Proof of the photon that is unambiguous? - Page 4

PixyMisa · 1st October 2008, 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

sorry but you must have not read the post fully:

I stated:

So how do we prove that a photon travels?
or that a travelling photon even exists, when it could simply be an effect within and on the surface of the mass used to measure it or detect it?

That effect is, in every respect, precisely the same as we would see if it were produced by a travelling photon. Any other explanation would be more complex or less accurate - or, most likely, both.

NobbyNobbs · 1st October 2008, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

so whats your point?

there is actually no evidence shown so far in thei thread for the photon , only evidence of an effect that is attributed to a abstraction called a photon.

Tell you what....I have no evidence there is a person behind the screen name "ozziemate". I only have evidence of an effect that is attributed to an abstraction called "ozziemate". So here's the deal. If you first prove that you exist, I will then prove that photons exist.

Go ahead. Give it a shot. (And no, I'm not flaming you. This is a serious question, in an attempt to demonstrate the difference between philosophy and scientific method.)

my_wan · 1st October 2008, 08:58 PM

There is no such thing as proof in science. All theories forever remain theories for this very reason. It is the reason creationist claim that evolution is only a theory is a red herring. We can a disprove a thesis, never prove it. That is the definition of: You can't prove a negetive.

So the OP has asked us a priori to "explore" the possibility that a photon as a travelling particle or wave does not in fact exist. Well ok, but that requires defining under what epistemology "exist" is defined. We can't even agree on that within the purely empirical context of quantum mechanics now. Even if we could the stating of this question is the equivalent of asking: What if our epistemology is wrong?

That leaves of with a bottomless pit of philosophical gobblygoop to even entertain such a question. Like my mother used to tell me a dozen times a day: Well, that would just be another one of your what ifs.

Nature always answers our questions honestly. Science is the art of figuring out how to ask the right questions. This is not one of them.

Myriad · 1st October 2008, 09:06 PM

Evidence that photons travel?

Shadows.

Respectfully,
Myriad

sol invictus · 1st October 2008, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

Sol Victus:

if an electron has mass then I am sorry but the point stands.

Huh?

Vorpal · 1st October 2008, 10:04 PM

A photon is an interpretation (or, for the more cynical, a cartoon); the only relevant question is whether we're justified in interpreting our physics that way, and that certainly seems to be the case. Pretty much the same thing has been said here by others.

Within QED (leaving aside the philosophical issues of what it means to be "proven" for science for the moment), a physical "ambiguity" about photons is that their existence can depend on the observer's state of motion. Tis isn't really much of a problem because there are well-defined transformations between the views different observers take. How much this jives with what the OP intended, I'm not sure.

lionking · 1st October 2008, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

add to that flamers....

Seriously, get a bit of perspective. You have not been flamed here at all, just called to account.

Wowbagger · 1st October 2008, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

and it takes time years in some cases and heaps of discussion to develop even a starting point.

So, what are you waiting for?! Get started!!

Originally Posted by ozziemate

and as yet the mind set is so closed it is impossible to even begin.

My mind, for one, is not closed. I am ready and willing to evaluate an alternative, once one is presented. It would be an incredible act of incredulity, to assume that it is "impossible to begin". How would we know if there wasn't some super-genious developing a whoppingly powerful alternative, right now?!

I, for one, am not nearly clever enough to develop a scientifically plausible alternative to the photon, myself, yet. But, that doesn't mean someone else can't do so!

Originally Posted by ozziemate

and then after producing an even close proximity of a simple hypothesis it woud take a fuirther decade or more to move towards theory, so where are we at in this potential time line do you think...

If your alternative idea turns out to be really useful, I think it would be adopted very quickly! Look at how fast Relativity swept through physics, or plate-techtonics through geology!

Originally Posted by ozziemate

not even started, just simply exploring all the attitudes that prevent even exploring the possibility of an alternative.

We already know an alternative might be possible. Science ultimately builds provisional models, after all. But, you have to actually develop one, before we can explore it.

Science is not like other philosophies. You need to develop a testable hypothesis, and then try to actually test it, as accurately as possible. If you can't do that, then you are better off sticking to other ways of thinking about those alternatives.

arthwollipot · 1st October 2008, 10:41 PM

Oh, how could I possibly have missed this thread for so long?

Evidence that photons travel?

The sky at night is dark.

Kevin_Lowe · 1st October 2008, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Look at how fast Relativity swept through physics, or plate-techtonics through geology!

