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 3rd October 2008, 06:55 AM   #361
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
I just realised why we are having so much trouble with this issue.
I should have first open the door to the idea of zero spatial dimensions.
That distance is an illusion, generated by the presence of mass.

the gedanken:
"if you take all the mass out of the universe how big is it?

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 06:57 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 3rd October 2008, 07:00 AM   #362
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ok I'll try this:
explore the possibility that light does not have to travel to the mass to cause exactly the same effects.
Look - you turn on the light, you wait a time proportional to the distance between the light source and the receiver, and then you detect it - so, the speed is the distance over the time. You can put the receiver and source anywhere you like and you always detect the same speed (in air). You can put different transparent materials in between and the speed changes by a predictable amount (depending on the material). You can put a wall in the way and the light doesn't pass through. You can put smoke in the air and see the light beam (because a little bit of it scatters off the smoke into your eyes). You can burn holes in things with powerful lasers. You can use prisms to split light into rainbows. Etc. etc.

There is no way to make sense of this unless light is something that propagates through space. Anything else is literally insane. We understand this better than almost anything else in the world - it's actually a very simple phenomenon.

We've understood the theory of light (at the level we're discussing) since the 1870s and earlier. We know it's an electromagnetic wave, of the same type as radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, etc. We can build very sophisticated devices based on that theory, and they work. The computer you're using would not exist - not even any of its components would exist - if we didn't understand this stuff. Your radio wouldn't work. Your TV wouldn't work. Etc. etc.
sol invictus 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 3rd October 2008, 07:03 AM   #363
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ok I'll try this:
explore the possibility that light does not have to travel to the mass to cause exactly the same effects.
That as far as the photon is concerned the distance betweeen source point a. and mass point b. is zero.
And that the effects we witness and observe are in fact inherant within the mass in question
A photon travels at the speed of light. If there is a distance between the emitter of a photon and the detector of a photon then we will measure a time difference between the emission of the photon and the detection of the photon. We do. Thus there is a distance between the source point a and the mass point b as fas as we are concerned.
As far as the photon is concerned, my guess is that Special Relativity means that the photon experiences zero time. But we are not travelling along with the photon so we see the photoelectric effect as a property of light that proves that light has a particle nature (called photons).

If you want then you can believe in your ""all effects are inherant within the mass in question" theory. You will of course have no way to determine whather light is a wave, particle or specks of pixy dust.
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 3rd October 2008, 07:04 AM   #364
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I just realised why we are having so much trouble with this issue.
I should have first open the door to the idea of zero spatial dimensions.
That distance is an illusion, generated by the presence of mass.

the gedanken:
"if you take all the mass out of the universe how big is it?
You're jumping from one silly thing to the next. That space is related to the presence of mass (which is true, to some degree) does not imply that distance is an illusion. Where did you get that from?

Heat is generated by flames. Does that mean heat is an illusion?
sol invictus 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 3rd October 2008, 07:15 AM   #365
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
You know, this is a very instructional thread.

I mean, if you skip Ozziemate's gobbledygook posts.
That's the saving grace of this sort of thread.

One time in a hundred the original poster will learn something.

But almost always the rest of us learn something.
__________________
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 3rd October 2008, 07:24 AM   #366
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I just realised why we are having so much trouble with this issue.
I should have first open the door to the idea of zero spatial dimensions.
That distance is an illusion, generated by the presence of mass.

the gedanken:
"if you take all the mass out of the universe how big is it?
If you put the stress-energy tensor to zero in General Relativity then you get the vacuum equation. This has various exact solutions. My limited knowledge of these suggests that the size of the universe in the solutions is infinite.
If you put the mass (actually momentum) part of stress-energy tensor to zero in General Relativity then you get exactly the same solutions as with a non-zero mass/energy tensor. That includes the solution that describes this universe. Our observations of this universe means that this universe is very nearly flat and possibly infinite.

My guess is that the answer you want is zero. This is not the case.
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 3rd October 2008, 07:27 AM   #367
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Guys, breath, breath
I thought I'd get that sort of reaction which is why I didn;t think to postit earlier.

just explore the possibility for a moment.

distance only effects intensity or strength of the light but not the speed of the light in transit.

so distance is zero for the photon but it's not for the mass.
so the distance for mass specifies the intensity of the light thus when you check for speed you get the false impression that light is travelling when in fact it itsn't as it is teh intensity that determines how fast the mass reacts to change regardling the light. Thus the effect of light is an inertial event.

so to sum up:

The speed of light data is aquired by measuring how fast the mass changes as it absorbs the light.
This is determined by intensity gained by the distance separating source and mass.

