is reflecting photons.

The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass.

So why do we need to use the photon model at all and not just a mass model that incorparates the same effect.
Mass has been seen and observed to exist directly however photons are simply a model and abstraction to fit the effects observed afterall.
The Sun is not a "reflective mass". The light coming from it is not reflected from somewhere else. It is a light emitting mass.
We can differentiate the photons from the Sun because the Sun is a long distance from us and we can detect photons from it here.

Basically you are denying that the Sun emits light.

Also the photoelectric effect has nothing to do with the reflection of light. It is the emission of electrons from the metal when light is shone on the surface of the metal.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:54 AM   #35
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,251
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I am not claiming that they do not exist, you are though, claiming that they do , and the burden of proof lies with you.

Prove the photon exists in a way that disqualifies the effect as being a mass event.
We have - photoelectric effect (which is not a mass event). If you think that the photoelectric effect is a "mass event" then it is up to you to present proof since that is what you are claiming.

Last edited by Reality Check; 1st October 2008 at 04:55 AM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:54 AM   #36
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
Quote:
The photon can not be differentiated from the reflective mass.
That makes no sense.
A photon is a photon. A shiny thing is a shiny thing. They're completely different classes of objects.
well then you should be able to show a photon with out using the shiny thingo ok?
Show me a photon with out using a shiny thingo please....
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:57 AM   #37
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
We have - photoelectric effect (which is not a mass event). If you think that the photoelectric effect is a "mass event" then it is up to you to present proof since that is what you are claiming.
not claiming anything just exploring possibilites
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:57 AM   #38
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,251
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
well then you should be able to show a photon with out using the shiny thingo ok?
Show me a photon with out using a shiny thingo please....
The metals that are used in the photoelectric effect need not be shiny. Hav you looked at a solar cell - they tend to be black (and yes a bit reflective).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:59 AM   #39
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The metals that are used in the photoelectric effect need not be shiny. Hav you looked at a solar cell - they tend to be black (and yes a bit reflective).
just using pix humor see:
Quote:
If you shine a light on a shiny thing, and reflect the light off that shiny thing onto a solar cell, you get an electric current again
ozziemate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2008, 04:59 AM   #40
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I am not claiming that they do not exist, you are though, claiming that they do , and the burden of proof lies with you.

Prove the photon exists in a way that disqualifies the effect as being a mass event.
Without photons the following would not make sense:
The gold leaf experiment.
The ultraviolet catastrophe
The entirety of gamma-ray spectroscopy and thus most of nuclear physics.
Literally billions of results from particle accelerators.
QED - the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics...

I don't know what you really mean by a mass event, but if you think you have an alternative to the photon to explain all these thing when the existence of the photon is backed up by an unbelievable amount of data, the burden of proof is entirely at your door.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.