Proof of the photon that is unambiguous?

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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...

There is nothing capitalize on trolls.

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by paximperium

There is nothing capitalize on trolls.

nor posters that do not wnat ot particpate in the discussion.

Got an answer Paximperium, to the question about universal constants? any ideas you would care to share with teh board? any?
It is relevant to the thread Op I hope you realise....

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Because there isn't anything that can change them.

uhmm ever used the words "I Don't know" I bet you haven't

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

nor posters that do not wnat ot particpate in the discussion.

Got an answer Paximperium, to the question about universal constants? any ideas you would care to share with teh board? any?
It is relevant to the thread Op I hope you realise....

You are not discussing. You are meandering, ranting and trolling so I see no relevance at all in your "discussion".

I'm learning things by reading pix's and the others posts with actual substance. Your dishonest ignorance and smug stupidity is nothing more than a primer to actual knowledge. That's your only use.

[ozziemate]

and btw there is something that can change them.......

and it is associated with universal expansion that is not symmetrical or uniform in it's expansion [ or contraction for that matter ] it is associated with the theoretical existance of dark energy and dark matter... butmostly it is to do with time fluctuations caused by a loss of universal symmetry

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by paximperium

You are not discussing. You are meandering, ranting and trolling so I see no relevance at all in your "discussion".

I'm learning things by reading pix's and the others posts with actual substance. Your dishonest ignorance and smug stupidity is nothing more than a primer to actual knowledge. That's your only use.

well provide unambiguous proof of a travelling photon and I'll go meander, rant and troll somewhere else...
bet you can't flamer
in fact if I had a hundred USD I woud gladly pay you if you can show unambiguous proof... maybe Randi woudl like to contribute his million to someone who can show unambiguous proof of a travelling photon.... now that would be fun....

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

and btw there is something that can change them.......

What is it, what is your evidence that it exists, and what is your evidence that it can cause fundamental constants to change?

Quote:

and it is associated with universal expansion that is not symmetrical or uniform in it's expansion [ or contraction for that matter ] it is associated with the theoretical existance of dark energy and dark matter... butmostly it is to do with time fluctuations caused by a loss of universal symmetry

Show the equations, please.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

well provide unambiguous proof of a travelling photon and I'll go meander, rant and troll somewhere else...
bet you can't flamer

I like it here troll boy. I think I'll stay.
Aren't you going to claim you are being persecuted like you always do?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

well provide unambiguous proof of a travelling photon and I'll go meander, rant and troll somewhere else...

It's already been done, many times over.

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by paximperium

I like it here troll boy. I think I'll stay.
Aren't you going to claim you are being persecuted like you always do?

you can't persecute me flame boy.....ha
go back and read the edit to the last post or do you want me to send it in the mail...

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

you can't persecute me flame boy.....ha
go back and read the edit to the last post or do you want me to send it in the mail...

$100 only? Come on, I make that with about 30minutes of work.
And someone already won a million bucks for what you are demanding. Some people have actually heard of him before.

[Reality Check]

Also we have measured that universal constants are fairly constant within the observed universe. Have a look at:
Have physical constants changed with time?
Is the fine structure constant really constant?

But this has nothing to do with the OT.
Have you moved onto this topic because you agree that the proof of the photon is unambiguous?

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

It's already been done, many times over.

no it hasn't PIX because as I said if the photon exists as a travelling particle/ wave the universal constants such as inertia would not exist.
but mostly the failure to differentiate between two possible reasons for the effects demonstrated by light means that the proof of the photon is ambiguous.
Just saying that it is the most accepted theory of all time etc is not going to be enough to counter the simple fact of failure to differentiate.
You gotta get past the ego and look at the reality....

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

You gotta get past the ego and look at the reality....

Oh the irony and blatant hypocrazy.

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Also we have measured that universal constants are fairly constant within the observed universe. Have a look at:
Have physical constants changed with time?
Is the fine structure constant really constant?

But this has nothing to do with the OT.
Have you moved onto this topic because you agree that the proof of the photon is unambiguous?

correction you mean travelling photon.
why would I do that as no one has provided any?

as to your question about moving onto constants , no becasue it is the fact that they are constant that will prove an alternative theory as an alternative that would show why they are constant as part of accommodateing existing data gained by uising the photon model

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

no it hasn't PIX because as I said if the photon exists as a travelling particle/ wave the universal constants such as inertia would not exist.

You said that. It is complete nonsense.

Quote:

but mostly the failure to differentiate between two possible reasons for the effects demonstrated by light means that the proof of the photon is ambiguous.

Not in the slightest. You have failed to propose any alternative to the photon that fits even the most basic properties of light.

Quote:

Just saying that it is the most accepted theory of all time etc is not going to be enough to counter the simple fact of failure to differentiate.

