SL, have you ever noticed that he who knows or understands the least often makes the most noise? They seem to think that they can hide their ignorance behind a full screen of text. In the end they wind up being trapped by their very own words just as you have caught Frud-fraud here more than once. And the last couple were absolutely classical gold strikes! Thank you very much!!
It's a photon radiated from a source, just as a "reflected" photon is actually a reradiated photon from the atom it interacts with (source), as you so graciously pointed out earlier. Yes. A tiny bit of momentum leaves the emitter. When the photon hits the detetor, this momentum is given up. Until the detection occurrs, the photon carries the momentum. The emitter has been affected at the instant of emission, what happens later is irrelevant. Yep. Good. It's nonsense. You're right. It has zero effect. Within a photons inertial frame, time is a meaningless construct. Absolutely agree. But from an observers frame, it is very menaingful. (I'm not talking about time as some mystical flowing "thing". It's nothing more than a measurement of intervals). Photons clearly evolve over "time" otherwise there could be no doppler shift or cosmological red shift or gravitational redshift. Polarization could not occurr. This is pretty fundamental stuff.
Fuksake here's someone else's version (what they think I said): "2: and that the photon is somehow "connected" to the emitter until such time as the detector detects it." I haven't said FA about "until such time as the detector detects it." I have said several times: photons "ignore" time. This is an ok description of what "occurs". We only ever see the before and after, we can't see what photons "do". We don't know they travel in nice straight lines either, thanks to interference (double slit experiments), but take an "available" path. They connect electrons to each other. The time this appears to take isn't explained yet, but it's a conserved, or invariant property of light. Doesn't mean photons aren't connected (both ends of the channel). When the connection/disconnection occurs is another moot point. Photons transfer themselves, one way. An informational view of this is of a connection, the message is frequency. We can build instruments to measure other properties that our eyes don't see (polarisation, e.g.). This means we can exploit the things, or use them (as modulators of other kinds of encoding than energy as frequency). Channels modulate signals.
You are totally confused so there is no way anyone can get through to you. Doesn't it strike you as odd that nobody here agrees with you ? Your are so obviously picking up definitions here and there without understanding what they mean, so you interpret them to mean what you want them to mean at a particular stage of your argument. You scoffed when I suggested you take a course in elementary physics, but there is much you could probably learn, unless you know it already. in which case take a more advanced course.
Fuksake: Yep. And by QED, we know they don't. Very good. No, they don't. The emission of a photon can affect an electron somewhere else. This use of the word "connection" is causing you all sorts of problems. Why do you think photons "connect" electrons? Connection implies that the photon somehow "binds" the two electrons in time. Like a wire connection. Huh? The time it tales a photon to go from my tree to my eye isn't explained? Please ppost a link or something to the science behind this. One that describes photon connections and channels. No one cares about "when". And this message stuff appears to be nonsense. Post a link please. What does that mean, "Channels modulate signals"? It just occurred to me - are you confusing the purely graphical representation of a feynman diagram (that describes particle/particle interactions) with a photon "connection" somehow existing simultaneously at one "end" and the other?
Frud11, The key to Frud11's viewpoint is this statement about time in the photon's frame of reference, of course. It is one of the reasons Relativity Theory and QM are not compatible. The idea that photons do not experience 'time' is because of the use of Einstein clock synchronization convention instead of absolute clock synchronization. In absolute clock synchronization, the photon takes the identical length of time to reach a distant object in both frames of reference, the photon's and the observer's. By mixing Qm with Einstein clock synchronization, Frud11 believes no 'time' has passed in the photon's frame of reference between emission and absorption, thus the two events are casually connected. Am I correct in my assesment, Frud11? I don't want to put 'words in your mouth', but the sticking point is your insistence that 'time' does not pass in the photon's frame of reference, thus making emission and absorption of the photon simultaneous events.
Well, 2iq, I think it's not valid at all to talk about an inertial reference frame for a photon or whether time passes from a photon's POV. A photon has no rest frame. If you try to plug in v=c in the lorentz equations, you get undefined results.
i love abserving the people how one sneeze can multiply to a zillion people sneezing also the fact they can even in critical mass stages believe in imaginary diseases i call it CR im fascinated on how its similar to sharks on a frenzy for a feed with an energy unbelieveable energy or even a signal to any animal on this world or fish or other things like insects
i know through my earlier training that a whale can bump a small part of the earth and create a earth quake they send signals to one other
i notice small species have a permanent damage through smell after they are dead different smells have different effects from many species on this earth we may think nothing of it at the time but i see the changes in peoples medical situations and they complained about the smell of ants or the smell they left behind then they are striken with disease i always listen to people complain cause its more than a complaining thing to me
gravity is weird too aswell to me sum times if you can control gravity or manipuate it you dont have the pull the force is on your side instead against which i proved to a mate here in aspley brissy i showed him what one can do without gravity and without equipnment too easy for me yet he freaked and said fuck me dead ...like that
Good points. So, basically, we have a few possibilities of where Frud's thinking has gone whonky. 1. Semantics. He's really a 'semantic' "nightmare". 2. Mixture of relativity and quantum theory. Danger. Danger. (He hasn't admitted this, but it definitely seems to fit.) 3. Possibly taking Feynman diagrams too literally. Any others?
How about dabbling ? For thinking to go whonky it must have been right at some stage. I have seen no evidence of this.
Look, like, some information has showed up on the screen here. Hm. Wonder if anyone will ever make any sense of it all? No one seems to be able to understand something as simple as a connection. Or a channel.
I see someone is claiming that someone: You think it does? Can you post any evidence that this happens? Photons "know about" how far they've been travelling? Or how much farther it is to go? These words are things you made up, just like the dudes who wanted to explain light, or radiation (those scientist dudes). "the two events", by which I imply you refer to "emission and absorption", are indeed connected. Causation, is another term we use to explain what "happens". Electrons are "affected by" photons. Photons are the "effect" of electrons. This is true, as far as we can tell. "No, the photon is not disconnected from its "source", even a little bit. Nothing "leaves", or "goes" anywhere. Not 'til it gets received (imparts energy to a different electron than the one it left, say). You are giving some analog of the classical view of light as rays of some kind. ” ” This is my explanation. The "not disconnected" bit means the photon (a message the "source" electron is sending), doesn't arrive for a "while" -we perceive a velocity, and so time "passes" for us. But it isn't a pipe or a ray or something, it's a photon. Nothing leaves or goes anywhere, means its momentum doesn't disconnect from the world somehow (this is, in fact, the idea of a "ray" or a straight line, or a narrow beam), and then "arrive" out of stage right. We can draw as many rays as we like, but we can't "see" where it's going. The connection is the transfer. The channel isn't a riverbed carved out of stone, ok? It's transient. There's that time thing agin. But a channel must have two ends. I suppose you could think of it as a channel that has a start that "disconnects" from its source and "follows" the information and "arrives" with the "end" of the thing. It's a model. I thought it was pretty straightforward. P.S. Modulation is also a pretty basic idea. Also there's this Google thing. P.P.S. With the barrier that goes up before the photon arrives "at" the detector (where its momentum is absorbed, or added to the electron that "captures" it, correct?): what happens if it has a single, or a double slit in it? And if the barrier is up before, after, and some interval near the point at which it should "arrive" at the place, or part of its travel, the single or double slit is?
Hmm... Ok. It's your explanation. What observed natural phenomena does it explain? That's fine. But again, what observed natural behavior does it explain? The whole thing here is that you are claiming that the act of observation (a photon hitting my eye) changes the tree. No one has ever observed this to my knowledge. Right.
