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, 05:00 AM   #41
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
not claiming anything just exploring possibilites
Then explore no further! The photoelectric effect is proof of the photon that is unambiguous.
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, 05:01 AM   #42
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
not claiming anything just exploring possibilites
oops I am claiming only that the proof of the existance of the photon is ambiguous leaving room for better explanations for the effects that do not reqwuire a travelling photon to achieve the same effects.
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, 05:03 AM   #43
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
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....
Take your favourite radioactive calibration source. Add one germanium detector, dewar, amp, MCA etc. Observe the big spikes that occur on your computer screen.
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, 05:04 AM   #44
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Then explore no further! The photoelectric effect is proof of the photon that is unambiguous.
sorry not good enough....effect is not proof in itself as decribed earlier.

take away those shiny thingos and you do not have light...simple so is it the shiny thingo that is responsible or some yet to be proven entity or object called a photon?
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, 05:07 AM   #45
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Take your favourite radioactive calibration source. Add one germanium detector, dewar, amp, MCA etc. Observe the big spikes that occur on your computer screen.
and the detector is made of photons or something a little more tangible like mass for example. Can you measure a photon with out using an object of 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 1st October 2008, 05:07 AM   #46
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
oops I am claiming only that the proof of the existance of the photon is ambiguous leaving room for better explanations for the effects that do not reqwuire a travelling photon to achieve the same effects.
What you're claiming is completely silly. As I said previously, QED is the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics. Without photons, QED makes no sense. The existence of the photon is thus entirely unambiguous and there is (as near as dammit) no room for alternative explanations.
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, 05:08 AM   #47
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
oops I am claiming only that the proof of teh existance of the photon is ambibuous leaving room for better explanations for the effects that do not reqwuire a travelling photon to achieve the same effects.
The photoelectric effect is unambiguous. There are no better explanations.

Maybe I should really confuse you and mention that there is no such thing as the "photon model" of light. Wave–particle duality is the correct model that scientists use to describe light and matter at small scales.
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, 05:08 AM   #48
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
sorry not good enough....effect is not proof in itself as decribed earlier.

take away those shiny thingos and you do not have light...simple so is it the shiny thingo that is responsible or some yet to be proven entity or object called a photon?
Prove gravity without considering its effects.
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, 05:11 AM   #49
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
and the detector is made of photons or something a little more tangible like mass for example. Can you measure a photon with out using an object of mass?
Can you explain to me why if you change the source the peaks change where as if you change the detector the peak energies stay the same?
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, 05:12 AM   #50
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
sorry not good enough....effect is not proof in itself as decribed earlier.
Yes it is.

The effect is proof of a cause.

The precise details of the effect go to the precise details of the cause.

The photoelectric effect is unambiguous proof of the existence of photons.

If you think otherwise, then explain the photoelectric effect without reference to the quantization of light. With equations, please.
__________________
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, 05:14 AM   #51
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
What you're claiming is completely silly. As I said previously, QED is the most precisely tested theory in the history of physics. Without photons, QED makes no sense. The existence of the photon is thus entirely unambiguous and there is (as near as dammit) no room for alternative explanations.
yeah as if I don't know it...yet you know once a skeptic always a skeptic. The model used requires at all instances a reflective mass. Other wise light can not be deemed to be present.
The reflective mass must be used to prove the existance of light.

So how can we be certain that the effect of light requires a photon travelling and not just the reflective mass demonstrating the effect without the photon.
It could clearly be either except one object exists and the other object is an abstraction
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, 05:14 AM   #52
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,504
I really don't care if photons "exist" or not. All that matters is that I can use a model of reality which postulates the existence of photons to make useful predictions which can be tested. Even better is that I can use this model to make something useful, such as fiber-optic communication networks to allow people across the world to debate if the science used to create them is "real".
Ivor the Engineer 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, 05:17 AM   #53
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Yes it is.

The effect is proof of a cause.

The precise details of the effect go to the precise details of the cause.

The photoelectric effect is unambiguous proof of the existence of photons.

If you think otherwise, then explain the photoelectric effect without reference to the quantization of light. With equations, please.
I beg to differ, you can not differentiate between photon and reflective masss so the effect of light could very well be just the mass with out the need for a photon.
And I don't need to show an alternative either as it does not alter the situation one iota.