Differentiate what?

Quote:

You gotta get past the ego and look at the reality....

There's no ego involved here. Just reality. And that includes photons.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

correction you mean travelling photon.

As opposed to stationary photons?

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Oh the irony and blatant hypocrazy.

how many is that now....hmmm post 171... hey paxi me mate we are going to break a record....lets see how we go, one post from you and one post form me should come up tops man!

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

no it hasn't PIX because as I said if the photon exists as a travelling particle/ wave the universal constants such as inertia would not exist.
but mostly the failure to differentiate between two possible reasons for the effects demonstrated by light means that the proof of the photon is ambiguous.
Just saying that it is the most accepted theory of all time etc is not going to be enough to counter the simple fact of failure to differentiate.
You gotta get past the ego and look at the reality....

1. Inertia is not a constant. It is a property of bodies.
2. You have not presented any other argument for the effects of the photon and so the proof for the photon is not ambiguous. If you have another argument then please provide a citation to a full description of it so that its predictions can be compared to the experimental results.
3. It is not the "most accepted theory of all time". For centuries everyone from Newton onwards treated light as waves (thus Maxwell's equations). It was the fact that treating light as a wave does not work for the photoelectric effect that lead to the wave-particle duality model of light.
4. We are looking at the reality - the photoelectric effect is real.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

how many is that now....hmmm post 171... hey paxi me mate we are going to break a record....lets see how we go, one post from you and one post form me should come up tops man!

Whatever makes you happy.

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

As opposed to stationary photons?

well in a way photons are stationary relative to t=0
[no matter where a photon is it is always t=0]
refering to the light cone diagrams of Minkowski and Alberto

If one subscribes to the photon "modelo" as the photon changes position the universe moves forward in time so in a sense a photon is always stationary.

'tis a bit tough to word in my lingo that makes sense I know...
but this is using the photon model....and maybe I have in incorrect...
As mass is moving through time simulatenously with our photon at the rate of 'c' mass itself can be described as a photon or as AE states with his equation mass is energy.

so t=0 must be absolute...universally

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Whatever makes you happy.

post 180 and mine makes it 182, thanks flame boy you are a wonder to modern technology

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

1. Inertia is not a constant. It is a property of bodies.
2. You have not presented any other argument for the effects of the photon and so the proof for the photon is not ambiguous. If you have another argument then please provide a citation to a full description of it so that its predictions can be compared to the experimental results.
3. It is not the "most accepted theory of all time". For centuries everyone from Newton onwards treated light as waves (thus Maxwell's equations). It was the fact that treating light as a wave does not work for the photoelectric effect that lead to the wave-particle duality model of light.
4. We are looking at the reality - the photoelectric effect is real.

so differentiate the travelling photon from the mass that absorbs it and re-emits it [ see pix I learn real fast]
and show that it cannot possibly be a mass event of yet to be explained processes or causation without a travelling photon.
I'd bet 100 bucks if I had it that you can't

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

well in a way photons are stationary relative to t=0

Nope.

Quote:

[no matter where a photon is it is always t=0]
refering to the light cone diagrams of Minkowski and Alberto

Nope.

Quote:

If one subscribes to the photon "modelo" as the photon changes position the universe moves forward in time so in a sense a photon is always stationary.

Nope.

Quote:

'tis a bit tough to word in my lingo that makes sense I know...

It's not your language that's the problem here. The idea makes no sense in any language.

Quote:

but this is using the photon model....and maybe I have in incorrect...
As mass is moving through time simulatenously with out photon time at the rate of 'c' mass itself can be described as a photon or as AE states with his equation mass is energy.

Photons have no rest mass, so this is incorrect right from the start. Nothing with rest mass can move at the speed of light.

I don't even know what you are trying to say with "with out photon time".

Quote:

so t=0 must be absolute...universally

Nope. Insofar as that's even coherent, it's impossible. It's also a non-sequitur.

[ozziemate]

Quote:

I don't even know what you are trying to say with "with out photon time".

typo..
I don't even know what you are trying to say with "with our photon time".
and t instead of an r ok....

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Nope.


Nope.


Nope.


It's not your language that's the problem here. The idea makes no sense in any language.


Photons have no rest mass, so this is incorrect right from the start. Nothing with rest mass can move at the speed of light.

I don't even know what you are trying to say with "with out photon time".


Nope. Insofar as that's even coherent, it's impossible. It's also a non-sequitur.

Ok pix, when I get my act together and put a decent hypothesis together that is vetted by a few qualified physicst I'll come back to this topic again...obviously I can't get that sort of assistance here...

But still unambigous proof of a travelling photon is lacking which is rather handy to tell you the truth.....