The actual distance between source and mass is zero for the photon or energy transfer [ resonance effect]

any ways thats the guts of it.....
so the possibility of the travelling photons proof being ambiguous means that possible hypothesis are available as an alternative.

btw because distance is an illusion for energy inertia is a constant and so to is gravity.....however it distance is not an illusion for mass but the energy that mass is....[ tough I know...]
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 3rd October 2008, 07:43 AM   #368
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
If you put the stress-energy tensor to zero in General Relativity then you get the vacuum equation. This has various exact solutions. My limited knowledge of these suggests that the size of the universe in the solutions is infinite.
If you put the mass (actually momentum) part of stress-energy tensor to zero in General Relativity then you get exactly the same solutions as with a non-zero mass/energy tensor. That includes the solution that describes this universe. Our observations of this universe means that this universe is very nearly flat and possibly infinite.

My guess is that the answer you want is zero. This is not the case.
ok to work with what you have said: let us see if we can agree:

if we take all the mass out of the universe by rights yuo are left only with vacuum. and nothing, no charge no anything.
You have in fact what I call absolute zero. a state of absolute nothingness which could be deemed as either infinite in size or zero.
However due to the lacking of any meter we are unable to measure something that is now non-existant.
You have essentially conditions before the universe began*. no time no mass nothing.


*Began is not a correct word to use but will suffice for this.
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 3rd October 2008, 07:44 AM   #369
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ok I see we almost agree maybe the approach is different.
We do not almost agree. The actual definition of inertia has been known since at least Galileo (and in other forms before him).
Your definition of inertia has been known for however long you have imagined it (a few days?).
The difference in approach is that the actual definition is defined mathematically and verified experimentally while your definition seems to be defined in your head and verified in no experiments. Perhaps I am wrong - you may have dozen's of papers published on this and many more on the experiments verifying your definition.

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ok
"The resistance to changes made upon that mass" is how I would probably state it, given that the mass is already undergoing change in a constant fashion and as proposed at the rate of 'c' any extra change or energy delivered to it accelerates the masses change rate faster than it's constant of 'c' with out time dilation... So time dilation maintains the balance between relative velocities by maintaining the change rate of 'c'
and if you go real deep you will see why the universe coud be considered as a self justifying, governed singularity, and how it maintains it's constants in a self justifying manner. [ hence when the universe is expanding we see no difference in the meter used to measure 'c']
You seem to be speaking of objects with mass travelling at the speed of light. As you know Special Relativity states that this can never happen.

About the only sense I can make is of the last sentence and that is incorrect.
Rulers do not expand with the expansion of the universe. The electromagnetic force locally dominates over the expansion of space and keeps the atoms at the distances determined by the electromagnetic force only.

Likewise there is a little thing called gravity that locally dominates over the expansion of space. Thus galaxies (and stars) stay together rather than being spread over billions? of light years. This is why in the balloon model often used to describe the expansion of space, galaxies are used rather than atoms.
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 3rd October 2008, 07:47 AM   #370
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Quote:
If you want then you can believe in your ""all effects are inherant within the mass in question" theory. You will of course have no way to determine whather light is a wave, particle or specks of pixy dust.
of course not because if all effects are inherant in mass then we have no particle or wave or pixy dust to observe.
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 3rd October 2008, 07:50 AM   #371
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ok to work with what you have said: let us see if we can agree:

if we take all the mass out of the universe by rights yuo are left only with vacuum. and nothing, no charge no anything.
You have in fact what I call absolute zero. a state of absolute nothingness which could be deemed as either infinite in size or zero.
However due to the lacking of any meter we are unable to measure something that is now non-existant.
You have essentially conditions before the universe began*. no time no mass nothing.


*Began is not a correct word to use but will suffice for this.

The parts I have highlighted are entirely your supposition, with no supporting evidence.
__________________
Id rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna 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 3rd October 2008, 07:50 AM   #372
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
We do not almost agree. The actual definition of inertia has been known since at least Galileo (and in other forms before him).
Your definition of inertia has been known for however long you have imagined it (a few days?).
The difference in approach is that the actual definition is defined mathematically and verified experimentally while your definition seems to be defined in your head and verified in no experiments. Perhaps I am wrong - you may have dozen's of papers published on this and many more on the experiments verifying your definition.