You couldn't have picked a worse example than plate tectonics, it took ages for that theory to become widely accepted, despite observations that could be explained no other way. Until a plausible mechanism was found for continental drift people just refused to believe that continents could move around "through solid rock".

ETA: Unless of course you mean something other than continental drift, in which case ignore me. But either way, it's an unfortunate fact that science hasn't always responded to new evidence with as much alacrity as we'd like. It's still a better way of figuring out how the world works than any other method ever devised, of course, but it's still an endeavour carried out by imperfect people.

Which is not to say that this justifies persistent ignorance of the sort Ozziemate displays. They laughed at Galileo, as they say, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Vorpal · 1st October 2008, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

You couldn't have picked a worse example than plate tectonics, it took ages for that theory to become widely accepted, despite observations that could be explained no other way.

No; plate tectonics was the mechanism for continental drift, which has been introduced long after the theory of continental drift, and has been adopted rather quickly after that. It is true that it took a while for continental drift to be accepted, but Wowbagger's statement is actually correct as stated.

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Until a plausible mechanism was found for continental drift people just refused to believe that continents could move around "through solid rock".

And that's exactly why, prior to the plate tectonic revision, continental drift should not have been believed.

a_unique_person · 2nd October 2008, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

so you want to say for the record that the photon model is the reality?

OK, I don't have the proof you want that a photon exists. however, as you acknowledge, there is evidence that something is doing all these things we claim a photon is doing. Just for convenience, since we don't have a name for it, I'll call it a photon.

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

You haven't produced any experimental data at odds with the photon model of light. You haven't proposed a new model. You've just showed us that you don't understand physics. There's no possibility here, just ignorance.

Except that it doesn't. You can't do that. So this alternative theory would simply be wrong.

would you care to explain the comment bolded a litle more conclusively.

Except what doesn't? and most importantly "you can't do that"

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 01:51 AM

just need to confirm that drawing energy from the vacuum is not in conflict with the laws of conservation etc....

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

So, what are you waiting for?! Get started!!

My mind, for one, is not closed. I am ready and willing to evaluate an alternative, once one is presented. It would be an incredible act of incredulity, to assume that it is "impossible to begin". How would we know if there wasn't some super-genious developing a whoppingly powerful alternative, right now?!

I, for one, am not nearly clever enough to develop a scientifically plausible alternative to the photon, myself, yet. But, that doesn't mean someone else can't do so!

If your alternative idea turns out to be really useful, I think it would be adopted very quickly! Look at how fast Relativity swept through physics, or plate-techtonics through geology!

We already know an alternative might be possible. Science ultimately builds provisional models, after all. But, you have to actually develop one, before we can explore it.

Science is not like other philosophies. You need to develop a testable hypothesis, and then try to actually test it, as accurately as possible. If you can't do that, then you are better off sticking to other ways of thinking about those alternatives.

good post and very open to possibilities... thanks.. I find no fault with it....

Tubbythin · 2nd October 2008, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

and you claim to be a skeptic and a scientist both.....I am impressed

I'm highly skeptical you're going to stop trolling and come up with a better theory to match observations for the photoelectric effect that doesn't involve photons.

Quote:

can't prove a graviton or gravity type particle except only by it's effect.

Precisely.

Quote:

until you place an object that can "absorb and then re-Emmit photons" you have no idea whether it is present or not.

Can you see light traveling nope?
Can you see light between source and reflector[ re-emitter? nope
Can you measure light between source and re-emitter? yes but only with another re-emitter.

We know what rate the Sun radiates energy. If there are no photons in the vacuum between the Sun and us then we've just violated conservation of momentum and energy. If we do this we've just violated translational and temporal symmetry. In other words, the laws of physics are no longer the same "here" as they are "there" or the same "then" as they are "now". If that's the case, we might as well give up on physics altogether.

Quote:

There is no doubting the data that has been acquired by issuing the photon model. An alternative theory would have to give precisely the same results other wise it would fail the test. In fact the photon model has given us a Golden opportunity to get it right next time. IMO

We got it right this time. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary (you've shown precisely zero so far)

Quote:

An alternative would provide the mechanism of inertia, gravity, and a whole host of currently unexplainable phenol, such as magnetism and even electricity at their most fundamental levels.
It would also provide the connection between animated life and inanimate matter that would provide a complete TOE.

What do you want explaining about electricity and magnetism?
What connection are you seeking between animated life and inanimate life?
Why can't a TOE include the photon?

Quote:

So I disagree that it not worth seriously considering and exploring.
The current model has locked our science community into a relative time, speed limited universe which in a hundred years from now is probably going to be the subject of campfire humor.

