"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by geistkiesel, Mar 28, 2009.

  1. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    anuraganimax

    well... it seems to me a sound response
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    but further

    we need different sound ideas , and not all are from the ivory tower of knowledge

    understand me
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    So "sound ideas" don't stem from "knowledge"?
    You expect sound ideas to spring from wild guesses?
    From vapid speculation?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    sometimes yes and sometimes no

    look at Faraday and Maxwell , neither understood the other but together they seem to have made sense , especially in that era

    Einstein and Minkowski ( the geometry of curved spaces )




    define wild guesses , very few think this way on the whole

    why not in the manner of just calm discourse

    just here ideas out , and go from there

    so many ideas get rail roaded because the insults from bothsides and become more important than the ideas and therefore the discussion of

    anyway , I don't know maybe its just me !!!!!
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Incorrect.
    To be "sound" an idea must be workable and actually be demonstrable.
    And that constitutes knowing that it does so (and usually "how").

    Examples that were based on (and used) knowledge and built up from there to ADD knowledge.

    Anything not based on (or contrary to) knowledge.

    Because unless both parties base their discourse on knowledge it's going to be fruitless speculation.

    See above.
     
  9. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    yes but one must give a chance to those that have not the means to do as you describe above , demonstrable

    then see how sound the idea is
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    But such ideas do NOT spring from "no knowledge"...
     
  11. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    of course but you missed the point

    neither Faraday or Maxwell understood each other in the end , hence had different aspects of knowledge

    Faraday > experimental

    Maxwell > mathematical

    Einstein > mathematics , geometry

    Minkowski > mathematics , curved geometry
     
  12. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    true
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    No, you made MY point for me.
    They BOTH worked from, and with, knowledge.
     
  14. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    yes more bla blas
    You are indeed a shallow one. Attributing nuclear power to QM. You made the same mistake of calling quantum tunneling a quantum phenomenon which it isn't. Its explainable by classical mechanics and is governed by classical phenomenons. This has been found out recently.
    MRI are 95 percent magnetism.
    QM is in decline as more and more of these mysterious phenomenon are uncovered. SRT is just plain wrong. Sooner or later it will be found that classical physics did not fail at any level.



    O Mr. high and mighty you claim that you are some hotshot who has published papers in mainstream. If you consider yourself an ivory tower of knowledge tell me why do you linger around the pseudo section. Just remain in the physics and math section and post there. Or is it possible that you don't know the meaning of the word "pseudoscience".
    You are entitled to your own opinions and you are welcomed to be a mainstream lapdog if you wish.

    Why do you keep bickering with the people you yourself call cranks? You call other cranks and still expect a polite reply?



    Well you said something about a photon having momentum. What is the proof? Radiation pressure? Or do you have any more evidences?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2009
  15. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I do post there occasionally but forums are for fun. And laughing at hacks and cranks is fun.

    Is this your evidence? Your evidence for \(E \neq pc\) is that you don't know any evidence for \(E=pc\)? Particle accelerators measure high energy photon production and interactions with other particles and the behaviour of precisely that of \(E=pc\). A photon hits an electron and the electron gets a kick. That's Compton scattering, something observed and measured for close to a century now. Standard material in a quantum mechanics introduction course. Oh I forgot, you never did that. Or any other physics for that matter.

    You said you had evidence against it. I can't help but feel you're now clutching at straws.
     
  16. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    Meaning its fun to troll. Correct?

    Then radiation pressure and Compton scattering is all the proof of momentum of photon? Am I correct?
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Did I say that was all the evidence? Photon scattering experiments are not just confined to them. Why don't you do a little research yourself, rather than assuming "If I haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist!". Besides, clearly there is evidence for E=pc and I'm still waiting for your evidence to the contrary.

    Let's see, evidence for my claims, none for yours. What a surprise....
     
  18. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    Don't be too hasty. Tell me when Compton scattering occurs is the process same as in the case of an elastic or an inelastic collision? Meaning is the collision between a free electron and a photon governed by the rules of Newtonian mechanics ? Or is it absorption first and then re emission?
     
  19. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    What, in asking you to back up a claim you made a considerable time ago and which you never justified? How is that 'hasty'?

    Don't you know how to compute the QED processes associated to such interactions? Surely you're not dismissing an idea you know nothing about, wouldn't that be a little close minded of you?
     
  20. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    I'm coming to that besides you are not the one to be talking about justifications. You claimed there was a photon and gave no evidences yourself. Cut that holier than thou attitude.

    You yourself said that I don't know any physics. So why the surprise?

    And nope I don't know any QED. Now answer whether it collides in a Newtonian way or is it absorbed and then reemitted.
     
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Other than photon scatterings, photoelectric effect, the ability to see, thermal radiation, radios, microwaves, crystalography, lasers, gravitational lensing and all that jazz?

    No, no evidence at all.

    If you bothered to go a single Google for Compton scattering you'd find plenty of information about it. Clearly you have no real interest in the answer because if you possessed intellectual curiousity you'd have tried to search out the information yourself. Instead you expect to be spoon fed.

    Collisions behave relativistically, using such things as 4-momentum, and the quantum mechanical point of view is they are absorbed and then reemitted. As shown in the Feynman diagram at the top of the Wikipedia page on 'Compton Scattering', which is the first hit on Google when you google 'Compton Scattering'. Wow, with it being so hard to find such an answer, no wonder you're an ignorant tool! :shrug:
     
  22. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    Thank you but I can count lensing out of that one.



    Actually I am deriving the expression for compton shift at the moment.


    You mean "ignorant fool". right?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Seems you are losing it.
    What is four momentum? Is it related to this- E^2=p^2c^2+m0^2c^4?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2009
  23. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Yeah, once you remove lensing there's no evidence at all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Is this in a pet theory of yours? How do you plan to derive an expression for a phenomenon you don't even know the behaviour of? Or are you asking whether Compton scattering is Newtonian just to make it seem like you're ignorant?

    Nope, tool. As in a prat or jackass. If you like you can include 'fool' in there too.

    Still waiting for you to justify your claims at all.

    You do realise places like Wikipedia will answer the more innane of your questions, you need only put in the effort to read. I know it gives you a headache but it gets easier with practice.
     

Share This Page