You seem to be speaking of objects with mass travelling at the speed of light. As you know Special Relativity states that this can never happen.

About the only sense I can make is of the last sentence and that is incorrect.
Rulers do not expand with the expansion of the universe. The electromagnetic force locally dominates over the expansion of space and keeps the atoms at the distances determined by the electromagnetic force only.

Likewise there is a little thing called gravity that locally dominates over the expansion of space. Thus galaxies (and stars) stay together rather than being spread over billions? of light years. This is why in the balloon model often used to describe the expansion of space, galaxies are used rather than atoms.

just communication problems..... back online in 10 hours
thanks for the chat...
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 3rd October 2008, 07:52 AM   #373
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
distance only effects intensity or strength of the light but not the speed of the light in transit.
Huh? If distance "effected" speed, the speed wouldn't be constant. But it is, according to both theory and experiment.

Quote:
so distance is zero for the photon but it's not for the mass.
That makes no sense. Distance is distance. Perhaps you have in mind special relativity and Lorentz contraction, but there the speed of light remains constant.

Quote:
so the distance for mass specifies the intensity of the light thus when you check for speed you get the false impression that light is travelling when in fact it itsn't as it is teh intensity that determines how fast the mass reacts to change regardling the light. Thus the effect of light is an inertial event.
Complete gibberish. I can only assume you mean different things by the words you're using than everybody else does.

Quote:
The speed of light data is aquired by measuring how fast the mass changes as it absorbs the light.
No. I just described a measurement I personally did to measure the speed of light. It had nothing to do with measuring the change in any mass.

Quote:
This is determined by intensity gained by the distance separating source and mass.
Gibberish.

Quote:
The actual distance between source and mass is zero for the photon or energy transfer [ resonance effect]
Nonsense.

Quote:
any ways thats the guts of it.....
so the possibility of the travelling photons proof being ambiguous means that possible hypothesis are available as an alternative.
No.

Quote:
btw because distance is an illusion for energy inertia is a constant and so to is gravity.....however it distance is not an illusion for mass but the energy that mass is....[ tough I know...]
That's not even English.
sol invictus 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 3rd October 2008, 08:16 AM   #374
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ahh so you can quote other forums....yes the Harry Ziegler issue was discussed at physicsforums.com

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive...p/t-37816.html

and yes I thank you for your time Fedrik however it has all been said many times before and yes this may very well be part of the first steps.....
Is that thread or the web site referenced in it the source for your ideas?
The idea looks like it stems from one quotation from H. Ziegler written in 1909. This is a good sign of a crackpot theory. It ignores the fact that wave-particle duality is well established both theoritically and experimentally.
ETA: Just read the first paragraph of the web site and no need to go further for crackpotism:
Quote:
Particle theory, as Quantum Mechanics, dominates the thinking of the scientific community today. Here, we explore the alternative, Field Theory.
1. Quantum Mechanics is definitely not a particle theory. The wavefunction is called that a good reason.
2. The author has never heard of quantum field theories such as QED and QCD - some of the most experimentally verified theories in physics.

ozziemate: Is an electron a particle or a wave? Is a carbon 60 molecule a particle or a wave?

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2008 at 08:23 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 3rd October 2008, 10:31 AM   #375
Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
 
Third Eye Open's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,400
Ozzie you never answered me,

How does information get from an object to our eyes without traveling?
If it is teleporting, why does it take time, why is it not instantaneous?

If, as you say, there is zero distance between anything, all things are touching, then why is there a delay? why is it not instant?

Also, how would you explain the double slit experiment using your photon?
__________________
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
"Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly
Third Eye Open 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 3rd October 2008, 11:00 AM   #376
Fredrik
Graduate Poster
 
Fredrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,912
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Effect is not proof of cause it is simply proof of something happening....and it is in the happening that needs to be validated and proved and that is where the ambiguity of proof of the modelled travelling photon comes into question.
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
This is a good example of something that someone who understands what physics is would never say. A theory predicts the outcome of experiments. Actual experiments test those predictions. If the results agree, it's a good theory. There's no such thing as "validating the happening" in physics.
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
....do you understand the question?
I didn't see a question. I just see a bunch of statements that appear to be saying that we can't be sure photons exist. They make me think that your problem is that you don't know what physics is, or what a theory is. That you don't know QED is the least of your problems.

