"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

Is PP Zephir? He's slowly but surely becoming more obsessed with aether, including posting pictures more and more and he has the same complete ignorance of science and the inability to grasp it has to be more than words.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The two slit experiment is what I based my ideas on, and my picture works fine with that, and bubble theory is starting to become more common, and this is how bubbles line up more or less. So travelling through a zig-zag creates a particle wave. It creates the interference pattern on the photographic paper when there is no observer, so that's all I need.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is need to know. Prove your authority.

Every day of my life. Thank God.

What is your attention span? Nanosecond? I just wrote my idea of what an EM wave is supposed to be like in reality. We must be twins separated at birth! I was wondering same thing about your right to harangue me! Tell me your address so we can sit down and have a beer together like long lost closest friends!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But, who cares whether or not you buy it?

The functional characteristics of a (propagating) field can be very well successfully approximated by ballistic particles.

You have had your 15 minutes of fame and I have had enough of your BS. Bye.

 

$100 usd on the table if you can pass the test of proving a photon travels across a void of vaccumous space from A to B.
And when you come back later and say you can't we shall ask the question "Who is stupid?"

 

Really!!! please send me a picture.

Of course thats an opinion and I don't remember asking you to buy it.

And you were blaming my attention span....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The problem is all you're doing is just another Kent Hovind. You keep saying "There's no evidence for the photon!" but what you really mean is that there's no evidence for the photon if you only consider evidence of a very particular kind in setups which you have deliberately tailored to be unable to provide evidence. Simply creating a Catch 22 doesn't mean you're correct.

You keep saying you've got your own theory which can explain what current physics views as a photon as some kind of disturbance in material. I'll give $1000 if you can get it published in a reputable journal, say JHEP, in the next 6 months. I'm happy for you and I to enter into a bet with some agreed upon 3rd party holding the money for the duration while you submit your work and await a response. If you are rejected, I get your money, if you're published, you get mine. Let's see how willing you are to throw money around when the decision of what is or isn't science is taken out of your hands.

 

incorrect:
I am saying there is no evidence to support the model of a traveling photon across vacumous space. This is very different to saying snip~ "that there's no evidence for the photon"

 

If and when I publish 1] it certainly wont be in a science journal, 2] it wouldn't be rejected because the evidence presented will be unambiguously and absolutely clear. [ what exactly the gravitational constant is [ in process]and why the photon model is incorrect...]

 

So much for you putting your physics where your mouth is.

 

WOO back up a sec.. they can prove light exsist.. the can slow it down actually from 186,000 miles an hour to 24 aprox.. " light" is photons and photons have mass regaurdless of what you read it has been shown and provem.. if photons didnt move how does the light get here to eart from the sun? how do lasers cut?

seems to be 100m/s not 24mph

 

If we were talking good physics I wouldn't mind so much...but we aren't are we?
You and most of the scientific community claim a causation for the light effect and can't support it properly. That I am afraid to say is simply poor physics. IMO

And I have $100 on the table and still in my possession that say so.
Do you want to do good physics or poor physics? The choice is yours!

 

Until the claims you and most of the scientific fraternity make, are properly supported and free of ambiguity then they are merely models and ideas. A qualified speculation at best!

The light effect is thought to be caused by something modelled as a photon, that defies a heap of other known physical laws.
1] A massless particle that imparts momentum upon objects of mass?
2] A massless, dimensionless particle that has dimension [ enough to travel with]?
3] Space that is being used as an aether for light [EM] but nothing else?
and so on...

the list of contradictions to good physics is a long one...

so yes the question:
What causes the light effect? - is a very good one and one that has yet to be answered even though most of the scientists in this world "think" they have the answer. [ which stops them from looking further]

 

Well you aren't, no.

Simply repeating your Kent Hovind challenge doesn't cut it. If you were truely fair you'd make an unbiased third party the judge in your challenge. Instead you do what Hovind does, say "Science must explain....." followed by criteria which are flawed and make yourself the judge of your competition. You have a vested interest in saying to people "No, that's no evidence" so no matter what is presented to you you'll refuse to accept it. Just as you've refused to accept anything anyone has said to you already.