Last edited by ozziemate; 1st October 2008 at 05:18 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, 05:18 AM   #54
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Does anyone know what a "reflective mass" is?
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium 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, 05:19 AM   #55
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer View Post
I really don't care if photons "exist" or not. All that matters is that I can use a model of reality which postulates the existence of photons to make useful predictions which can be tested. Even better is that I can use this model to make something useful, such as fiber-optic communication networks to allow people across the world to debate if the science used to create them is "real".
well said!
However if that model inhibits future progress then it would be cause for concern 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, 05:20 AM   #56
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
Does anyone know what a "reflective mass" is?
it's my lingo for something that is able to reflect light...or EM
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, 05:23 AM   #57
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I beg to differ, you can not differentiate between photon and reflective masss so the effect of light could very well be just the mass with out the need for a photon.
And I don't need to show an alternative either as it does not alter the situation one iota.
Might as well use flying porks [pigs] for light model hey?
This is getting beyond stupid.
There are billions of observations that require that light comes in discreet packets, a few have been illustrated to you. If you want to remove the existence of the photon and keep things making sense then you have to come up with an alternative model. Your argument is as daft as hypothesizing that, rather than heat from the hob, scrambled egg is cooked by the mass of the pan in which it is cooked.
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, 05:25 AM   #58
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
well said!
However if that model inhibits future progress then it would be cause for concern yes?
But photons do the precise opposite.
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, 05:26 AM   #59
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Try this as aslight aside:
If I am not mistaken at any moment in time a photon exists at t=0 from whatever reference frame we are in.

correct?

In other words the photon when it hits the eye is exactly t=0 smack bang in the middle between the past and the future.

well as discussed in another thread, how big is the universe at t=0 ?

take the time out of space time and what do you have?
zero,

so how can a photon exist in a universe that is zero dimensional?
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, 05:29 AM   #60
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
I'm not familiar with Ozziemate. Is this meant to be one of those "I insist on remaining clueless so as not to invalidate my woo beliefs" kinds of arguments?

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, 05:30 AM   #61
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: 30,788
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
oops I am claiming only that the proof of the existance of the photon is ambiguous leaving room for better explanations for the effects that do not reqwuire a travelling photon to achieve the same effects.
The same, or something similar, can of course be said of every scientific theory that has ever been found to be useful. The concept of the photon, however, together with its wave-particle duality, is the simplest that has been advanced which is capable of explaining all the observed phenomena in the very broad field of optics. It's perfectly reasonable to speculate on what would be the effect if our understanding of the nature of light were shown to be erroneous. However, as long as it continues to explain all the phenomena that are relevant, and to predict new uses of optical systems, and as long as you don't have a better alternative, then if it's all the same to you we'll carry on using it.

As for inhibiting future progress, that would be the consequence of rejecting one of the most useful physical theories ever devised, rather than of continuing successfully to test its predictions in ever more complex scenarios.

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 online now   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, 05:33 AM   #62
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
yeah as if I don't know it...yet you know once a skeptic always a skeptic. The model used requires at all instances a reflective mass. Other wise light can not be deemed to be present.
The reflective mass must be used to prove the existance of light.
So in the vaccuum of space between us and the Sun there is no light?

Quote:
So how can we be certain that the effect of light requires a photon travelling and not just the reflective mass demonstrating the effect without the photon.
It could clearly be either except one object exists and the other object is an abstraction
How does your mass model explain the photoelectric effect, QED and all the other observations? If it can't its utterly redundant. If it does there's a Nobel prize winging your way.
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, 05:36 AM   #63
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Try this as aslight aside:
If I am not mistaken at any moment in time a photon exists at t=0 from whatever reference frame we are in.

correct?

In other words the photon when it hits the eye is exactly t=0 smack bang in the middle between the past and the future.

well as discussed in another thread, how big is the universe at t=0 ?

take the time out of space time and what do you have?
zero,

so how can a photon exist in a universe that is zero dimensional?
I don't know where to begin...
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, 05:37 AM   #64
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
The same, or something similar, can of course be said of every scientific theory that has ever been found to be useful. The concept of the photon, however, together with its wave-particle duality, is the simplest that has been advanced which is capable of explaining all the observed phenomena in the very broad field of optics. It's perfectly reasonable to speculate on what would be the effect if our understanding of the nature of light were shown to be erroneous. However, as long as it continues to explain all the phenomena that are relevant, and to predict new uses of optical systems, and as long as you don't have a better alternative, then if it's all the same to you we'll carry on using it.

As for inhibiting future progress, that would be the consequence of rejecting one of the most useful physical theories ever devised, rather than of continuing successfully to test its predictions in ever more complex scenarios.

Dave
agreed, and in total...not a problem.

as I said I am not tryng to claim a valid alternative exists however the issue is in the ambiguity and whether researching "light as a mass event without photon" would be beneficial. I get the strong impression that if a satifactory alternative was found it would open up all sorts of possible beneficial outcomes, with out having to dump what we already have.