Utter crap. Unless you're going to show us how this is the case.

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:05 AM

Quote:

OK, I don't have the proof you want that a photon exists. however, as you acknowledge, there is evidence that something is doing all these things we claim a photon is doing. Just for convenience, since we don't have a name for it, I'll call it a photon.

there are only effects that support the idea that a photon may be involved an dthere is reason to believe that the travelling photon may be redundant.

The reason why I am not posting my ideas is that the climate of this forum would render it a waste of effort and time which I do not have a lot of to play with this sort of thing.

However I am attempting to work out an approach that may allow freedom to explore alternative ideas [and then on to hypothesis in a way that will mean less confrontation with strongly held belief.
But I will not write the hyposthesis, you guys will.

And I am not sure I am prepared to offer that to you all.

There is a couple of key areas involved that once clarified in your minds will make a big difference to how you view the possibiity of an alternative model to the photon model. However in the current state of ridicule it would be futile to even venture down that path.

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:10 AM

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

I'm highly skeptical you're going to stop trolling and come up with a better theory to match observations for the photoelectric effect that doesn't involve photons.

you really don't want to know do you?

Quote:

We know what rate the Sun radiates energy. If there are no photons in the vacuum between the Sun and us then we've just violated conservation of momentum and energy. If we do this we've just violated translational and temporal symmetry. In other words, the laws of physics are no longer the same "here" as they are "there" or the same "then" as they are "now". If that's the case, we might as well give up on physics altogether.

ahh but you cannot describe why physics is the same universally can you?

Quote:

We got it right this time. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary (you've shown precisely zero so far)

ha talk about a contradiction....you got it right unless ther is eveidence to the contrary... got it right in absolute terms ha....

Quote:

What do you want explaining about electricity and magnetism?
What connection are you seeking between animated life and inanimate life?
Why can't a TOE include the photon?

Because inertia and for that matter gravity would cease to be a universal constants if the travelling photon existed.

so you gotta ask yourself the question how are universal constants supported in a universe that requires a photon to hang it all together using the current space time paradigm?

any ideas you would like to suggest? Go on go out on a limb and make a few suggestions please...

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:15 AM

any one got any ideas as to why the universal constants are well, uhm constant?
any ideas why the speed of light according to the photon model is invariant and a constant?

Come on guys you know what you are talking about...lets hear those wonderfull ideas....
[ I apologise to the very few serious posters to this thread as I mean no offense to you]

PixyMisa · 2nd October 2008, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

just need to confirm that drawing energy from the vacuum is not in conflict with the laws of conservation etc....

It is in complete conflict with the laws of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). It is impossible.

PixyMisa · 2nd October 2008, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

there are only effects that support the idea that a photon may be involved an dthere is reason to believe that the travelling photon may be redundant.

What is this reason?

Quote:

But I will not write the hyposthesis, you guys will.

Why would we do that? We don't think your ideas are coherent, let alone plausible.

Quote:

There is a couple of key areas involved that once clarified in your minds will make a big difference to how you view the possibiity of an alternative model to the photon model. However in the current state of ridicule it would be futile to even venture down that path.

Any ridicule you may have received has been well earned.

If you have something sensible to say that will change our minds, why didn't you start with that?

PixyMisa · 2nd October 2008, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

any ideas why the speed of light according to the photon model is invariant and a constant?

The invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum is an aspect of relativity, not of the photon model of light.

It also happens to be true, as far as every relevant experiment ever performed has been able to determine.

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:31 AM

Before I respond to your other post Pixi I will wait to see what is flamed over the quoteed post below

Quote:

any one got any ideas as to why the universal constants are well, uhm constant?
any ideas why the speed of light according to the photon model is invariant and a constant?

Come on guys you know what you are talking about...lets hear those wonderfull ideas....
[ I apologise to the very few serious posters to this thread as I mean no offense to you]

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

The invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum is an aspect of relativity, not of the photon model of light.

It also happens to be true, as far as every relevant experiment ever performed has been able to determine.

so what, why is it constant? any ideas you would care to share?

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:35 AM

btw Pix, have you ever worked in any detail with "infinitesimals" mathematically?

Dave Rogers · 2nd October 2008, 02:38 AM

Ozziemate, flame <> disagree. If you've got a better model for electromagnetism than the photon, please tell us all about it. If you haven't, then stop complaining that other people's work doesn't live up to your expectations. In short, either defecate, or vacate the receptacle.