I forget, which of us has peer reviewed published work? Oh, me. And which of us is making claims about his work on a forum but not backing anything up? Oh, you. The problem with insulting my physics skills and attitude is that you're less successful than I am so you're not exactly doing yourself a favour.

You haven't even tried to look at the evidence mainstream physics has. You admit to refusing to read books on relativity yet you then make claims about it. You keep yourself ignorant on purpose and then complain when you odn't know something?!

Wow, you actually are mirroring Hovind in that your take on what mainstream physics says is completely wrong and shows massive ignorance. Let's consider them in turn :

1) In relativity you have a Lorentzian metric so its possible for an object to have equal 3-momentum and energy and the mass of the object is their difference. If an object has momentum p and energy E then its mass satisfies \((mc^{2})^{2} = E^{2} - |\mathbf{p}|^{2}c^{2}\). That is an experimentally observed result, to very high accuracy. In the photons case you have that its energy satisfies \(E=|\mathbf{p}|c\) and thus \(m^{2}=0\). This isn't a violation of 'known physical laws', its actually experimentaly justified!

2) Objects do not need extension to move. If you could do basic calculus, which you can't, you'd know that saying something like "The position of a ball at time t is x(t)" describes a ball whose position is varying in time but whose position is a point. Its high school mechanics for god sake!

3) What?! Space isn't an aether, it doesn't have the same material properties. Further more in quantum field theory ALL particles are fluctuations in fields. For the photon its a fluctuation in the electromagnetic field. For the gluon its in the gluonic field. For the electron its in a spinorial electron field. The photon isn't special, its just one of many many quantum fields used in mainstream physics. Once again because you're completely ignorant you whine about your misconceptions, thinking they are someone else's fault.

Well we could examine your work to see if its 'good physics' but what a surprise, you haven't shown it. Have you not had the time to write it down? I imagine going out of your way to be as ignorant as possible is quite time consuming.

 

what more can I do but repeat what you seem to be consistantly avoiding?

 

Well you refuse to accept Compton scattering, the photoelectric effect, gravitational lensing, experiments with Bose-Einstein condensates, photon-photon scattering and pretty much the entirity of QED experiments from all particle accelerators ever.

You have not retorted any of them, you simply say "They could be explained some other way". Well you can say that about anything but there is a point at which you have to make convoluted and irrational claims otherwise. The Sun could go around the Earth but you have to come up with an enormously convoluted solar system to explain all observations.

And don't think I didn't notice that you ignored how I pointed out that your criticisms of mainstream physics were all flawed and based on ignorance. What's the matter, can't you accept that m=0 for particles carrying momentum is possible, that it isn't against 'known physical laws'? You claimed it was, you were wrong and now you're hoping to avoid admitting it.

So much for you being a crusader for truth or honesty in science, you are deliberately ignorant of it and when its pointed out you can't accept it. And still nothing with regards to your own work. Surprise surprise. Can't you justify your claims? You complain I don't but you ignore anything I say. I can't ignore what evidence you provide because you provide none.

 

you simply have not ruled out the fact that the photo electric effect could be a mass event and not a photon event.
Or perhaps you could explain using your vast erudite knowledge how the experiments you mention above have managed to do that?
Vast knowledge not worth a cracker if you can't apply it properly...IMO

and I bet you wont take up the challenge and avoid the issue as usual!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If light has momentum but no mass and travels with a constant velocity how is the momentum conserved? What can one change when one has to apply rules of momentum conservation to a photon?

 

Because momentum is frequency dependent via \(E = pc = h\nu \)

 

Here

λ=h/mv=h/mc
c/ν=h/mc
mc^2=hν
mc^2=E
mc.c=E
p.c=E
Since both relativistic mass and velocity of a photon is fixed the energy should also be fixed. Changing the wavelength or frequency makes no difference as the equations don't change. You'll have to alter the relativistic mass or velocity if you want to want to alter the wavelength or frequency. Impossible as both are constants.