Nearly 30 centuries ago Pythogoras said "Everything is number". Can somebody say how big or how thin photons are? Or what the stuff is they are made of? Or must we believe they are pure ghosts?

Morp

The existence of the photon was proved by Chandrasekhara Raman, earning him a nobel prize. hv (kinda) refers to the energy of a photon, which is based on it's period, and planck's constant. And I would say photons are far from ghosts, as their properties have been confirmed both theoretically and experimentally, and their uncertainty forms a key part of the developing technology of quantum encryption. Read up! http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/photoelectric2.html

It seems most of your objections are based on your personal failure to comprehend the theories, and your application of personal intuition the way the world should in your mind work to scientific theories. This can NEVER be the basis of a scientific debate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elasticity2:

so presumably photons are 'something'

---

"Something" spiritual, I presume.
For a professional explanation you do not need to be a professor. I am not a professor and I have a very simple explanation: photons are so spiritual that, to science, they do not exist.

Morp

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elasticity2:
I do not disputes the particle/wave nature of light, but photons pass through (not between) other particles so has anyone proven that the wave is a property of the photon or does it simply alter the wave structure of the particle it is passing through?
If the wave is a property of the photon can the two be seperated so that the wave continues (through gravity or gravitons for example) after the photons have dispersed or decayed?
Like most of the explanations I look into there are an abundance of formula and very little explanation (try spin for a real humdinger of confusion).

---

Elasticity2,

Yes, I know, phantoms go through walls,etc. But I am not accustomed to the language of magicians and fortune tellers. Can you explain your ideas so mathmatically oriented people can understand ?

Thanks,

Morp

quote:

---

The wave nature of light is denied by nobody but everybody speaks only of photons. Books on chemistry etc. do not use the word "light" when a chemical reaction requires light energie but "hv" . Etc.

---

-The Casimir effect
-The Josephson effect
-The Zeeman effect
-The tunnel diode
-Bose-Einstein condensates
-Stern-Gerlach experiment
etc,etc
Quantum mechanics explains this and therefore is the accepted theory.

Sometimes it's handy to reat it as one or the other but sometime this dual property just doesn't make sence.

Take diffraction. Why in hell would a particle diffract. In fact it actually happens with C₆₀ atoms as well. Danmed if I know why.

I read up about how some physicsist before 1800 thought that light was in fact made up of particles. They could explain hundreds of phenomenon with this prediction. They were in constant conflict with those who thought that light was a wave. Youngs experiment showed that it was a wave, killing them off. But then the photoelectric effect popped back up again, so were they right after all?

if C₆₀ atoms can diffract, then perhaps light is made up of particles, as all those old physicsts pridicted?

Waves owe their existence to the elasticity of the force carrier.

Therefore waves make minute changes to the mass of particles as they pass through them.

The mass of a photon is to small to register by experiment but, it can be calculated using quantum theory.

The almost zero mass of a photon means that wave makes a (relatively) large change to its mass.

As each colour has a different wavelength and therefore a different wave force; each colour photon has its own mass and therefor its own diffraction angle.

Stretching the wavelength or amplitude does not alter the colour but does give each colour a bandwidth on the electromagnetic spectrum. This action is limited by the elasticity of the force carrier.

This concept is complicated by the fact that we do not observe photons or light waves directly, but only by their interaction with electromanetic particles.
This interaction can be between a lightwave and an electron; or a photon carrying a lightwave and an electron. In the case of the former the wave is traveling through gravity or gravitons and the action of either compensates for the absence of the photon.

That is as far as I can go using the Quantum theory but I believe there is a case to be made for claiming that photons are part of a gravity spectrum and light is an interaction between two spectrums.

quote:

---

Originally posted by meteor:

quote:

---

The wave nature of light is denied by nobody but everybody speaks only of photons. Books on chemistry etc. do not use the word "light" when a chemical reaction requires light energie but "hv" . Etc.

---

Quantum mechanics is unsavory, but theories are not debunked with words, but with facts.
The wave nature of light arises from Young experiment. If you don't believe in the wave nature of light, how do you explain the interference patterns in Young experiment?
A theory that would try to replace Quantum mechanics should explain all this:

-The C
asimir effect
-The Josephson effect
-The Zeeman effect
-The tunnel diode
-Bose-Einstein condensates
-Stern-Gerlach experiment
etc,etc
Quantum mechanics explains this and therefore is the accepted theory .

