"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

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

  1. theyoung Registered Member

    Messages:
    13
    What about the fact that Photons can be at more than one place at the same time?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    not lost at all Alphanumeric.
    fairies = flying pigs = traveling photon. same diff IMO.

    none of them have "hard" evidence to support their reality in physics.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    only because that's the best MODEL we could think of.
    and as you know just because it is the best we "could" do doesn't make it a reality. It is still only a model.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Stick with it, there is something wrong with the photon physics model.
     
  8. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    Poppycock. If you do the expt carefully so that there is only light incident on the metal in a vacuum you get emission of electrons. That has to mean there is something being emitted from the light source and traveling to the surface of the metal. The nature of the emission proves the light is a particle. Whatever you argue about the specifics of QED, you must surely agree with this?
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    and how does this prove that light has travelled across vacuum to the plate?
    an incident or event at the plate only proves an event has taken place at the plate and not much else.
     
  10. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    Not necessarily. This does not mean that the light is quantised it only means
    that the interaction of light with the object is. Meaning the object can only interact with light in some fixed ways. This implies quantisation is a property of objects of mass and not energy.
    Light has definitely more of a wave character as far as I'm concerned.
     
  11. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Light meaning what? I think the problem with the question "Does Light Move?" has too many meanings. Does a Photon create the wave that travels? would be a better question.
     
  12. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    The question in my mind for now is does a photon even exists? And yes I'm plagued by the same dilemma as to how can a wave exist without a medium. The very definition of a wave requires a medium.
     
  13. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Glad that somebody else can see that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    That's just the thing, your 'opinion' is both uninformed, ignorant and biased. Hardly a good starting point for you redoing physics. Still nothing to show for all your big claims I see. The mainstream theory involving the photon continues to pass experiments and will be further tested by the LHC. Of course you'll simply deny everything, but then what more can we expect from someone who so obviously has little interest in rational discussion.

    No, that wouldn't be the definition of a wave unless you deliberately narrow your horizons to explicitly make it your definition.

    The quantum field theory description of the photon or any other particle has all the things you'd associated with a wave, such as obeying the wave equation, frequency, periodic oscillations, Fourier mode decompositions, all there. Infact, the method of learning how to do quantum field theory is basically an extension of classical wave mechanics.

    The concept of a 'field' is not synonymous with an aether or a model, its a more fundamental and general notion. Unfortunately its one which few people outside of a physics or maths degree will come across, you being such a person. The fact you're ignorant of an alternative to a medium doesn't mean there isn't one.
     
  15. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Did I just read that you have a wave down as an equation, and nothing more than that? Are you really expecting us to believe that nature is an equation? I think you have studied until you can't see nature any more, and just numbers. You don't seem to realise the dangers of giving nature no material that can be damaged, just a bunch of numbers that might not work.
     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Well you read wrong. Do you honestly think I believe 'a wave is an equation'? How stupid are you? An equation is a way of formalising the description of something, it tellls you information about the behaviour of a system. In chemistry water is written as \(H_{2}O\) but no one says "Water is a formula!". No, the formula is a way of representing the substance, just as an equation is a way of representing the properties of something.

    No. Look, you're stupid at the best of times so trying to put words in my mouth makes you look even more idiotic because you utterly fail to grasp anything I've said.

    Bits of Nature can be DESCRIBED by equations. \(E=mc^{2}\) doesn't mean I think energy 'is an equation', it means that I can tell you how much energy is stored in a lump of matter if you tell me its mass. It's a way of formalising relationships between physical quantities, a way of representing dynamics or properties of systems which can be conveyed without ambiguity or misinterpretation.

    Classic crank logic; I know some maths therefore all I know is maths. The fact I am able to formalise descriptions of systems doesn't make me blind to the more qualitative side of things. Just because mathematics is completely and utterly beyond your comprehension doesn't mean people suffer from knowing it. You (and other cranks) take such an attitude to make yourself feel better about why you're so ignorant, you delude yourself into thinking that knowing something would be harmful to your point of view and therefore you convince yourself that not only is it not a problem you're ignorant but its important to stay ignorant. This thread shows that, QQ doesn't know any SR and he refuses to look at any because he already 'knows' its wrong. He's ignorant of SR so he doesn't like it. He doesn't like it so he thinks its wrong. If its wrong, why learn it? Circular logic but a common crank view.

    You don't seem to realise what science actually is. You are ignorant of it and you will stay that way because obviously you lack any intellectual curiousity. Cranks keep saying that people who support the mainstream point of view should be more open minded but its a common crank behaviour to avoid reading other points of view, to avoid any information, to refuse to do any learning themselves. They don't want people to be more open minded, they just want people to stop doing something they don't understand. If physicists said "It's all wrong" cranks would say "See, I told you it'd be a waste of my time to learn it!", they want that excuse. Too bad its not happened. Too bad it is not an excuse for ignorance anyway.
     
  17. Guest254 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    Having read through a few pages of this drivel, I find it very hard to believe anuraganimax and Quantum Quack are not the same person. Alternatively, there might just be more stupid people in the world than I like to allot for.

    Pincho Paxton is a troll looking for attention (IMHO).
     
  18. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    So after all of that are you going to tell me what a photon wave is without numbers then? What is the reason that it bends up, and down? What are these forces that cause it to change direction rapidly? What is the wave?
     
  19. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    Whilst I am waiting for your reply, I will show you my proposal. Imagine that the Aether is compressed bubbles. Compressed bubbles can be shown as Hexagons as that is a common form from the pressures. Look at how a Photon would have to travel through these bubbles............

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The photon has no option but to follow a zig-zag path. The bubbles have created that path naturally. But you don't even need the Photon, as you could just vibrate that path like a spider web anyway.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2009
  20. Uno Hoo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    383
    Pincho, i have a very liberal attitude toward any person with a freely revving imagination and a creative spirit. But there is a secret I have to tell you...

    (When you look in a textbook and see a picture of a wave, and it is a wavy line, like a cartoon drawing of a snake, that is not what a wave really looks like. The textbook drawing is a graph of the varying characteristic of the wave as it passes by the observer. A graph of an AC current wave going in a wire is a representation of successive voltage magnitudes as relates to time as the wave goes by. If you had a really powerful microscope and looked into the wire, you would never see a wavy snake looking thing. You would see a blizzard of electrons moving in pretty much straight lines, heading in every direction.

    When you look at a picture of a light wave, it is a graph of the varying strength of the electric and magnetic field as it moves past you. In the photon model, you would see a blizzard of light particles moving in pretty much straight lines, heading in different directions. You would not ever see a wavy snake looking thing.)

    So, your hex grid picture cannot be a real picture of what you could really see if you could directly see a light wave from the side as it flew past. It might somehow be a graphic representation like the textbook pictures are, if you were to write a math wave equation based on your concept(s).
     
  21. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    You pathetic fool I know what the description of a wave by electromagnetism is. I just find it a tad too hard to visualize. Don't gimme your quantum nonsense again. And trying to describe a field through particles is another notion I don't buy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2009
  22. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    So we have both agree on the same point must equate to we both being the same person. The shallow skimming of pages you have done proves you an outright idiot.

    Yes and you are included in the list too.
     
  23. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    Then tell me have you seen it with your own eyes an electron that is?

    Again have you seen a photon?

    If you have no idea of what an EM wave is supposed to be like in reality then what right do you have of lecturing him?
     

Share This Page