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Ok Fredrik I'll take your lead:

What do you think I need to learn about the model in question to ask this question?
You don't need to learn anything about QED to discuss the existence of photons. It would however help if you knew one scientific theory. Any scientific theory would do. It would help you understand what sort of questions are meaningful.

QED is a theory. My definition of a theory is "a consistent and unambiguous set of statements that predict the outcome of experiments".

QED includes an exact definition of what a photon is. It isn't relevant what the definition is. You only need to know that there is such a definition. You also need to know that neither QED, nor any other theory found so far, is an exact description of reality. (One of the problems with QED is that it describes a world without gravity. The particle concept actually depends on the non-existence of gravity).

Most people would say that a theory is an approximate description of the real world. There's nothing wrong with that, but I prefer to think of theories as exact descriptions of fictional worlds that resemble our own. If we think of theories that way, we should think of the predictions they make as the results of experiments performed in the fictional universe that the theory describes. If those results agree with the results of real experiments in the real world, the theory is a good theory.

Since QED doesn't really describe the real world, the photon it defines isn't really a photon in the real world. So what is a photon in the real world? We can define e.g by saying that "a photon is what makes a photomultiplier click*". It doesn't matter exactly how we do it. What's important here is that there's no way to define it as something that might not exist once the photomultiplier has clicked.

*) A photomultiplier creates an electrical signal when it's hit by a photon. The signal can be amplified and sent to a loudspeaker as a clicking sound.

We can now return to the question of whether a photon "exists". Before we try to answer it, we must decide if we're talking about a real-world photon or a QED photon, and if we're talking about its existence in the "fictional world" (i.e. in the theory) or in the real world. The question can be interpreted in four different ways:

1. Does a QED photon exist in QED? (Of course).
2. Does a QED photon exist in the real world. (No, of course not. The world described by QED isn't the real world. It just looks like it).
3. Does a real photon exist in QED? (Of course not. What kind of crazy question is that? It's like asking if your shoes exist inside a polynomial).
4. Does a real photon exist in the real world? (If one photomultiplier clicks, then yes, but this doesn't really tell us anything. We already knew that photomultipliers sometimes click, so we pretty much made the photon exist by defining it as something that exists).

Note that we can answer all of these questions before we begin to consider the experimental evidence. That's why it's the wrong question to ask.

The real question to ask is whether QED is a good theory. If it is, then the fictional world and the real world are so similar that we're only making a minor error if we pretend that they are the same. That makes it OK to say that a QED photon exists in the real world, and even to simplify that to "photons exist". (It's still a "mistake", but an insignificant one).

This means that the relevant version of the question is #2 in the list above, and that its answer is really just an answer to the question "Is QED a good theory?". That's the right question to ask.

Last edited by Fredrik; 3rd October 2008 at 11:06 AM.
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 3rd October 2008, 12:08 PM   #377
nathan
Zygoticly Phased
 
nathan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,477
OMG, this is still going on. It seems clear that this antipodean will never agree to anything. He/she/it is what my antipodean friends would call a f***wit, they're clearly only here to stir.
nathan 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 3rd October 2008, 01:41 PM   #378
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Third Eye Open View Post
Ozzie you never answered me,

If, as you say, there is zero distance between anything, all things are touching, then why is there a delay? why is it not instant?
The mass inertia means that the delay is present.
It takes time due to that inertia for the mass to change

12345
.distance
....12345
or
12345
.
.distance
.........12345
THe time it takes for the mass to resonate tot the source.

i.e.
take two bells
place them 1 meter apart.
strike one bell and measure how long it takes for the other bell to resonate in sympathy.
the effect of light is due to resonance and the resistance to resonating is inertia.

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 01:43 PM.
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 3rd October 2008, 01:51 PM   #379
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
I didn't see a question. I just see a bunch of statements that appear to be saying that we can't be sure photons exist. They make me think that your problem is that you don't know what physics is, or what a theory is. That you don't know QED is the least of your problems.


You don't need to learn anything about QED to discuss the existence of photons. It would however help if you knew one scientific theory. Any scientific theory would do. It would help you understand what sort of questions are meaningful.

QED is a theory. My definition of a theory is "a consistent and unambiguous set of statements that predict the outcome of experiments".

QED includes an exact definition of what a photon is. It isn't relevant what the definition is. You only need to know that there is such a definition. You also need to know that neither QED, nor any other theory found so far, is an exact description of reality. (One of the problems with QED is that it describes a world without gravity. The particle concept actually depends on the non-existence of gravity).