Dave

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:40 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Ozziemate, flame <> disagree. If you've got a better model for electromagnetism than the photon, please tell us all about it. If you haven't, then stop complaining that other people's work doesn't live up to your expectations. In short, either defecate, or vacate the receptacle.

Dave

do you have any ideas about why universal constants are constant? If so please share them?
and if not why not?
and if Richard Feynman was here I woud ask hiim the same question.....

PixyMisa · 2nd October 2008, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

so what, why is it constant? any ideas you would care to share?

A question for you to consider in return: What could cause the speed of light (in a vacuum) to vary?

PixyMisa · 2nd October 2008, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

btw Pix, have you ever worked in any detail with "infinitesimals" mathematically?

If by that you mean calculus, then sure.

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:45 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

A question for you to consider in return: What could cause the speed of light (in a vacuum) to vary?

when you answer my question I'll answer yours ...fair?

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

If by that you mean calculus, then sure.

great because you are going to need to prepare your attack when I get to dealing with the infamous higgs bosun...that is if we manage to get that far

PixyMisa · 2nd October 2008, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

when you answer my question I'll answer yours ...fair?

It's the same question. Think about it.

PixyMisa · 2nd October 2008, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

great because you are going to need to prepare your attack when I get to dealing with the infamous higgs bosun...that is if we manage to get that far

Yeah, sure. You didn't know what the photoelectric effect was. You couldn't even follow the links I gave you to read the Wikipedia article. And now you're going to tackle the Higgs boson?

Do you even know what a boson is?

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:51 AM

Quote:

A question for you to consider in return: What could cause the speed of light (in a vacuum) to vary?

now this answer is going to stir the pot of ridicule...

When the quality of vacuum becomes less or more than it is....

In the past I think it was referred to as permiability but I am not sure what the current view is. possibly permitability I cannot remember the terminoloigy. [years ago]
Now you need to ask why would the universal constant of permiability or permitability or what ever of vacuum ever have a chance to vary, in quality....and that I am reluctant to answer for now
still waiting for your answer pixi?

why is the speed of light a universal constant?

PixyMisa · 2nd October 2008, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

now this answer is going to stir the pot of ridicule...

When the quality of vacuum becomes less or more than it is....

In the past I think it was referred to as permiability but I am not sure what the current view is. possibly permitability I cannot remember the terminoloigy. [years ago]

Vacuum permeability, yes. That's correct. If that changed, the speed of light in a vacuum would change.

Quote:

Now you need to ask why would the universal constant of permiability or permitability or what ever of vacuum ever have a chance to vary, in quality....and that I am reluctant to answer for now

Just say it. You can't possibly make things worse than they are now.

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Yeah, sure. You didn't know what the photoelectric effect was. You couldn't even follow the links I gave you to read the Wikipedia article. And now you're going to tackle the Higgs boson?

Do you even know what a boson is?

nope...
but I know what a higgs bosun isn't...yeah its a "trick" response... and yeah I am a tease I know....

Mashuna · 2nd October 2008, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

any one got any ideas as to why the universal constants are well, uhm constant?
any ideas why the speed of light according to the photon model is invariant and a constant?

My (layman's) understanding was the the value of universal constants were established through theory and experimental verification. As to why they are what they are, that's the subject of much speculation. Various options include:

1. There's an underlying reason that they must be this way, that we don't yet understand.
2. They just happen to have turned out this way.
3. Various multiple universe options, where the constants are this value here, but different values elsewhere.

Still, as I said, layman here.

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Vacuum permeability, yes. That's correct. If that changed, the speed of light in a vacuum would change.

Just say it. You can't possibly make things worse than they are now.

still can't do it can you pix?

provide and answer to why universal constants are constant.....

ozziemate · 2nd October 2008, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by Mashuna

My (layman's) understanding was the the value of universal constants were established through theory and experimental verification. As to why they are what they are, that's the subject of much speculation. Various options include:

1. There's an underlying reason that they must be this way, that we don't yet understand.
2. They just happen to have turned out this way.
3. Various multiple universe options, where the constants are this value here, but different values elsewhere.

Still, as I said, layman here.

Mashuna congratulations, sheesh its a bit like pulling teeth hey...

you claim to be a layman well I am even less qualified than that [ Pix would be thinking .."well thats obvious"]

But the problem with Pix is that she hasn't yet learned how to capitalise on an obviously uneducated poster such as myself. She/he hasn't learned the art of getting the best out of a situation.
Every poster has something to contribute.....just a matter of finding out what that is...

PixyMisa · 2nd October 2008, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by ozziemate

still can't do it can you pix?

provide and answer to why universal constants are constant.....

