How does a photon carry energy in itself?

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's right; if photons actually carried energy, they would have to carry numbers around.

Tip from the lab guys: don't start to assume that what you can observe means a transport of something material has occurred. Energy is, in some sense, just the stage that has to still be there when the actors have left.
 
Last edited:
James is, as usual, muddying the waters. My little joke about photons carrying numbers around isn't actually a joke; it's a clever little dig at computing with photons. In order to compute you need a computational basis, a thing that can actually carry numbers from place to place.

I guess you all missed it. Big surprise. I feel so proud.
James has a problem with the word energy. He doesn't really understand it and has to resort to something vague that Richard Feynman said a long time ago; the physics world has moved on, but not James. Oh no.
If energy was in fact just a number, all information would be too; there wouldn't be any logic but there would be a lot of numbers.
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
James has a problem with the word energy. He doesn't really understand it and has to resort to something vague that Richard Feynman said a long time ago; the physics world has moved on, but not James. Oh no.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with the word energy - or, more importantly, with the concept. What I observe, however, is that many non-specialists - and even some specialists - carry a persistent misconception with them about what energy actually is. That misconception is endlessly reinforced by popular culture and even popular science in many instances.

Feynman was right. The passage of time alone can't make him wrong. You'll need to do much better than that if you actually want to argue that energy is "stuff" of some kind, rather than just a number as I and the Nobel Prize winner claim.
If energy was in fact just a number, all information would be too...
Click to expand...
That reads like a complete non sequitur to me. Perhaps you can explain?
 
James R said:
I have no problem with the word energy - or, more importantly, with the concept.
Click to expand...
So you're in a special group of people?
James R said:
What I observe, however, is that many non-specialists - and even some specialists - carry a persistent misconception with them about what energy actually is. That misconception is endlessly reinforced by popular culture and even popular science in many instances.
Click to expand...
It must be quite a difficult misconception to explain, I guess, since you haven't offered one.
James R said:
Feynman was right.
Click to expand...
He was. But what was he right about? I'm nowhere near convinced that you understood him.
James R said:
You'll need to do much better than that if you actually want to argue that energy is "stuff" of some kind, rather than just a number as I and the Nobel Prize winner claim.
Click to expand...
What about work? Is work "just a number"? If it is, why do so many, presumably educated people say it's a quantitative property that has to be transferred to a system? Can you explain how this "just a number" is transferred to a system? or is the system also "just a number"?

Also, if energy is a number ("just"), are different forms of energy an illusion? Heat and electricity are the same kind of number? Or are you saying heat and electricity aren't forms of energy; or should I say energy in the form of heat, and energy in the form of electricity, are just numbers?
 
James R said:
That reads like a complete non sequitur to me. Perhaps you can explain?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. Perhaps not.

What I'll say is there is an equivalence between energy and information; information is a physical thing, a physical thing is not "just a number". My car is not "just a number"; the air I breathe isn't either. You aren't a number, are you James?
 
arfa brane said:
Perhaps. Perhaps not.

What I'll say is there is an equivalence between energy and information; information is a physical thing, a physical thing is not "just a number". My car is not "just a number"; the air I breathe isn't either. You aren't a number, are you James?
Click to expand...
People are a collection of 200 different cells arranged in very specific patterns with emergent qualities.

How many cells are in a human body?
In other words: The human body consists of some 37.2 trillion cells. For a long time, scientific estimates of the number of cells in the human body ranged between 1012 and 1016.
Click to expand...
How many cells are in a human body? – Newsbasis.com

Interestingly what gives all cells their specific properties is organized by their cytoskeleton
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
You said it; "educated people say it's a quantative property", i.e. a number!
Click to expand...
Why do these "educated people" say the number in question has physical units?
How many numbers are there with physical units? how many are there with no physical units?

Which ones are "just numbers"?

Again, if energy is "just a number", can it be any number? can I decide which number or if the number has physical units?

And I know how hard it is to stick to a topic, or a particular question at this site. I'm not expecting any definitive answers anytime soon. I already know it's a much better idea to hit the books, in that regard.
 
