Proof of the photon that is unambiguous?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

not claiming anything just exploring possibilites

Then explore no further! The photoelectric effect is proof of the photon that is unambiguous.

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

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]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

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?

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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?

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

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

[Ivor the Engineer]

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".

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

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.

[paximperium]

Does anyone know what a "reflective mass" is?

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

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]

Originally Posted by paximperium

Does anyone know what a "reflective mass" is?

it's my lingo for something that is able to reflect light...or EM

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

well said!
However if that model inhibits future progress then it would be cause for concern yes?

But photons do the precise opposite.

[ozziemate]

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?

[fls]

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

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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...

[ozziemate]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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]

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

I don't know where to begin...

don't bother it isn't on tiopic any way...and way to brief.

[paximperium]

Originally Posted by fls

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.

[Tubbythin]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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

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

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[PixyMisa]

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.

[NobbyNobbs]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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

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

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

In all instances light can only be detected in reflection.

No. See above.

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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

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

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

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.

[John Bentley]

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?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[sol invictus]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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".

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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"

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by ozziemate

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.