Because there isn't anything that can change them.

1st October 2008, 08:18 PM	#121
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate sorry but you must have not read the post fully: I stated: So how do we prove that a photon travels? or that a travelling photon even exists, when it could simply be an effect within and on the surface of the mass used to measure it or detect it? That effect is, in every respect, precisely the same as we would see if it were produced by a travelling photon. Any other explanation would be more complex or less accurate - or, most likely, both.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

1st October 2008, 08:22 PM	#122
NobbyNobbs Gazerbeam's Protege Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,617	Originally Posted by ozziemate so whats your point? there is actually no evidence shown so far in thei thread for the photon , only evidence of an effect that is attributed to a abstraction called a photon. Tell you what....I have no evidence there is a person behind the screen name "ozziemate". I only have evidence of an effect that is attributed to an abstraction called "ozziemate". So here's the deal. If you first prove that you exist, I will then prove that photons exist. Go ahead. Give it a shot. (And no, I'm not flaming you. This is a serious question, in an attempt to demonstrate the difference between philosophy and scientific method.)
	__________________ 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

1st October 2008, 08:58 PM	#123
my_wan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,074	There is no such thing as proof in science. All theories forever remain theories for this very reason. It is the reason creationist claim that evolution is only a theory is a red herring. We can a disprove a thesis, never prove it. That is the definition of: You can't prove a negetive. So the OP has asked us a priori to "explore" the possibility that a photon as a travelling particle or wave does not in fact exist. Well ok, but that requires defining under what epistemology "exist" is defined. We can't even agree on that within the purely empirical context of quantum mechanics now. Even if we could the stating of this question is the equivalent of asking: What if our epistemology is wrong? That leaves of with a bottomless pit of philosophical gobblygoop to even entertain such a question. Like my mother used to tell me a dozen times a day: Well, that would just be another one of your what ifs. Nature always answers our questions honestly. Science is the art of figuring out how to ask the right questions. This is not one of them.
my_wan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,074	__________________ Peace to all people of the world. The evidence indicates that this is best accomplished through a skeptical approach.

1st October 2008, 09:06 PM	#124
Myriad The Clarity Is Devastating Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Betwixt Posts: 17,488	Evidence that photons travel? Shadows. Respectfully, Myriad
	__________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...

1st October 2008, 10:04 PM	#126
Vorpal Extrapolate! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,104	A photon is an interpretation (or, for the more cynical, a cartoon); the only relevant question is whether we're justified in interpreting our physics that way, and that certainly seems to be the case. Pretty much the same thing has been said here by others. Within QED (leaving aside the philosophical issues of what it means to be "proven" for science for the moment), a physical "ambiguity" about photons is that their existence can depend on the observer's state of motion. Tis isn't really much of a problem because there are well-defined transformations between the views different observers take. How much this jives with what the OP intended, I'm not sure.
Vorpal Extrapolate! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,104	__________________ For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher. They're both wrong.

1st October 2008, 09:21 PM	#125
sol invictus Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,613	Originally Posted by ozziemate Sol Victus: if an electron has mass then I am sorry but the point stands. Huh?

1st October 2008, 10:12 PM	#127
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 46,999	Originally Posted by ozziemate add to that flamers.... Seriously, get a bit of perspective. You have not been flamed here at all, just called to account.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

1st October 2008, 10:14 PM	#128
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 15,443	Originally Posted by ozziemate and it takes time years in some cases and heaps of discussion to develop even a starting point. So, what are you waiting for?! Get started!! Originally Posted by ozziemate and as yet the mind set is so closed it is impossible to even begin. My mind, for one, is not closed. I am ready and willing to evaluate an alternative, once one is presented. It would be an incredible act of incredulity, to assume that it is "impossible to begin". How would we know if there wasn't some super-genious developing a whoppingly powerful alternative, right now?! I, for one, am not nearly clever enough to develop a scientifically plausible alternative to the photon, myself, yet. But, that doesn't mean someone else can't do so! Originally Posted by ozziemate and then after producing an even close proximity of a simple hypothesis it woud take a fuirther decade or more to move towards theory, so where are we at in this potential time line do you think... If your alternative idea turns out to be really useful, I think it would be adopted very quickly! Look at how fast Relativity swept through physics, or plate-techtonics through geology! Originally Posted by ozziemate not even started, just simply exploring all the attitudes that prevent even exploring the possibility of an alternative. We already know an alternative might be possible. Science ultimately builds provisional models, after all. But, you have to actually develop one, before we can explore it. Science is not like other philosophies. You need to develop a testable hypothesis, and then try to actually test it, as accurately as possible. If you can't do that, then you are better off sticking to other ways of thinking about those alternatives.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

1st October 2008, 10:41 PM	#129
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Ngunnawal Country Posts: 70,273	Oh, how could I possibly have missed this thread for so long? Evidence that photons travel? The sky at night is dark.
	__________________ Please scream inside your heart.