---

Meteor,

Before the replacement of QM becomes a concern the scientific necessity or utility of Q.M. should be demonstrated. To me common physics of everyday are enough.

Can you give, as an example of the utility of QM, a single physical phenomenon that can not be explained WITHOUT Q.M..?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elasticity2:
No one has explained quantum physics using mathematics.

---

Elasticity2,

That is right. That is why I do not believe quanta and photons etc.. To me physics science is the translation of observed facts into mathematical expressions. Beliefs and feelings that can not be expressed mathematically belong to other sciences, religion, mythology etc.

Morp

Look into it for yourself. I'll be posting my rebuttal to your non-radiating dipole argument soon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ObsessiveMathsFreak:
Actually no-one has ever given me a satifactory explaination for what light is a wave AND a particle.

Sometimes it's handy to reat it as one or the other but sometime this dual property just doesn't make sence.

Take diffraction. Why in hell would a particle diffract. In fact it actually happens with C₆₀ atoms as well. Danmed if I know why.

I read up about how some physicsist before 1800 thought that light was in fact made up of particles. They could explain hundreds of phenomenon with this prediction. The
y were in constant conflict with those who thought that light was a wave. Youngs experiment showed that it was a wave, killing them off. But then the photoelectric effect popped back up again, so were they right after all?

if C₆₀ atoms can diffract, then perhaps light is made up of particles, as all those old physicsts pridicted?

"May the maths be with you"

---

Dear Freak,

I agree with most of what you say. All optimal phenomena can be explained as wave phenomena. There is no exception. The photo-electric effect explanation was invented to amuse illeterates.

Morp

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
Morp, he just gave you a whole list of them. The utility of QM is unquestioned, except by those who do not know physics.

Look into it for yourself. I'll be posting my rebuttal to your non-radiating dipole argument soon.

Tom
__________
Do your ears a favor. They'll thank you for it.
http://www.super400.com

---

Tom,

I agree entirely if you drop ", execept".

Morp.

quote:

---

Can you give, as an example of the utility of QM, a single physical phenomenon that can not be explained WITHOUT Q.M..?

---

One example is the behavior of an atom. Is well known that any particle in an accelerated movement must radiate electromagnetic energy. I know that you defend a planetary model for the atom. In this model, the electron has angular acceleration, and must radiate energy all the time, fact that is not observed. QM can explain the behaviour of an atom.
Another example is the proton-proton chain, that permit nuclear fusion in the sun. This chain is not possible without tunnel effect, that is a prediction of quantum mechanics

quote:

---

Originally posted by meteor:

quote:

---

Can you give, as an example of the utility of QM, a single physical phenomenon that can not be explained WITHOUT Q.M..?

---

One example is the behavior of an atom. Is well known that any particle in an accelerated movement must radiate electromagnetic energy. I know that you defend a planetary model for the atom. In this model, the electron has angular acceleration, and must radiate energy all the time, fact that is not observed. QM can explain the behaviour of an atom.
Another example is the proton-proton chain, that permit nuclear fusion in the sun. This chain is not possible without tunnel effect, that is a prediction of quantum mechanics

---

Meteor,

At last a serious question requiring a serious answer.
What you say about radiation and acceleration is partly correct. By electromagnetic laws an accelerated charge must radiate. A condition is the charge must be really accelerated, + or -, i.e., its kinetic energy must be altered. The electromagnetic radiation of accelerated bodies is a kind of V.A.T. on changes of their kinetic energy. In a flywheel,rotating at constant speed, there is a radial acceleration corresponding to the centrifugal force which can be very great but there is no change in kinetic energy.

If you apply the Maxwell equations to all kinds of movements you will see two kinds of E.M. fields are created, standing waves and progressive waves. Standing waves do not transport energy, their Poyngting vector is zero. Progressive waves transport energy.

Progessive waves can not be created by a single charge, they need a dipole. Radiation from a dipole result not from displacements or rotations but from variations of the dipole moment, electric or magnetic.

This is not a philosophical explanation, as we see from GR and QM, it is only the result of the direct application of Maxwell's equations.

Now the explanation of atoms is quite simple. When the distance(s) nucleus-electron(s) do not vary there is no radiation. When they vary a line spectrum or a continuous spectrum is radiated, depending on the degree of agitation of the atom.

The radiated line spectrum corresponds exactly to the mechanical radial movements of the electron(s) and are therefore easy to calculate with high precision.

Morp