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

so differentiate the travelling photon from the mass that absorbs it and re-emits it [ see pix I learn real fast]

I'm confused. You keep coming out with this, and it makes no sense whatsoever.

The mass just sits there. The photon moves.

Without photons, explain the photoelectric effect. Explain, as someone said earlier, why the sky gets dark at night. The sky hasn't changed. It hasn't moved. Why does it get dark?

Quote:

and show that it cannot possibly be a mass event of yet to be explained processes or causation without a travelling photon.

Because we know how light really behaves, so that alternative explanation has to predict exactly the same behaviour as a photon under all circumstances. Which means that it's a photon.

Quote:

I'd bet 100 bucks if I had it that you can't

Just send the money to JREF.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

correction you mean travelling photon.
why would I do that as no one has provided any?

as to your question about moving onto constants , no becasue it is the fact that they are constant that will prove an alternative theory as an alternative that would show why they are constant as part of accommodateing existing data gained by uising the photon model

I have no idea what the last sentence is about. But I suspect that you think that if the fundamental constants are not constant then photons do not exist?
But the constants certainly do not change during experiments measuring the photoelectric effect. So any change does not effect whet the results of the experiment unambiguously state: energy in light comes in packages called photons.

P.S. I did not mention photons at all in that post.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

Ok pix, when I get my act together and put a decent hypothesis together that is vetted by a few qualified physicst

Seriously, how do you expect to accomplish this?

Quote:

I'll come back to this topic again...obviously I can't get that sort of assistance here...

We're giving you all the assistance possible, by telling you when you are wrong, which is essentially all the time.

Quote:

But still unambigous proof of a travelling photon is lacking which is rather handy to tell you the truth.....

It has been provided.

[ozziemate]

the tough thing is that to show any of the guts of the hypothesis would immediately be rejected nto becasue of possible flaw but because it requires a radical shift in conception. and becasue the hypothesis is incomlpete waiting for further evidence to be uncovered to confirm it.

Given the attitudes at this forum it is not possible to explain a possible alternative....

there is an approach to this that I am considering that may be useful but I would have to avoid any mention of physics to avoid this knee jerk reaction...

Suffice to say the thread has again proved that it is possible to consider light effects as a mass type event with out the need for a travelling photon.

and that is all I need.

As you can't even understand the question I have failed to communicate the issue adequately. My bad...

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

the tough thing is that to show any of the guts of the hypothesis would immediately be rejected nto becasue of possible flaw but because it requires a radical shift in conception.

Why does it require a radical shift in conception?

Quote:

and becasue the hypothesis is incomlpete waiting for further evidence to be uncovered to confirm it.

That makes no sense.

Quote:

Given the attitudes at this forum it is not possible to explain a possible alternative....

Of course it is. You just have to have a possible alternative.

Quote:

there is an approach to this that I am considering that may be useful but I would have to avoid any mention of physics to avoid this knee jerk reaction...

No. That won't work at all. Just come right out and tell us what it is.

Quote:

Suffice to say the thread has again proved that it is possible to consider light effects as a mass type event with out the need for a travelling photon.

You haven't read a single word anyone has written, have you? Not a word.

Quote:

and that is all I need.

You are ignoring all evidence and logic. If that is what you need, you have a problem.

Quote:

As you can't even understand the question I have failed to communicate the issue adequately. My bad...

No. It's just that you're completely wrong.

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

Seriously, how do you expect to accomplish this?


We're giving you all the assistance possible, by telling you when you are wrong, which is essentially all the time.


It has been provided.

well maybe you would be kind enough to provide a summary as to why evidence of the travelling photon is unambiguous.
that you can somehow prove the existsance of a photon with out using mass to do so.
That you can differentiate between mass and photon and be absolutely certain the effect of light is not simply a mass event.

I would suspect that you will say that because you cannot think of an alternative that it MUST be unambiguous. And as far as I am concerned all that tells me the limits of your knowledge and imagination.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

well maybe you would be kind enough to provide a summary as to why evidence of the travelling photon is unambiguous.

A dozen people have already explained this to you. Read what they have written.

Quote:

that you can somehow prove the existsance of a photon with out using mass to do so.

You can't. This is, however, completely irrelevant to the question.

Quote:

That you can differentiate between mass and photon and be absolutely certain the effect of light is not simply a mass event.

This has been explained to you at least thirty times.

Light behaves a certain way.

We explain this by describing light as being made up of photons.

This allows us to predict how light will behave in previously untested conditions.

We run experiments under those conditions.

The predictions prove correct.

Therefore, light is made up of photons.

Quote:

I would suspect that you will say that because you cannot think of an alternative that it MUST be unambiguous.

No.