1st October 2008, 10:41 PM	#130
Kevin_Lowe Guest Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,221	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Look at how fast Relativity swept through physics, or plate-techtonics through geology! You couldn't have picked a worse example than plate tectonics, it took ages for that theory to become widely accepted, despite observations that could be explained no other way. Until a plausible mechanism was found for continental drift people just refused to believe that continents could move around "through solid rock". ETA: Unless of course you mean something other than continental drift, in which case ignore me. But either way, it's an unfortunate fact that science hasn't always responded to new evidence with as much alacrity as we'd like. It's still a better way of figuring out how the world works than any other method ever devised, of course, but it's still an endeavour carried out by imperfect people. Which is not to say that this justifies persistent ignorance of the sort Ozziemate displays. They laughed at Galileo, as they say, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Kevin_Lowe Guest Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,221	Last edited by Kevin_Lowe; 1st October 2008 at 10:44 PM.

1st October 2008, 10:48 PM	#131
Vorpal Extrapolate! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,104	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe You couldn't have picked a worse example than plate tectonics, it took ages for that theory to become widely accepted, despite observations that could be explained no other way. No; plate tectonics was the mechanism for continental drift, which has been introduced long after the theory of continental drift, and has been adopted rather quickly after that. It is true that it took a while for continental drift to be accepted, but Wowbagger's statement is actually correct as stated. Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe Until a plausible mechanism was found for continental drift people just refused to believe that continents could move around "through solid rock". And that's exactly why, prior to the plate tectonic revision, continental drift should not have been believed.
Vorpal Extrapolate! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,104	__________________ For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher. They're both wrong. Last edited by Vorpal; 1st October 2008 at 10:51 PM.

2nd October 2008, 12:09 AM	#132
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 43,044	Originally Posted by ozziemate so you want to say for the record that the photon model is the reality? OK, I don't have the proof you want that a photon exists. however, as you acknowledge, there is evidence that something is doing all these things we claim a photon is doing. Just for convenience, since we don't have a name for it, I'll call it a photon.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

2nd October 2008, 01:48 AM	#133
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by PixyMisa You haven't produced any experimental data at odds with the photon model of light. You haven't proposed a new model. You've just showed us that you don't understand physics. There's no possibility here, just ignorance. Except that it doesn't. You can't do that. So this alternative theory would simply be wrong. would you care to explain the comment bolded a litle more conclusively. Except what doesn't? and most importantly "you can't do that"

2nd October 2008, 01:51 AM	#134
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	just need to confirm that drawing energy from the vacuum is not in conflict with the laws of conservation etc....

2nd October 2008, 01:53 AM	#135
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by Wowbagger So, what are you waiting for?! Get started!! My mind, for one, is not closed. I am ready and willing to evaluate an alternative, once one is presented. It would be an incredible act of incredulity, to assume that it is "impossible to begin". How would we know if there wasn't some super-genious developing a whoppingly powerful alternative, right now?! I, for one, am not nearly clever enough to develop a scientifically plausible alternative to the photon, myself, yet. But, that doesn't mean someone else can't do so! If your alternative idea turns out to be really useful, I think it would be adopted very quickly! Look at how fast Relativity swept through physics, or plate-techtonics through geology! We already know an alternative might be possible. Science ultimately builds provisional models, after all. But, you have to actually develop one, before we can explore it. Science is not like other philosophies. You need to develop a testable hypothesis, and then try to actually test it, as accurately as possible. If you can't do that, then you are better off sticking to other ways of thinking about those alternatives. good post and very open to possibilities... thanks.. I find no fault with it....

