paddoboy:
Are you saying that photons are energy? If you are, then you're wrong.
So, let's be clear. Is that still your position, or are you changing your tune now?
It doesn't matter how much you use that word. Photons are not energy, and shouting "pedantry" until the cows come home won't change that fact.
Let me walk you through this slowly one more time, using your own words. Please pay attention this time.
"All Mass is a form of energy..."
That's you saying mass is energy.
"...Yes, light is energy..."
That's you saying that light is energy.
Now, if mass is energy and light is energy, it follows that both mass and light are energy, right? And if energy is one "thing", then you're saying that mass and light are the same thing - or two aspects of the same thing. Right?
But then you go on to say:
".... Matter and light are not the same thing."
So, that sounds totally contradictory to me. If mass and light are both energy, but matter and light are not the same thing (i.e. not both energy), then how does that work in the paddoboy universe? Maybe matter and mass are not the same thing in the paddoboy universe? Or what?
Explain to me how light is energy and mass is energy, but that somehow doesn't make light and mass the same thing. Is energy schizophrenic or something?
Why on earth do you think that repeating a quote I've already agreed with is going to help you in any way. You need to read the quote yourself and work out why it isn't saying what you're saying (because I disagree with you, while I agree with the quote).
And so? There's nothing there that says the photon is energy.
Again, nowhere does this say a photon is energy. In fact, it explicitly talks about an electromagnetic interaction involving an electron producing a photon.
This is a statement about energy conservation. It nowhere says that energy is "turned into" a photon. It says that a photon is created ("born") with an appropriate associated energy, so as to conserve total energy of the system. Energy moves from one column in the Table of Energies to another one, titled "photon energy".
The electron is left, in a higher energy state than it was before it interacted with the photon. Before the interaction, there was a photon (a thing) and an electron (another thing). After the interaction, there was just one thing - the electron. In the process, a number was moved from the column labelled "photon energy" in the Table of Energies into the column labelled "atomic energy", or "electron energy" or whatever you prefer to call it.
Your argument is like saying that when a water wave hits the beach, the wave itself must be "left" after it has transferred its energy onto the sand.
Or, it's like saying that when a sound wave enters your ear, causing your eardrum to vibrate, the air-pressure wave that is the sound must somehow remain in your ear.
Do you agree that a water wave is not "just" energy? Do you agree that a sound wave is not "just" energy? If so, then why do you not agree that a light wave (or a photon) is not "just" energy?
What you have to do, fundamentally, is to lose that notion that you have that energy is "stuff". It isn't stuff. You can't bottle it. It doesn't travel from place to place. You can't isolate it from the actual "stuff" it relates to. There is no "pure energy", separate from stuff. You're stuck on this notion that energy is stuff. Let go. It will do you good.
Those two are mutually exclusive. You can't have both. You need to decide which one you want. I'd urge you to pick the only one that makes any sense, or else you'll go through life thinking that numbers can turn into stuff.
I point out that you have made no arguments to support the idea that a photon/light is energy, other than appeals to various authorities. In contrast, I have given you many reasons to drop the assumption that a photon/light is the same thing as energy.
It's not about you daring to question my say so. Clearly you're not cowed by the thought of questioning my say so.
If you want me to shift my position on this, you'll need to give me at least one good reason why I should, that's all, because I've given you lots of different reasons why I shouldn't.
Also, in the process we've discovered that you believe that mass and energy are the same thing, too, which is also wrong, for the same reason. You have the opportunity to correct your thinking in a fundamental way, if only you will take it. But ego keeps getting in the way.
You sometimes act as if you think it is. In this thread, you have relied mostly on quotes from "authorities", that you have either misinterpreted, or else that have actually been in error themselves. If you're serious about pursuing this point, at some stage you need to stop playing "my man is bigger than your man" and start talking about the actual physics.
Suppose I were to tell you that I was a professional expert in this area. What then? Would that change your mind? Would that convince you I am correct?
Yes. And professionals can make mistakes, too.
Not if you're still saying that photons are energy.
That's exactly what I told you earlier. Fine so far. But then it all goes to pot...
Is this still the above-linked site, or is this you now? Because this stuff is wrong.
Interesting that you say that, because if photons are energy, then energy must have all the properties that photons have, like I said before. But it doesn't. Kinetic energy, for instance, doesn't have a polarisation.
Which is it? Photons
are energy, or photons are a
vehicle for energy? You can't have both.
Cars can carry people, but cars are not people.
Yes. You can move energy from one column in the Table of Energy values to a different column, because it's just a number.
. I agree with all you have said, obviously. It seems to me the point about the energy in the wave on the beach or in the sound in your ear may be the clearest comparison. But we have both tried this analogy, apparently without any success.