Most people would say that a theory is an approximate description of the real world. There's nothing wrong with that, but I prefer to think of theories as exact descriptions of fictional worlds that resemble our own. If we think of theories that way, we should think of the predictions they make as the results of experiments performed in the fictional universe that the theory describes. If those results agree with the results of real experiments in the real world, the theory is a good theory.

Since QED doesn't really describe the real world, the photon it defines isn't really a photon in the real world. So what is a photon in the real world? We can define e.g by saying that "a photon is what makes a photomultiplier click*". It doesn't matter exactly how we do it. What's important here is that there's no way to define it as something that might not exist once the photomultiplier has clicked.

*) A photomultiplier creates an electrical signal when it's hit by a photon. The signal can be amplified and sent to a loudspeaker as a clicking sound.

We can now return to the question of whether a photon "exists". Before we try to answer it, we must decide if we're talking about a real-world photon or a QED photon, and if we're talking about its existence in the "fictional world" (i.e. in the theory) or in the real world. The question can be interpreted in four different ways:

1. Does a QED photon exist in QED? (Of course).
2. Does a QED photon exist in the real world. (No, of course not. The world described by QED isn't the real world. It just looks like it).
3. Does a real photon exist in QED? (Of course not. What kind of crazy question is that? It's like asking if your shoes exist inside a polynomial).
4. Does a real photon exist in the real world? (If one photomultiplier clicks, then yes, but this doesn't really tell us anything. We already knew that photomultipliers sometimes click, so we pretty much made the photon exist by defining it as something that exists).

Note that we can answer all of these questions before we begin to consider the experimental evidence. That's why it's the wrong question to ask.

The real question to ask is whether QED is a good theory. If it is, then the fictional world and the real world are so similar that we're only making a minor error if we pretend that they are the same. That makes it OK to say that a QED photon exists in the real world, and even to simplify that to "photons exist". (It's still a "mistake", but an insignificant one).

This means that the relevant version of the question is #2 in the list above, and that its answer is really just an answer to the question "Is QED a good theory?". That's the right question to ask.
so you don't see the question? [ just to confrim ]
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 3rd October 2008, 01:53 PM   #380
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by nathan View Post
OMG, this is still going on. It seems clear that this antipodean will never agree to anything. He/she/it is what my antipodean friends would call a f***wit, they're clearly only here to stir.
what the hell are you talking about...please explain
ever seen a picture of pi?

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 01:54 PM.
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 3rd October 2008, 01:59 PM   #381
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
pi as an image...


assigning a grey to each numeric value and comparing it to a randomly generated version
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 3rd October 2008, 02:05 PM   #382
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Is that thread or the web site referenced in it the source for your ideas?
The idea looks like it stems from one quotation from H. Ziegler written in 1909. This is a good sign of a crackpot theory. It ignores the fact that wave-particle duality is well established both theoritically and experimentally.
ETA: Just read the first paragraph of the web site and no need to go further for crackpotism:

1. Quantum Mechanics is definitely not a particle theory. The wavefunction is called that a good reason.
2. The author has never heard of quantum field theories such as QED and QCD - some of the most experimentally verified theories in physics.

ozziemate: Is an electron a particle or a wave? Is a carbon 60 molecule a particle or a wave?
i haven't any idea of what carbon 60 molecule is or it's function.

do you know what C## is in music?
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 3rd October 2008, 02:06 PM   #383
Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
 
Third Eye Open's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,400
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
what the hell are you talking about...please explain
ever seen a picture of pi?
What the hell are you talking about...please explain. What does Pi have to do with photons?
__________________
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
"Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly
Third Eye Open 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 3rd October 2008, 02:21 PM   #384
Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
 
Third Eye Open's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,400
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
The mass inertia means that the delay is present.
It takes time due to that inertia for the mass to change

.....
the effect of light is due to resonance and the resistance to resonating is inertia.
Inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion.

So you are saying that the delay in light getting from one object to another (when according to you those two objects are touching) is caused by the objects resistance to change in their states of motion?

What if they are not moving?

How can anything even be said to be moving at all if there is no distance between anything?
__________________
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
"Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly
Third Eye Open 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 3rd October 2008, 02:26 PM   #385
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Third Eye Open View Post
Inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion.

So you are saying that the delay in light getting from one object to another (when according to you those two objects are touching) is caused by the objects resistance to change in their states of motion?

What if they are not moving?