So would the issue of ambiguity be worth researching.?...maybe I should have put that question in the OP
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, 05:39 AM   #65
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
I don't know where to begin...
don't bother it isn't on tiopic any way...and way to brief.
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, 05:43 AM   #66
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by fls View Post
I'm not familiar with Ozziemate. Is this meant to be one of those "I insist on remaining clueless so as not to invalidate my woo beliefs" kinds of arguments?

Linda
This is the thread that he originally started
Case:Flying Forks-Denial of Reality:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=124946

And this thread is where it ended up.

Beware: Reading the original thread could lead to you losing brain cells.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium 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, 05:44 AM   #67
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
agreed, and in total...not a problem.

as I said I am not tryng to claim a valid alternative exists however the issue is in the ambiguity and whether researching "light as a mass event without photon" would be beneficial. I get the strong impression that if a satifactory alternative was found it would open up all sorts of possible beneficial outcomes, with out having to dump what we already have.

So would the issue of ambiguity be worth researching.?...maybe I should have put that question in the OP
I won't be wasting my time on it that's for sure. The existence of the photon is needed to explain the most precisely tested theory in physics. If it does not exist then the effect of the difference between it existing and the alternative must be as tiny as the error in the testing of the theory. Hence, we're not going to get anything useful out of it.

Last edited by Tubbythin; 1st October 2008 at 05:45 AM.
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, 05:44 AM   #68
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: 30,788
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
If I am not mistaken at any moment in time a photon exists at t=0 from whatever reference frame we are in.

correct?

In other words the photon when it hits the eye is exactly t=0 smack bang in the middle between the past and the future.
That doesn't mean anything other than that it's possible to specify that an event occurs at a given time. Your first sentence doesn't appear to mean anything at all.

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
well as discussed in another thread, how big is the universe at t=0 ?

take the time out of space time and what do you have?
zero,

so how can a photon exist in a universe that is zero dimensional?
You're confusing timescales relative to different events, assuming I've understood even that much. Time can be defined relative to any arbitrary zero, which is what you're doing in the first half of your post. I think you're suggesting, in the second half, that this is equivalent to an absolute zero of time, which it isn't. In other words, just because an event can be defined as happening at a specific instant of time, and that a time scale can be defined relative to that instant, that doesn't mean that all events must happen at the moment that time begins.

Alternatively, you may just be misquoting Jonathan Livingston Seagull, in which case I suggest you re-read it.

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 online now   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, 05:48 AM   #69
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I beg to differ, you can not differentiate between photon and reflective masss so the effect of light could very well be just the mass with out the need for a photon.
Of course you can.

A photon is a photon.

A shiny thing is a shiny thing.

Without photons, it wouldn't be shiny. It would just be a thing.

Quote:
And I don't need to show an alternative either as it does not alter the situation one iota.
Yes you do. The photoelectric effect demonstrates unequivocally that photons exist. If you want to suggest otherwise, you have to come up with something better.
__________________
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, 05:51 AM   #70
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: 30,788
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I get the strong impression that if a satifactory alternative was found it would open up all sorts of possible beneficial outcomes, with out having to dump what we already have.

So would the issue of ambiguity be worth researching.?...maybe I should have put that question in the OP
I think the simple answer is that you're approaching the issue the wrong way round. If a scientific theory explains all known relevant phenomena and successfully predicts future behaviour, then generally speaking it's far more productive to test the theory under more extreme conditions, by making more extensive new predictions and determining whether they are correct. That way, if there are drawbacks to the existing theory they will eventually become apparent, and the formulation of a new theory that explains all previous phenomena and any new, previously unexplained, phenomena may then yield useful information. If there aren't any deficiencies in the old theory, then why is a new one going to be any use?

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 online now   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, 05:52 AM   #71
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Try this as aslight aside:
If I am not mistaken at any moment in time a photon exists at t=0 from whatever reference frame we are in.
No.

Quote:
correct?
No.

Quote:
In other words the photon when it hits the eye is exactly t=0 smack bang in the middle between the past and the future.
No.

Quote:
well as discussed in another thread, how big is the universe at t=0 ?
Its size is undefined.

Quote:
take the time out of space time and what do you have?
Space.

Quote:
zero
No.

Quote:
so how can a photon exist in a universe that is zero dimensional?
It doesn't, because the universe isn't zero-dimensional.
__________________
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, 05:57 AM   #72
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Whoops, hang on. When you're talking about the universe at time t=0, you mean, t=now, not t=big_bang?

In that case, the universe is exactly as big as it is.
__________________
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, 05:58 AM   #73
NobbyNobbs
Gazerbeam's Protege
 
NobbyNobbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,617
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?
Gravity is evidenced only by its effect. Are you contesting the existence of gravity? After all, you can only detect it with the presence of a mass....