No wait; it's probably "just" as easy to assume James is right. He's understood what Feynman said.

Energy is just a number; 3 is also just a number. Therefore 3 is energy !! So is 1 and 2. It's easy when you understand it, eh.
 
arfa brane said:
Why do these "educated people" say the number in question has physical units?
Click to expand...
Because that is the emergent quality from the specific patterns these numbers were arranged in.

I think you may have this backwards. I believe it should read all physical units consist of specific numbers (values) arranged in specific patterns.
 
arfa brane said:
No wait; it's probably "just" as easy to assume James is right. He's understood what Feynman said.

Energy is just a number; 3 is also just a number. Therefore 3 is energy !! So is 1 and 2. It's easy when you understand it, eh.
Click to expand...
Assuming a dynamic quality to the universe;
1 + 1 = 2 + an emergent energetic quality. 1 + 2 = 3 + an emergent energetic quality. The greater the complexity of the numerical value and pattern, the greater it's emergent energetic qualities.
The mind has no physical properties, it is an emergent quality of the number and arrangement of quantitative values arranged in a specific pattern.
Brain consumes the most energy, unless you are performing an energy intense activity for prolonged period of time. Normal human (modern) brain consumes almost 70% of energy.
Click to expand...
(4) Which organs in the human body consume the most energy on average for a healthy person while awake and resting? - Quora

It's not an perfect equation as in pure mathematics. In physics the number 3 has both a quantitative and an emergent qualitative value, i.e. it's a fractal (see Causal Dynamical Triangulation).
 
Write4U said:
Because that is the emergent quality from the specific patterns these numbers were arranged in.

I think you may have this backwards. I believe it should read all physical units consist of specific numbers (values) arranged in specific patterns.
Click to expand...
So one kilogram is a number not a unit of mass? Likewise one metre isn't a distance, since a number is a value?

It all seems so clear now.
 
This next is going to seem a little ridiculous:
Assume information is just a number, and so is energy.

So the number 3 has an information content but so does the number 4. Both are just numbers, so their information content is anything you choose it to be.

But without the symbols there is no information. Numbers don't have any information in them when they're just numbers. Energy can't have any information either for the same reason.

So what does that power or gas bill you pay, actually represent . . .
That money you hand over, is just a number, right? Although I guess you could say it has . . . an emergent property.

Yeah . . .
 
arfa brane said:
So one kilogram is a number not a unit of mass? Likewise one metre isn't a distance, since a number is a value?
It all seems so clear now.
Click to expand...
1 KG of mass is the value of the mass with an additional emergent value in energy. (E = Mc^2).

Is distance of space a physical thing or a relational value?

What is Distance?
Distance is the total movement of an object without any regard to direction. We can define distance as to how much ground an object has covered despite its starting or ending point.
Click to expand...
Let’s understand the concept of distance with the help of the following diagram:

Distance-And-Displacement-1.png

Distance here will be = 4m + 3m + 5m = 12 m

Distance and Displacement - Definition and Formulas with Examples | BYJU'S (byjus.com)
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
This next is going to seem a little ridiculous:
Assume information is just a number, and so is energy.

So the number 3 has an information content but so does the number 4. Both are just numbers, so their information content is anything you choose it to be.
Click to expand...
There are not "just" numbers. Numbers represent specific relational values.
But without the symbols there is no information. Numbers don't have any information in them when they're just numbers.
Click to expand...
Oh, information of relational values exist without human symbols.
Energy can't have any information either for the same reason.
Click to expand...
Of course there is information without human symbolized numbers.
Same answer.
Philip K. Dick — ‘Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.’
Click to expand...
So what does that power or gas bill you pay, actually represent . . .
Click to expand...
a quantified amount of energy?
That money you hand over, is just a number, right?
Click to expand...
Is money not defined as a "means of exchange" or "quid pro quo"?
Although I guess you could say it has . . . an emergent property. Yeah . . .
Click to expand...
Yes, SCOTUS has given it an emergent quality of "speech"!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top