How can anything even be said to be moving at all if there is no distance between anything?

Third eye open, everything is in constant movement or change, you know that so why post the question?
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 3rd October 2008, 02:29 PM   #386
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Third Eye Open View Post
Inertia is the resistance of an object to a change in its state of motion.

So you are saying that the delay in light getting from one object to another (when according to you those two objects are touching) is caused by the objects resistance to change in their states of motion?

What if they are not moving?

How can anything even be said to be moving at all if there is no distance between anything?
remember distance is an illusion of mass only and not energy.
distance does not exist for energy.
or
mass provides the distance for energy to move,
or
if it wasn't for mass energy would have no where to go...

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 02:30 PM.
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 3rd October 2008, 02:31 PM   #387
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Third Eye Open View Post
What the hell are you talking about...please explain. What does Pi have to do with photons?
just giving dingbat [nathan]a reward for flaming..
use the pi picture as a stero gram and see what happens

Psych. test. most people when they see a picture of pi look for some sort of mysterious imagery given pi's reputation for non pattern forming.
I can assure Nathan that there is nothing to see except different gradients of grey. if you see something it is indicative of your personality and not pi itself.
Just thought he might be interested

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 02:49 PM.
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 3rd October 2008, 02:54 PM   #388
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Guys, breath, breath
I thought I'd get that sort of reaction which is why I didn;t think to postit earlier.

just explore the possibility for a moment.

distance only effects intensity or strength of the light but not the speed of the light in transit.

so distance is zero for the photon but it's not for the mass.
so the distance for mass specifies the intensity of the light thus when you check for speed you get the false impression that light is travelling when in fact it itsn't as it is teh intensity that determines how fast the mass reacts to change regardling the light. Thus the effect of light is an inertial event.

so to sum up:

The speed of light data is aquired by measuring how fast the mass changes as it absorbs the light.
This is determined by intensity gained by the distance separating source and mass.

The actual distance between source and mass is zero for the photon or energy transfer [ resonance effect]

any ways thats the guts of it.....
so the possibility of the travelling photons proof being ambiguous means that possible hypothesis are available as an alternative.

btw because distance is an illusion for energy inertia is a constant and so to is gravity.....however it distance is not an illusion for mass but the energy that mass is....[ tough I know...]
I'm drunk. I'm pretty sure that if I wasn't drunk, this would make no more sense to me. Can anyone confirm?
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 3rd October 2008, 03:00 PM   #389
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
I'm drunk. I'm pretty sure that if I wasn't drunk, this would make no more sense to me. Can anyone confirm?
try Australian beer instead....make more sense on that
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 3rd October 2008, 03:00 PM   #390
Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
 
Third Eye Open's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,400
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Third eye open, everything is in constant movement or change, you know that so why post the question?
Yes I know this, which is why I asked the question. How can things move without empty space to move in?

Sorry, you don't get to have your distance and ignore it too.
Either there is distance between things or there is not. You say there is not, so explain how anything can be said to be moving if there is no empty space to move in.
__________________
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
"Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly
Third Eye Open 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 3rd October 2008, 03:08 PM   #391
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Third Eye Open View Post
Yes I know this, which is why I asked the question. How can things move without empty space to move in?

Sorry, you don't get to have your distance and ignore it too.
Either there is distance between things or there is not. You say there is not, so explain how anything can be said to be moving if there is no empty space to move in.
ahh but there is empty space as far as mass is concerned but not as far as light is concered
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 3rd October 2008, 03:10 PM   #392
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
but what is motion to the observer on that RF but zero. The mass of that rf is still changing though.... [ how do you define the rate of change for the observer and the mass involved?
Rest frames have mass?

Quote:
the mass itself must change ....ask youself how that is possible? and you will derive the same conclusion.
Huh?

Quote:
The energy with in the mass is moving at a speed of 'c'
So a mass of diameter 1 m will contain no energy after 1/3*108s?
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 3rd October 2008, 03:14 PM   #393
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
What in the world are you babbling about? You're making no sense at all.

How could we possibly fail to distinguish? If I turn on a flashlight it makes light. If I turn it off, it doesn't. So the light isn't the same thing as the flashlight, or the stuff it reflects off, or my eyes.

If you're fixated on the speed, it's very easy to measure - I did it at about age 19 using a laser, a photodiode some distance away from the laser down a long hallway, and a fancy stopwatch (aka an oscilloscope).
Um just for clatirty, i am trying to understand the mish mosh, as I have my own mish mosh secrets, so far.

a. English is not QZ's first laguage.