It's because any alternative must have the properties of photons, because we already know how light behaves, and it behaves as thought it is made up of photons. Any alternative you come up with either (a) behaves exactly like photons, or (b) is wrong.

Quote:

And as far as I am concerned all that tells me the limits of your knowledge and imagination.

You keep saying that. And yet, you are the one who didn't know what the photoelectric effect was. You are the one who had never heard of the ultraviolet catastrophe. What does that say about knowledge?

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

A dozen people have already explained this to you. Read what they have written.


You can't. This is, however, completely irrelevant to the question.


This has been explained to you at least thirty times.

Light behaves a certain way.

We explain this by describing light as being made up of photons.

This allows us to predict how light will behave in previously untested conditions.

We run experiments under those conditions.

The predictions prove correct.

Therefore, light is made up of photons.


No.

It's because any alternative must have the properties of photons, because we already know how light behaves, and it behaves as thought it is made up of photons. Any alternative you come up with either (a) behaves exactly like photons, or (b) is wrong.


You keep saying that. And yet, you are the one who didn't know what the photoelectric effect was. You are the one who had never heard of the ultraviolet catastrophe. What does that say about knowledge?

and you have no answer to why universal constants are constant...that also says an awful lot about the existing theories.

The main difference is that this is obviously not my speciality where as it seems that it is yours. So you still haven't been able to dfferentiate photon from mass, and if it has been shown please provide a link to just one of the posts you so often refer to...

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

Pix

If the degree of "closemindedness" to possibility you demonstrate is indicative of the general view it would take maybe 20-30 years at best to get even close to dealing with it. Fortunately it isn't

Wow, this sure looks like crack pottery. You are free to discuss alternative but these kind of statements make you look foolish.

BTW here is something I learned this year, there is this little quote thing in the lower right of the posts, hit the ones you would like to have before you hit quote. Saves a lot of cut and paste

Quote:

Ozziemate
sure "when the 'ole head starts to bleed from bashing it against the monitor I know that mass exists in an "almost" fundamental way.
Philosophically though we can have a great debate..yes?

Sorry you missed the boat here, you have demonstrated the two 'objects' when they come into 'contact' with each other may have effects based upon the relative velocity, impact and integrity of the object.

Where did you demonstrate that mass exists?

[ozziemate]

Quote:

It's because any alternative must have the properties of photons, because we already know how light behaves, and it behaves as thought it is made up of photons. Any alternative you come up with either (a) behaves exactly like photons, or (b) is wrong.

not necessarilly so, an alternative would make the use of travelling photons redundent yet account for all effects that are demonstrated currently.

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Wow, this sure looks like crack pottery. You are free to discuss alternative but these kind of statements make you look foolish.

BTW here is something I learned this year, there is this little quote thing in the lower right of the posts, hit the ones you would like to have before you hit quote. Saves a lot of cut and paste



Sorry you missed the boat here, you have demonstrated the two 'objects' when they come into 'contact' with each other may have effects based upon the relative velocity, impact and integrity of the object.

Where did you demonstrate that mass exists?

thanks for the tip save some time....

answer to your end question:
As i said when my head starts to bleed from bashing it against the pc monitor, thats how I know it exists.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

A travelling photon is not able to be proved as travelling with out using an object of mass to do so.

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?

You haven't proven that 'objects of mass' exist either.

You ignored ThirdEyeOpen, photons are objects of mass, they have mass because they are in motion. Otherwise they have zero rest mass, isn't that cool! The universe does not care what makes sense to us.

I assume that you are not refering to mass as the property of invariant interial type (not using the jargon right, the property of resistance to force) but in the common usage of matter, have you understood Bose-Einstein Condensate and that the wave-particle duality is not really a duality yet?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

and you have no answer to why universal constants are constant...that also says an awful lot about the existing theories.

I have already answered that. The are constant because there is no force that can act upon them.

Quote:

The main difference is that this is obviously not my speciality where as it seems that it is yours.

No.

The difference is that I have a smattering of physics, including a couple of undergrad courses, and you have a bunch of jargon that you have picked up in odd places.

Quote:

So you still haven't been able to dfferentiate photon from mass, and if it has been shown please provide a link to just one of the posts you so often refer to...

Unbelievable. I explained it right there in the post you are replying to. You did not respond to a single point I made, but just repeated your absurdities.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

not necessarilly so, an alternative would make the use of travelling photons redundent yet account for all effects that are demonstrated currently.

We've been through that.

First: There is no such thing as a stationary photon, not under any circumstances, not even imaginary ones. So your distinction of "travelling photons" is meaningless.

Second, no, you are completely wrong. All the effects that are demonstrated currently are explained fully by photons. Thus, anything else that explains those effects also acts precisely like a photon. In other words, it is a photon.