2nd October 2008, 02:00 AM	#136
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202	Originally Posted by ozziemate and you claim to be a skeptic and a scientist both.....I am impressed I'm highly skeptical you're going to stop trolling and come up with a better theory to match observations for the photoelectric effect that doesn't involve photons. Quote: can't prove a graviton or gravity type particle except only by it's effect. Precisely. Quote: until you place an object that can "absorb and then re-Emmit photons" you have no idea whether it is present or not. Can you see light traveling nope? Can you see light between source and reflector[ re-emitter? nope Can you measure light between source and re-emitter? yes but only with another re-emitter. We know what rate the Sun radiates energy. If there are no photons in the vacuum between the Sun and us then we've just violated conservation of momentum and energy. If we do this we've just violated translational and temporal symmetry. In other words, the laws of physics are no longer the same "here" as they are "there" or the same "then" as they are "now". If that's the case, we might as well give up on physics altogether. Quote: There is no doubting the data that has been acquired by issuing the photon model. An alternative theory would have to give precisely the same results other wise it would fail the test. In fact the photon model has given us a Golden opportunity to get it right next time. IMO We got it right this time. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary (you've shown precisely zero so far) Quote: An alternative would provide the mechanism of inertia, gravity, and a whole host of currently unexplainable phenol, such as magnetism and even electricity at their most fundamental levels. It would also provide the connection between animated life and inanimate matter that would provide a complete TOE. What do you want explaining about electricity and magnetism? What connection are you seeking between animated life and inanimate life? Why can't a TOE include the photon? Quote: So I disagree that it not worth seriously considering and exploring. The current model has locked our science community into a relative time, speed limited universe which in a hundred years from now is probably going to be the subject of campfire humor. Utter crap. Unless you're going to show us how this is the case.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202

2nd October 2008, 02:05 AM	#137
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Quote: OK, I don't have the proof you want that a photon exists. however, as you acknowledge, there is evidence that something is doing all these things we claim a photon is doing. Just for convenience, since we don't have a name for it, I'll call it a photon. there are only effects that support the idea that a photon may be involved an dthere is reason to believe that the travelling photon may be redundant. The reason why I am not posting my ideas is that the climate of this forum would render it a waste of effort and time which I do not have a lot of to play with this sort of thing. However I am attempting to work out an approach that may allow freedom to explore alternative ideas [and then on to hypothesis in a way that will mean less confrontation with strongly held belief. But I will not write the hyposthesis, you guys will. And I am not sure I am prepared to offer that to you all. There is a couple of key areas involved that once clarified in your minds will make a big difference to how you view the possibiity of an alternative model to the photon model. However in the current state of ridicule it would be futile to even venture down that path.

2nd October 2008, 02:10 AM	#138
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by Tubbythin I'm highly skeptical you're going to stop trolling and come up with a better theory to match observations for the photoelectric effect that doesn't involve photons. you really don't want to know do you? Quote: We know what rate the Sun radiates energy. If there are no photons in the vacuum between the Sun and us then we've just violated conservation of momentum and energy. If we do this we've just violated translational and temporal symmetry. In other words, the laws of physics are no longer the same "here" as they are "there" or the same "then" as they are "now". If that's the case, we might as well give up on physics altogether. ahh but you cannot describe why physics is the same universally can you? Quote: We got it right this time. Unless you have any evidence to the contrary (you've shown precisely zero so far) ha talk about a contradiction....you got it right unless ther is eveidence to the contrary... got it right in absolute terms ha.... Quote: What do you want explaining about electricity and magnetism? What connection are you seeking between animated life and inanimate life? Why can't a TOE include the photon? Because inertia and for that matter gravity would cease to be a universal constants if the travelling photon existed. so you gotta ask yourself the question how are universal constants supported in a universe that requires a photon to hang it all together using the current space time paradigm? any ideas you would like to suggest? Go on go out on a limb and make a few suggestions please...
	Last edited by ozziemate; 2nd October 2008 at 02:13 AM.

2nd October 2008, 02:15 AM	#139
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	any one got any ideas as to why the universal constants are well, uhm constant? any ideas why the speed of light according to the photon model is invariant and a constant? Come on guys you know what you are talking about...lets hear those wonderfull ideas.... [ I apologise to the very few serious posters to this thread as I mean no offense to you]
	Last edited by ozziemate; 2nd October 2008 at 02:17 AM.

2nd October 2008, 02:21 AM	#140
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate just need to confirm that drawing energy from the vacuum is not in conflict with the laws of conservation etc.... It is in complete conflict with the laws of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). It is impossible.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

2nd October 2008, 02:24 AM	#141
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate there are only effects that support the idea that a photon may be involved an dthere is reason to believe that the travelling photon may be redundant. What is this reason? Quote: But I will not write the hyposthesis, you guys will. Why would we do that? We don't think your ideas are coherent, let alone plausible. Quote: There is a couple of key areas involved that once clarified in your minds will make a big difference to how you view the possibiity of an alternative model to the photon model. However in the current state of ridicule it would be futile to even venture down that path. Any ridicule you may have received has been well earned. If you have something sensible to say that will change our minds, why didn't you start with that?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

2nd October 2008, 02:29 AM	#142
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate any ideas why the speed of light according to the photon model is invariant and a constant? The invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum is an aspect of relativity, not of the photon model of light. It also happens to be true, as far as every relevant experiment ever performed has been able to determine.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO Last edited by PixyMisa; 2nd October 2008 at 02:30 AM.