1. because time does not traverse for the photons (this has something to do with t=0) they do not travel through space. They remain stationary.

2. light is caused by the interaction of hard objects (since OZ has yet to make any distinguishment between force and matter) with each other.

3. I get the impression that we are talking about relative frames of reference because time stops for photons, my guess is that OZ feels that photons ossislate around the hard obejcts. And that they are not traveling somehow.

4. there is some magic in constants that OZ feel violates traveling photons.

other than that is is rather typical mish mosh.
__________________
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 3rd October 2008, 03:21 PM   #394
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Um just for clatirty, i am trying to understand the mish mosh, as I have my own mish mosh secrets, so far.

a. English is not QZ's first laguage.

1. because time does not traverse for the photons (this has something to do with t=0) they do not travel through space. They remain stationary.

2. light is caused by the interaction of hard objects (since OZ has yet to make any distinguishment between force and matter) with each other.

3. I get the impression that we are talking about relative frames of reference because time stops for photons, my guess is that OZ feels that photons ossislate around the hard obejcts. And that they are not traveling somehow.

4. there is some magic in constants that OZ feel violates traveling photons.

other than that is is rather typical mish mosh.
supriingly you are starting to see what I am on about, but a long way to go yet...

Try considering that the mass itself is the photon.
moving at 'c' within itself
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 3rd October 2008, 03:29 PM   #395
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
i haven't any idea of what carbon 60 molecule is or it's function.

do you know what C## is in music?
It is a molecule of 60 carbon atoms, sometimes called a buckyball.
You do know that photons, electrons and carbon 60 molecules have all give interference patterns when passed through a diffraction grid? So they are all waves. But they are also all particles!

ETA: Is it the crackpot photontheory website that is the source for your ideas?
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Is that thread or the web site referenced in it the source for your ideas?
The idea looks like it stems from one quotation from H. Ziegler written in 1909. This is a good sign of a crackpot theory. It ignores the fact that wave-particle duality is well established both theoritically and experimentally.
ETA: Just read the first paragraph of the web site and no need to go further for crackpotism:

1. Quantum Mechanics is definitely not a particle theory. The wavefunction is called that a good reason.
2. The author has never heard of quantum field theories such as QED and QCD - some of the most experimentally verified theories in physics.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd October 2008 at 03:36 PM.
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 3rd October 2008, 03:34 PM   #396
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It is a molecule of 60 carbon atoms, sometimes called a buckyball.
You do know that photons, electrons and carbon 60 molecules have all give interference patterns when passed through a diffraction grid? So they are all waves. But they are also all particles!
and is this the one where the observer effects the out come?
also what are you using to demonstrate the interferance patterns? Has it got mass?
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 3rd October 2008, 03:35 PM   #397
Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
 
Third Eye Open's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,400
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ahh but there is empty space as far as mass is concerned but not as far as light is concered
I was pretty sure I understood that you were saying that all objects are touching.

Now you are saying that there is space between objects, but that light ignores this space.

So now we are back to light teleporting. How is this done?
__________________
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
"Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly
Third Eye Open 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 3rd October 2008, 03:37 PM   #398
Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
 
Third Eye Open's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,400
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
and is this the one where the observer effects the out come?
also what are you using to demonstrate the interferance patterns? Has it got mass?
Every thing has mass. You cannot invalidate every experiment or observation by a simple 'Aha, but it has mass!' you are sounding like a lunatic.
__________________
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
"Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly
Third Eye Open 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 3rd October 2008, 03:38 PM   #399
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
and is this the one where the observer effects the out come?
also what are you using to demonstrate the interferance patterns? Has it got mass?
This is the one where experimental physicists (you may have heard of them) pass various particles (some with mass) through diffraction grids and see the interference patterns that they expect from waves.
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 3rd October 2008, 03:42 PM   #400
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ok I'll try this:
explore the possibility that light does not have to travel to the mass to cause exactly the same effects.
That as far as the photon is concerned the distance betweeen source point a. and mass point b. is zero.
And that the effects we witness and observe are in fact inherant within the mass in question
So why is the energy observed from the annihilation of a positron identical regardless of the mass of the object detecting it? If it was related to the mass of the object doing the observing you'd expect some dependancy on the mass of the obserivng object. But the energy from annihilation of a positron is always 511 keV.
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 01:14 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.