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. Next sunny day, go outside and look up. You will see a bright yellow ball in the sky. It is producing light, and much of the light you see from it hasn't been reflected off of anything.

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
and the detector is made of photons or something a little more tangible like mass for example. Can you measure a photon with out using an object of mass?
Can you measure gravity without using an object of mass? Does this mean gravity doesn't exist?

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
In all instances light can only be detected in reflection.
No. See above.

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
sorry not good enough....effect is not proof in itself as decribed earlier.

take away those shiny thingos and you do not have light...simple so is it the shiny thingo that is responsible or some yet to be proven entity or object called a photon?
Wrong again. See above.

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
yeah as if I don't know it...yet you know once a skeptic always a skeptic. The model used requires at all instances a reflective mass. Other wise light can not be deemed to be present.
The reflective mass must be used to prove the existance of light.
Wrong yet again. See above.


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....
Once again, go outside on a sunny day......

Alternatively, show me gravity without mass. Does gravity not exist?

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
oops I am claiming only that the proof of the existance of the photon is ambiguous leaving room for better explanations for the effects that do not reqwuire a travelling photon to achieve the same effects.
Of course. This is known as scientific method. Should a better explanation come along, scientists would embrace it. Mind you, "better explanation" means one that not only explains everything the current theory does, but also explains more observed phenomena than the current theory. Why, do you have a better explanation?

The use of one theory until a better one comes along does not cripple the scientific method. In fact, the method depends on the use of outdated theories, and people who try to improve them. In the meantime, though, the old theories can be very useful. For example, without the current theory about photons, I probably couldn't be typing this post for all the world to see. I am sure that computer technology depends, in no small way, on the current understanding of the behavior of photons.
__________________
I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding.
AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

Last edited by NobbyNobbs; 1st October 2008 at 06:01 AM.
NobbyNobbs 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, 06:13 AM   #74
John Bentley
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 447
One other thing that no one here has mentioned. And it could be that my understanding of it is completely wrong, but I was under the impression that there is technically no such thing as a "reflected" photon. I'm using the common understanding of reflection as that of something bouncing off of something else and going on its way unchanged. All photons are absorbed by whatever mass they encounter, excite electrons, and different photons are emitted when those excited electrons fall back to a less excited state. If the photon that is emitted is the same wavelength as the original photon, and is directed back toward the emitter of the original photon, then the mass appears "shiny" or "reflective".

Have I completely misunderstood Feynman's lectures?
__________________
My ancestors didn't claw their way to the top of the food chain so that I could eat vegetables! -- Bumper sticker

The trouble with parenting is that the years are short, but the days are long -- Baby Blues
John Bentley 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, 06:13 AM   #75
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 32,329
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
oops I am claiming only that the proof of the existance of the photon is ambiguous leaving room for better explanations for the effects that do not reqwuire a travelling photon to achieve the same effects.

Can you list any phenomena that are not explained by the current model?

Can you suggest a new model that explains them, and also explains everything that the current model does?

Then you have a "better explanation".

And also a Nobel Prize.
__________________
"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 online now   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, 06:27 AM   #76
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I beg to differ, you can not differentiate between photon and reflective masss so the effect of light could very well be just the mass with out the need for a photon.
And I don't need to show an alternative either as it does not alter the situation one iota.
First off, it's very unclear whether you're really asking about photons, or just about light. You mentioned waves a while back.

Second, where is the "reflective mass" when you use your eyes to look at the sun? Or when you beam a laser into a photodiode (that's a photon detector)? Both of those can prove the existence of both light as a classical wave and of photons; neither involves any "reflective mass".
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 1st October 2008, 06:41 AM   #77
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,590
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
If I am not mistaken
You are. Very, very mistaken. About everything that you've posted on this forum so far. And, at risk of accidentally winning a million dollars, about everything that you ever will post.
Cuddles 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, 06:52 AM   #78
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,822
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, you can see that light(em waves) are being emmited by any accelerating charge. You have to account for the momentum and energy.

You do not need for the photon to interact with anything to demonstrate that it exists. You can also do it by showing its creation.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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, 06:55 AM   #79
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,822
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]
Well there is an easy way to do that.

"Reality as it is percieved by me doesn't exist, it is all a halucination, you don't exist, only I truely exist"
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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, 07:01 AM   #80
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,822
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.
What do you mean mass event?

You are using words outside their accepted definitions, but not defining them yourself.

You need to either learn more about science and the various effects noted in this thread, and learn the proper definition of the words you are useing.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 04:29 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.