2nd October 2008, 02:31 AM	#143
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Before I respond to your other post Pixi I will wait to see what is flamed over the quoteed post below Quote: any one got any ideas as to why the universal constants are well, uhm constant? any ideas why the speed of light according to the photon model is invariant and a constant? Come on guys you know what you are talking about...lets hear those wonderfull ideas.... [ I apologise to the very few serious posters to this thread as I mean no offense to you]

2nd October 2008, 02:32 AM	#144
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by PixyMisa The invariance of the speed of light in a vacuum is an aspect of relativity, not of the photon model of light. It also happens to be true, as far as every relevant experiment ever performed has been able to determine. so what, why is it constant? any ideas you would care to share?

2nd October 2008, 02:35 AM	#145
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	btw Pix, have you ever worked in any detail with "infinitesimals" mathematically?

2nd October 2008, 02:38 AM	#146
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,368	Ozziemate, flame <> disagree. If you've got a better model for electromagnetism than the photon, please tell us all about it. If you haven't, then stop complaining that other people's work doesn't live up to your expectations. In short, either defecate, or vacate the receptacle. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

2nd October 2008, 02:40 AM	#147
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Ozziemate, flame <> disagree. If you've got a better model for electromagnetism than the photon, please tell us all about it. If you haven't, then stop complaining that other people's work doesn't live up to your expectations. In short, either defecate, or vacate the receptacle. Dave do you have any ideas about why universal constants are constant? If so please share them? and if not why not? and if Richard Feynman was here I woud ask hiim the same question.....
	Last edited by ozziemate; 2nd October 2008 at 02:42 AM.

2nd October 2008, 02:43 AM	#148
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate so what, why is it constant? any ideas you would care to share? A question for you to consider in return: What could cause the speed of light (in a vacuum) to vary?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

2nd October 2008, 02:44 AM	#149
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate btw Pix, have you ever worked in any detail with "infinitesimals" mathematically? If by that you mean calculus, then sure.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

2nd October 2008, 02:45 AM	#150
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by PixyMisa A question for you to consider in return: What could cause the speed of light (in a vacuum) to vary? when you answer my question I'll answer yours ...fair?

2nd October 2008, 02:47 AM	#151
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Originally Posted by PixyMisa If by that you mean calculus, then sure. great because you are going to need to prepare your attack when I get to dealing with the infamous higgs bosun...that is if we manage to get that far

2nd October 2008, 02:48 AM	#152
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate when you answer my question I'll answer yours ...fair? It's the same question. Think about it.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

2nd October 2008, 02:49 AM	#153
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate great because you are going to need to prepare your attack when I get to dealing with the infamous higgs bosun...that is if we manage to get that far Yeah, sure. You didn't know what the photoelectric effect was. You couldn't even follow the links I gave you to read the Wikipedia article. And now you're going to tackle the Higgs boson? Do you even know what a boson is?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

2nd October 2008, 02:51 AM	#154
ozziemate Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,240	Quote: A question for you to consider in return: What could cause the speed of light (in a vacuum) to vary? now this answer is going to stir the pot of ridicule... When the quality of vacuum becomes less or more than it is.... In the past I think it was referred to as permiability but I am not sure what the current view is. possibly permitability I cannot remember the terminoloigy. [years ago] Now you need to ask why would the universal constant of permiability or permitability or what ever of vacuum ever have a chance to vary, in quality....and that I am reluctant to answer for now still waiting for your answer pixi? why is the speed of light a universal constant?
	Last edited by ozziemate; 2nd October 2008 at 02:54 AM.

2nd October 2008, 02:59 AM	#155
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 16,346	Originally Posted by ozziemate now this answer is going to stir the pot of ridicule... When the quality of vacuum becomes less or more than it is.... In the past I think it was referred to as permiability but I am not sure what the current view is. possibly permitability I cannot remember the terminoloigy. [years ago] Vacuum permeability, yes. That's correct. If that changed, the speed of light in a vacuum would change. Quote: Now you need to ask why would the universal constant of permiability or permitability or what ever of vacuum ever have a chance to vary, in quality....and that I am reluctant to answer for now Just say it. You can't possibly make things worse than they are now.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO