Light

Opinion :
E=mc^2 predates \(E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}\) and is by far more pivotal. Afterall the momentum equation is derived from what?
It is also a necessary outcome of relativistic effects determined by ..yep you guessed it.... our modelled only photon.

SRT of course is totally dependent on our photons independence or source and destination mass and it's supposed ability to travel across a void.
Invariance demands this of course as you well know.
so.....take a way the photon and you will need to rework the momentum equation with something surprisingly not that much different. And SRT will become a historical icon just like the photon will.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You asked how the mainstream could be consistent when talking about the photon and also \(E=mc^{2}\). Do you deny this? You said the mainstream is 'totally confused'. I asked you for references but you failed to provide. Do you deny this?

I quoted you saying "I also know you know that the Higgs has been discounted years ago from being a serious pursuit ", why do I need o provide a link when I quoted you from the above post?! Its only been an hour or two, don't you remember saying that?

Doesn't negate my point. You've made it clear you're not worth treating politely, you don't listen to anyone who corrects you politely.

Doesn't negate my point. You claimed the Higgs wasn't an area of serious pursuit and you claimed I know it. I've pointed out you are wrong, you are wrong about the mainstream's view of searching for the Higgs and you simply made up the claim I 'know it' too. This isn't me accusing you of lying without evidence, I'm pointing out that you've lied clear as day. Can't you respond to that?

You're right, you haven't provided any demonstration you know anything relevant to your claims. And I'm sure there's more ignorance and lies to come from you.

You still fail to grasp my point. You have made claims about the models involved. You've claimed they are 'totally confused' and 'inconsistent'. You've demonstrated you don't know those models. Thus your claims about them are baseless and simply things you've made up to convince people (mostly yourself) you're right. Again, I ask you to provide two or more models used by the mainstream which are inconsistent.

You could explain why you think you're able to evaluate people work you haven't read and which you don't understand. I know you don't like it when people point out you're ignorant of physics but its not 'vitriol' to state the truth, no matter how much it might not be pleasant to hear.

In his 1905 paper where he derived the relevant results he goes beyond just \(E=mc^{2}\) and provides the energy due to the motion of a particle, \(m \left( \gamma - 1 \right)c^{2}\), which is a different way of writing \(\sqrt{(mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}} - mc^{2}\), in terms of velocity rather than momentum. He does it for an electron. You have again demonstrated you have not looked at what Einstein or anyone else in the mainstream said, you're willing to simply make things up. Again and again you demonstrate you're dishonest and I can't fathom why you continue. You know you're making things up, you know you're talking to people who actually know what the mainstream history is and yet you tell the lies anyway. Are you an obsessive compulsive liar?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so you think asking an expected question about how a photons massless state could be consistent with E=mc^2 is making a statement about mainstream thinking?
uhmm.... hows that...?
confusion is evident right through out this thread and just about every forum on the net....how many links do you want?

wiki~

yes uhm well you are not the only one who makes presumptions.
The reading I had done seriously doubted the value of Higgs research as it was generally thought at the time [ sic 8 years ago] that it was way too hypothetical to consider seriously. I presumed that was common knowledge.

my mistake...
Of course you can't find the Higgs so keep looking....because until you get rid of the notion of a photon you will never understand what the Higgs is.

So maybe you are caught between two obsessions.
1] your support for SRT [ aka the photon ]
2] your search for a particle Higgs, that can not be found under the SRT paradigm.
..... are you in trouble! as both may very well be non existent....[chuckle]
and now I know why you are so shi*tty with me....and others who even hint that they are interested in questioning the value of SRT.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The reason why I find this amusing is that I know what the Higgs is and I am about to prove it very soon....that is one of the key evidences I have been talking about.
so Hi Alphanumeric, nice to meet ya!

just as an aside:
Have you ever asked yourself why gravity conforms to the the inverse square rule?
or have you just accepted it as a "just is" like most people?

 

my post:

your post:

am I wrong...nope...E=mc^2 is the pivotal equation unless you are suggesting by your accusation of my lying that the momentum equation came prior to E=mc^2?

 

QQ: If your MassDistance theory can calculate anything or make any prediction, please correct this “Nothing & None” answer in 2nd paragraph of my reply by telling how to calculate something or what it has predicted.

Answer to both is that they exist in nature, or at least experiment results are best calculated and predicted as if they do. That is what science is all about. - Building a model with which one can calculate observational results and predict new test results. Anything explanation which can not calculate or predict is a "it works by MAGIC" theory.

What result can you calculate with your MassDistance model? What phenomena does it predict?
Answer: Nothing & None. Thus it is not science. It is MAGIC. Worse, it postulates that "nothing" (photons do not exist) has the following precise properties standard theory associates with the photon:

(1) Energy transport thru vacuum (Sun to Earth etc.)

(2) Momentum (as used in solar sailing satellite)

(3) Definite measured wavelengths, or frequencies, which correspond linearly (and exactly to at least 8 significant figures) to difference between the various energy levels of the hydrogen atom that can be calculated by standard atomic theory also to better than 8 significant figures.

(4) Definite delay between source and detector linearly proportional to their separation, This fixed "speed of propagation" can be computed from the magnetic permeability and dielectric constant of the material or vacuum between the source and detector! This speed was first computed by Maxwell from laboratory measurements of these seemingly unrelated characteristics and later confirmed by Michelson and others earlier.

(5a) Interference patterns with spacing between the bright and dark lines a linear function of the wavelength.
(5b) The position of photographic film darkening in a spectrograph is exactly as predicted by the "grading equation" which assumes photons with a definite wavelength travel from source, interact with the grading, and then travel on to the film. (If nothing is going between the source and the film, why would the space between very fine (too fine to even see) linear scratches of the grading enter into the grading equation? They certain are not making any difference in either the masses used or the distances between masses, but that spacing between invisible scratches makes a huge (and exactly as predicted) difference as to where the film is darkened.

(6) The magnitude of reflection coefficient when metal is used as the reflector is given exactly as Maxwell's Equations predict. (This is a “boundary layer” math problem which also tells how deeply into the metal the EM wave goes in complete agreement with the observed intensity that is transmitted thru very thin metal films)

(7) When not incident at 90 degrees to the metal surface, each of the orthogonal polarization reflects differently. One has zero reflection at a particular angle of incidence, called the Brewster angle. This is sometimes used to produce polarized X-rays. I.e. an unpolarized beam reflected at the Brewster’s angle is 100% polarized when reflected. All exactly as predicted by Maxwell’s Equations. (I have done this with X-rays to simplify the analysis of crystals and also produced polarized X-rays by the volumetric scattering of them within a block of carbon when observed at 90 degrees.)

(8) Fact that the setting sun appears not to be round like when it is high yet there is absolutely no change in either the mass of the Earth or the distance to the sun – I.e. a MassDistance theory’s inputs (if there were any calculation possible in it) would be identical for both cases but by MAGIC the results are different. Sort of like requiring 2+5 = 6 at sunset and 2+5 = 7 at high noon. (Same inputs give different outputs.) Be careful in explaining this. You might be tempted to say "something" is passing thru different amounts of air, but your MassDistance theory assumes nothing is and is stuck with fact there is no change in either masses or distances of the Sun/Earth system between noon and sunset.

(9)** That specific wavelengths from specific sources have the two path interference pattern fade out if the path length difference exceeds a certain length – In experiment I did** with modest pressure sodium lamp that was ~30 cm. Note also that result is same if one of the paths is increased or decreased by 30 cm. How can same result occur in your MassDistance theory for two different distances and identical masses?

(10) The photo-electric effect (and other effects that show Quantum Theory’s prediction for quantized energy packets are correct.)

These 10 experimental observation are well understood by assuming photons do exist, which are correctly modeled by Maxwell’s equations (when many) or by Quantum Theory and atomic theory of energy levels, when considered one at a time. (BTW this is not two separate theory selectively applied as Quantum Theory predicts that in large numbers the classical theory will be valid.)

I could list many more, for example the exact shape of black body radiation curve follows from quantum theory applied to quantized energy packets Planck called "photons." etc. but 10 observations that your MassDistance theory can neither explain nor predict seems adequate to show it is NONSENSE. If I am wrong and you can explain any or all of these 10, please do so – but show your assumptions and calculations. (Words alone are the claim: "It happens by magic.")
Now either put up or shut up.

--------------
** See full discussion of this at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52 I.e. another problem with your NONSENSICAL MassDistance theory is that your "nothing" has a definite, measurable length. 30 cm in the case discussed at this link. (Photons are not tiny little balls as most people believe. Some are more than a meter long and why those that are is well understood. Has mainly to do with the radiative decay life-time of the upper state of the transition. (Also to get observably meter+ long photons, the source must be a low pressure gas.)

 

Billy T the difference between your model and mine is that Mine can predict with 100% accuracy, the following observable phenonema.
1] Gravitational constant even whilst cosmic expansion/contraction is under way. [And explains why it has to be exactly constant]
2] Inertia and metastability
3] Consciousness, the physics of.
4] Freewill, the physics of.
5] Objectivity, the physics of.
6] Invariance of those constants.
7] The light effect data already achieved and observed including BE Condensate, Crompton Scattering and a host of other intriguing displays.
8] and the list continues....

but most importantly it predicts with 100% accuracy that the Photon is a non existent construct that was damn useful in helping man kind understand the nature of invariance and the concept of "Relativity" [logically and rationally] even though it was applied incorrectly.

now you have modelled a photon and the challenge rests with you not I.
so I shall place the burden where it belongs of your challenge:
PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

This ...... is the Photon Challenge....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

An impressive list, but still just words making claims, no demonstration of any prediction or any explanation of how these thing occur or are calculated by the MassDistance theory. - I.e. still just: "magic makes it happen."

You cannot claim 100% accuracy unless you can calculate result values, so do it for the simplest thing in your list:

The simplest thing listed is Compton scattering. Derive from your theory the intensity vs. scattering angle equation.
Or even less demanding, show that 90 degree scattering of an initially unpolarized beam makes a polarized beam.

I know you don't want to even admit there is a beam, so just explain why a detector placed behind a polarizer (in what I would call the scattered and now polarized beam) responds with amplitude / intensity measured as;

I = (Imax) cos(A)

Where Imax is intensity of the detector response when the angle A = 0.
(And does not respond at all when A = 90 degrees.)
No need to speak of "beams" just derive this very simple "detector response equation" with your theory.

I.e. Produce / derive this simple equation which shows intensity vs. rotation angle of the polarizer in front of the detector with your MassDistance theory and I will admit there is more to your alternative theory than just “hot air words” and “claims of magic.”

Otherwise stop posting your verbal only NONSENSE

 

Billy T an experiment you or any one can peform at home. 'tis real easy...

requirements
1] two full body length mirrors about the same as one your wife probably uses.
2] two incandescent lights [ bed side lights will do marvelously.]
3] One red laser light emmitting device [ like the pointer some teachers use to harrass students with.]

Now
method:

Place the mirrors approximately 0.5 meter apart parallel facing each other
so that one mirror is offset in the arrangement. Exactness of position is not important. Close to parallel will suffice

ie.
_____
... ______

Now place your three light sources so that the light falls on the exposed offset of one of the mirrors and the laser is pointing so that it.s angled reflection is multiple as it travels back and forth between both mirrors.
Now sit down with a cafe com latte if you take milk and a ciggy if you smoke, a note pad and pen and with about 2 hours at your disposal fully described what you are seeing in "physics" terms of the three lights, the mirrors and their reflections as viewed from the output side of the assembly. [including any background information witnessed in the reflections]

Fully describe it in photonic terms, [What you see and most importantly what you don't see] and you will notice that the photon has considerably more than just a particle /wave like duality to it...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

best of luck!
P.s. I did this experiment about 6 years ago...no mathematics just simply observation and understanding what you are observing.
Oh and BTW, make sure the mirrors are a little dirty with the usual oily residue that is found on typical homewear in warm humid rooms and if you can mask the laser from direct site all the better.

A topic has been started here :
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=102430
Should be an interesting exercise...

 

The solution is actually made easier when you realise that to have something so absolutely absolute, it has to be absolutely absolute and totally immutable or irreducable...
And there is only one thing the universe has to accommodate to achieve such an absolute absolute and we use it every day in all things we do.
I dont use theory to prove anything.
I use theory to try an explain what is already proven.

 

in a self justifying system that this universe is once the fundamental constant is known and the basic logic is understood there is simply not much more to calculate except to extrapolate for other reasons. Simply because it IS a self justifying system.

 

I don't see how you could think that. 30 cm is the lenght I measured.

In fact I did not measure any wavelength. I used a sodium lamp as my source and some simple yellow only pass glass filters. Thus both of the slghtly different yellow sodium radiation lines (called the sodium D lines) were present in the interference pattern. With two different wave lenghts I could not have measured a wavelength even if I were trying too, which I was not.

The fundamental thing you MUST understand is that each photon goes by both paths and when "recombined" at the screen INTERFERES ONLY WITH ITS SELF. Thus, when the distance the "part" going the longer of the two paths is greater than the length of the "part" of the photon energy that traveling the longer path arrives too late to interfere with the part that went the shorter path - I.e. the interference pattern "washes out" as the path difference length become as large as the length of the photons.

Note I am fully aware that photons are quantum beasts can not actually be divided by a half-silvered beam splitter etc. but in ways impossible for humans to understand each photon does know about all the possible paths. So to describe this strange to humans part of physics one does speak of the photon going thru both slits of the Young's two slit interferometer or traveling both paths after passing thru a wave-front-division two beam interferometer. What "really" happens and how it happens, only the photon knows.

Have you read how I explained this all in the color thread? If yes and not completely clear, ask specific questions.

Link to that "color thread" here soon.

 

I don't see how you could think that. 30 cm is the length I measured. - Certainly that is not the wavelength of a photon.

In fact I did not measure any wavelength. I used a sodium lamp as my source and some simple yellow only pass glass filters. Thus both of the slightly different yellow sodium radiation lines (called the sodium D lines)* were present in the interference pattern. With two slightly different wave lengths present, I could not have measured a wavelength even if I were trying too, which I was not.

The fundamental thing you MUST understand is that each photon goes by both paths and when "recombined" at the screen INTERFERES ONLY WITH ITS SELF.* Thus, when the distance the "part" going the longer of the two paths is greater than the length of the photons, the "part" of the photon energy that is traveling that longer path arrives too late to interfere with the part of the photon energy that went the shorter path. - I.e. the interference pattern completely "washes out" (Uniformly illuminated screen) as the path difference length become as large as the length of the photons. When the path length difference is half the length of the photo, 15 cm in my case, then only the "front half" of the energy going the longer path arrives at the screen in time to interfere with the "back half" (last part) of the energy going the shorter path. Thus there is no longer any completely dark lines (or any twice intensity bright lines) on the screen. I.e. as the path difference increases the interference pattern gets progressively smoothed out into uniform screen illumination.

Note I am fully aware that photons are quantum beasts can not actually be divided by a half-silvered beam splitter etc. but in ways impossible for humans to understand each photon does know about all the possible paths. So to describe this strange to humans part of physics one does speak of the photon going thru both slits of the Young's two slit interferometer or traveling both paths after passing thru a wave-front-division two beam interferometer. What "really" happens and how it happens, only the photon knows.

Have you read how I explained this all in the color thread (link below)? If yes and not completely clear, ask specific questions.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52

* This, by the way, is why interference is possible with incoherent light sources with not much spread of different wavelengths present. Many people (perhaps you?) think that two different photons cancel each other out to make the nulls of an interferences pattern, but that would only be possible with coherent light from for example, a LASER.

-----------
* "...These lamps produce a virtually monochromatic light averaging at a 589.3 nm wavelength (actually two dominant spectral lines very close together at 589.0 and 589.6 nm). As a result, the colors of illuminated objects are not easily distinguished since they are seen almost entirely by their reflection of this narrow bandwidth yellow light. ..." From wiki

 

I observed a typical interference pattern - bright and dark parallel lines on a screen. Initially, with equal path lengths, the dark lines had no light and the light in the bright lines had twice the intensity it would have had if just illuminated by the lamp - I.e. no energy was lost - what should have been on the screen where the dark lines were was where the bright lines were - I did not actually measure this, but believe in conservation of energy. I just looked at the pattern with my eye.

You really do not understand yet what I did or what the 30cm result means. I have now rewritten part of my first reply to you - trying to make that as clear as the link's text in that first reply. Perhaps, just reading the longest paragraph in my first reply to you (post 154) will make it clear to you what I did and what it means.

 

It is essentially without any coherence between the different photons emitted by different Na atoms. Again, you MUST understand and accept that each photon ONLY interferes with itself - not with others.

This is so hard for most to believe / accept that in the original post (at link given in first rely) I give links to three different ivy league universities, each of which has a different class-room demonstration of this strange truth. Each photon "knows" all of the possible paths it can take. In all three demonstrations very low intensity light is used so there is only one photon present at a time, yet the interference occurs. (In the old day, we just made time exposure of film for many hours to show this.)

The type of "coherence" you are thinking of has NOTHING to do with light interference effects (LASERS excluded). I am tempted to call that error 5, but as you did not actually say an error, I will not. Each photon is obviously "self coherent" but that is not what you were speaking of. I am almost certain you have some false ideas in your head on this. (I.e. "unstated error 5")

PS we are on opposite sides of the world - I waited 20 minutes to see if you made quick reply but am going to bed now as here it is 2:12 AM.

 

How many times do you need to be told that \(E=mc^{2}\) doesn't apply to the photon!!! No one in the physics community has ever said that. They have said \(E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}\) applies to it. If you can't even ask relevant viable questions your entire contribution to this and any other thread in regards to the photon is undermined.

Since when is the mainstream physics community made up of internet forums? It isn't. While there's 'interested people' on this forum there's very few people who are actually doing physics research. Ben, Prometheus, myself, Guest and CptBork are actually in the physics or maths research communities. Yes, there's plenty of confusion on internet forums but thats because the people on said internet forums are not actively studying mathematics or physics so they are not aware precisely of what the mainstream community does. You're not looking at the mainstream community and yet you're claiming there's confusion. How can you not see that its stupid to evaluate the research community without looking at the research community. If you claim something about the mainstream community then you should be looking at textbooks and papers, not forums. If there's confusion in the research community it should be evidence at places like www.arxiv.org, where you'll find research papers from the majority of the community.

If you can't even look at the right material you have no right to complain people aren't doing things properly.

How is that Wikip quote relevant? It doesn't back up your claim the Higgs isn't a serious pursuit, it does the opposite.

What reading? You haven't read any books or papers. You have no information which comes from the research community directly, you seem to get all your information second or third hand via forums or pop science articles. Your research doesn't seem to involve doing anything active.

The existence of the photon and the nature of SR are seperate things. SR can be invalid yet our experimental results for the photon will be unchanged. The photon could not exist (if your ramblings are vaguely right, which they aren't) and yet SR would remain. You have made the mistake of making them equivalent. And the Higgs is a prediction of quantum field theory which is built on quantum mechanics and special relativity. The prediction of the Higgs would not have been made without special relativity because otherwise you don't have quantum field theory.

That's the reason I'm shitty with you, you just make things up about topics you have absolutely no knowledge of. I am not shitty with you because I fear you or anything like that, I don't lose a nanosecond of sleep about anything you've said, you're a nut who'll amount to nothing. I'm shitty with you because I dislike wilful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty in people and you have it in spades. You lie again and again and you lie about something I know about. You're effectively telling me my job when you know nothing about my job. When you piss on someone's shoes don't be surprised when they aren't pleasant to you. I know you desperately want to validate yourself by convincing yourself you're making the mainstream community worried but you aren't. You're just a pathetic hack who is desperately lying to convince yourself you aren't a failure in physics.

Its due to the dimensionality of large scale space. Anyone whose seen generalised Schwarzchild solutions or done string theory knows why we see gravity have an inverse square law. You're not putting forth any new ideas QQ and you'd know that if you bothered to open a book and not just read internet forums.

Those are flat out lies. Provide a quantitative accurate model for one, just one, phenomenon. To be '100% accurate' you must have a quantitative model. Given you can't do even high school mathematics I don't believe your claim. If you can't justify these claims you'll be (again) demonstrating you're a massive hypocrite by complaining the mainstream is supposedly not justifying their claims while you just make shit up and never justify it.

 

Ok in case you didn't get it the first time I'll post it again....

I would be confident that just about every student serious about physics would at some stage ask that question in some form... ...in fact I would be equally confident that you asked that question or a version of it at some point in your studies and found an answer that you are satisfied with.
But if asking questions is making a statement about mainstream thinking according to you, Alphanumeric, paranoia seems to be the only verdict.