"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[Quantum Quack]

The difference being if someone challenges me I can put my physics where my mouth is and actually do quantum mechanics or special relativity. Have a search for threads I've started over in the maths and physics forum. I've yet to see you, QQ or any of the other cranks do anything even close to that.

So given that you adhere to the scientific process so strongly would you agree that there is insufficient evidence to state categorically that light as a particle or wave or both actually travels from A to B across a vacuumous void of space?
And if you do not agree then how can you prove to me or any one that it actually does...indeed move?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So given that you adhere to the scientific process so strongly would you agree that there is insufficient evidence to state categorically that light as a particle or wave or both actually travels from A to B across a vacuumous void of space?

It starts at A, gets to B and is affected by the thing inbetween A and B. We see it in fibre optic glass, water, even empty space. There's evidence for the quantisation of light, particle detectors have masses of experimental data involving photons.

And if you do not agree then how can you prove to me or any one that it actually does...indeed move?

It moves since it carries momentum. It moves because its affected by what is between the point of emission and the point of absorption.

Whether I can prove this to you is entirely different to whether I can prove it to someone else since you (and anuraganimax) have made it clear you won't look at anything put infront of you since you've already made up your mind. You try to play the "What about scientific integrity" game with me yet you refuse to examine anything which contradicts your current views because you know it'll be wrong. Where's the open mindedness in that? If you were truely open minded you'd read around on a topic, finding out information for yourself. Is typing into Google "Photon, experiment" too much to ask? Is spending an afternoon clicking through the results and then a weekend reading in a library too much to ask? Obviously it is because neither of you have done that yet you whine about how I'm not open minded!

 

[raggamax]

The fact you aren't aware of the application of quantum mechanics doesn't mean they aren't there.

Yes more warped explanations

The Sagnac effect is entirely consistent with relativity. You are obviously not the kind of person to go looking for information about quantum mechanics or special relativity, like QQ you 'know' you're right so why bother expanding your horizons?

Completely wrong.

Experimentally the UP has enormous quantities of evidence and nothing contradicting it. You might not like it on philosophical grounds but that has absolutely no bearing on its accuracy in its description of Nature.

Nope quantum brained wrong again Bergman and Wesley who suggested that electron is ring shaped shows it in his research papers by considering hydrogen atoms.

Special and general relativity do a better job describing Nature than Newtonian physics yet you just said the Sagnac effect 'spits in its face'. And quantum field theory does a better job of describing its area of applicability than Newtonian mechanics does in its.

Nope it would seem that newtonian mechanics is actually the correct one. Both GR and SR are incorrect.

Classical mechanics cannot explain the structure of the atom. It cannot explain the nucleus. It cannot accurately describe anomalous magnetic moments. It cannot describe superconductors or superfluids. It cannot describe Bose-Einstein condensates. It cannot describe nuclear processes in bombs or reactors. Classical mechanics is an everyday approximation. It's simpler but its less accurate and less applicable. In every single subatomic phenomenon quantum mechanics is verifiably a more accurate model.

Neither can QM. No one has ever seem electron orbitals or the nucleus to prove that its right.

If you designed a CPU chip using classical mechanics you'd find it didn't work.

And neither will QM help...

It's funny, I'm not worth reasoning with but it is worth your time to simply argue and say "Blah blah blah". I would suggest you reevaluate how you spend your time in that case.

I and you are both locked into this pointless debate. Lets see if you can break free.

The difference being if someone challenges me I can put my physics where my mouth is and actually do quantum mechanics or special relativity. Have a search for threads I've started over in the maths and physics forum. I've yet to see you, QQ or any of the other cranks do anything even close to that.

No one cares what you do. I see now that my original opinion of you was correct. You act so high and mighty because you are delusioned that since you are proficient with mathematics it is actually on your side. An arrogant and actually a common mistake.

It's no effort to point out you're factually incorrect and deliberately ignorant of physics. This post has taken all of 5 minutes to type while I eat breakfast.

That is the whole point of it.

 

[raggamax]

It starts at A, gets to B and is affected by the thing inbetween A and B. We see it in fibre optic glass, water, even empty space. There's evidence for the quantisation of light, particle detectors have masses of experimental data involving photons.

Actually thats the whole mistake. Its not the light which is quantised but the detection which is. Which means that quantisation is the property of the object of mass ie the detector not the light itself. Trying to quantise energy is pointless.

It moves since it carries momentum. It moves because its affected by what is between the point of emission and the point of absorption.

E=pc is false. Its derivation from E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2 is faulty.

Whether I can prove this to you is entirely different to whether I can prove it to someone else since you (and anuraganimax) have made it clear you won't look at anything put infront of you since you've already made up your mind. You try to play the "What about scientific integrity" game with me yet you refuse to examine anything which contradicts your current views because you know it'll be wrong. Where's the open mindedness in that? If you were truely open minded you'd read around on a topic, finding out information for yourself. Is typing into Google "Photon, experiment" too much to ask? Is spending an afternoon clicking through the results and then a weekend reading in a library too much to ask? Obviously it is because neither of you have done that yet you whine about how I'm not open minded!

Trying to act like a high and mighty saint I see. If I'm biased against QM you are biased in favor of it.
Hehehe I actually search for evidences to use against mainstream since my intuition does not agree with it and a whiner is you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If you were truely open minded you'd read around on a topic, finding out information for yourself. Is typing into Google "Photon, experiment" too much to ask? Is spending an afternoon clicking through the results and then a weekend reading in a library too much to ask? Obviously it is because neither of you have done that yet you whine about how I'm not open minded!

I think you have answered the question quite well...in that you have failed to show any evidence to support the causal modeling of the light effect.
Of course I have googled [ ha I love that term!] and of course all I have found is evidence to support only the effect called light and not the cause.

Of course any true scientists knows that effect alone is not evidence of cause which is why we call them models and not fact.
The problem is that most people [scientists included] think of the photon model as a given fact which it is far from being so...'tis only a speculation based on the effects observed....and as suggested it could be seriously flawed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Actually thats the whole mistake. Its not the light which is quantised but the detection which is. Which means that quantisation is the property of the object of mass ie the detector not the light itself. Trying to quantise energy is pointless.

>> couldn't agree more....mass itself is a quantised form of energy [ if you don't mind the poetic license] IMO

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Actually thats the whole mistake. Its not the light which is quantised but the detection which is. Which means that quantisation is the property of the object of mass ie the detector not the light itself. Trying to quantise energy is pointless.

And you base this on what....

E=pc is false. Its derivation from E2 = (mc2)2 + (pc)2 is faulty.

And you base this on what......

Trying to act like a high and mighty saint I see. If I'm biased against QM you are biased in favor of it.

My point of view has almost a century of experimental evidence.

Hehehe I actually search for evidences to use against mainstream since my intuition does not agree with it and a whiner is you.

And your 'intuition' is built on all your lack of experience with science? Intuition is a byword for "I expect new things to behave like old things". I'd say it is naive to think the entire universe behaves like our everyday life.

And QQ, still nothing other than talk I see.

 

[raggamax]

And you base this on what....

And you base this on what......

Wits which apparently you do not possess.

My point of view has almost a century of experimental evidence.

But it still is faulty

And your 'intuition' is built on all your lack of experience with science? Intuition is a byword for "I expect new things to behave like old things". I'd say it is naive to think the entire universe behaves like our everyday life.

If it does not better to give up physics.

And QQ, still nothing other than talk I see.

You do no better.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So in addition to you not back up any of your claims you can't give even a vague reason why your intuition is better than actual scientists.

If it does not better to give up physics.

People doing the experiments have first hand experience and overtime they develop new intuitions for the phenomena they are examining. The intuition they have from everyday life may not only be wrong but be a profound hindrance. You are making claims based on your intuition for phenomena you have little or no knowledge of. Professional physicists have experience with phenomena you don't yet you regard your intuition as superior it would seem.

If you have no knowledge of a phenomenon why do you think you are the best person to evaluate it?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So in addition to you not back up any of your claims you can't give even a vague reason why your intuition is better than actual scientists.

People doing the experiments have first hand experience and overtime they develop new intuitions for the phenomena they are examining. The intuition they have from everyday life may not only be wrong but be a profound hindrance. You are making claims based on your intuition for phenomena you have little or no knowledge of. Professional physicists have experience with phenomena you don't yet you regard your intuition as superior it would seem.

If you have no knowledge of a phenomenon why do you think you are the best person to evaluate it?

so you are claiming that the photon exists? or not?
if so back it up.... $100 usd says you can't.
intuitive science is all the photon is...by golly!!

also over 9200 views and 500 posts says that there is more than just words involved here.
opening "windows" in a "closed house" of over 100 years of conditioning aint easy...

 

[raggamax]

So in addition to you not back up any of your claims you can't give even a vague reason why your intuition is better than actual scientists.

So have you done every experiment first hand you have read about in your textbook about which you claim to be so knowledgeable about? Don't make me laugh. I was going to explain why E=pc was wrong for a photon but given your first response I'll pass.

People doing the experiments have first hand experience and overtime they develop new intuitions for the phenomena they are examining. The intuition they have from everyday life may not only be wrong but be a profound hindrance. You are making claims based on your intuition for phenomena you have little or no knowledge of. Professional physicists have experience with phenomena you don't yet you regard your intuition as superior it would seem.

That is either your arrogance or ignorance speaking yet again. If you bother to tap into your intuition you will find that basically everything in the universe in interrelated. The faraway process of the universe that you find so different is not so different once you get to see the similar patterns.

If you have no knowledge of a phenomenon why do you think you are the best person to evaluate it?

All I'm asking is why. You don't understand how easy it is to get things wrong and later become a dogmatist due to fear that you were not correct to begin with. History is filled with such examples in which truth has been opposed by dogmatists. Galileo is one of the best examples.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
If you have no knowledge of a phenomenon why do you think you are the best person to evaluate it? ”

All I'm asking is why. You don't understand how easy it is to get things wrong and later become a dogmatist due to fear that you were not correct to begin with. History is filled with such examples in which truth has been opposed by dogmatists. Galileo is one of the best examples.

yeah I got to remember when I suggested the star behind the sun is not seen because of the warpage of space-time but because of the energy given off by the sun

so that it is the suns atmosphere that was the reason of the bending of light from this star , behind the sun , not space-time

sometimes those outside the politics and ego of science , see things a little clearer , even if those in it don't seem to think so

 

[raggamax]

yeah I got to remember when I suggested the star behind the sun is not seen because of the warpage of space-time but because of the energy given off by the sun

so that it is the suns atmosphere that was the reason of the bending of light from this star , behind the sun , not space-time

sometimes those outside the politics and ego of science , see things a little clearer , even if those in it don't seem to think so

That is correct the warping of space by gravity is not the reason for gravitational lensing. Space is nothingness to begin with.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
yeah I got to remember when I suggested the star behind the sun is not seen because of the warpage of space-time but because of the energy given off by the sun

so that it is the suns atmosphere that was the reason of the bending of light from this star , behind the sun , not space-time

sometimes those outside the politics and ego of science , see things a little clearer , even if those in it don't seem to think so

That is correct the warping of space by gravity is not the reason for gravitational lensing. Space is nothingness to begin with.

true space is nothingness or just .... well space

space has no properties associated with it , space just is

therefore it is the energy/matter in space(s) that bends light

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So have you done every experiment first hand you have read about in your textbook about which you claim to be so knowledgeable about? Don't make me laugh. I was going to explain why E=pc was wrong for a photon but given your first response I'll pass.

No, I haven't done every experiment. But I could pick any one of them to redo and I'd find they come out as said in the book. That's the point of science, to be reproducible, verifiable. And what a surprise, you make a claim and when pushed you can't back it up.

That is either your arrogance or ignorance speaking yet again. If you bother to tap into your intuition you will find that basically everything in the universe in interrelated. The faraway process of the universe that you find so different is not so different once you get to see the similar patterns.

So I'm arrogant for knowing a bit about what scientific theories are used in which areas of technology but you're not arrogant for proclaiming all scientists wrong, even when you know nothing of their work?

Do you even think about what you say?

All I'm asking is why. You don't understand how easy it is to get things wrong and later become a dogmatist due to fear that you were not correct to begin with. History is filled with such examples in which truth has been opposed by dogmatists. Galileo is one of the best examples.

And history (and the internet) is filled with even more people who believed they knew all the answers for areas of work they knew nothing about, that they were right and everyone else was wrong and it turned out they were wrong. Anyone can say "I'm the next Galileo", most of the cranks on the internet develop some kind of affinity for him, someone else who was put down by the Establishment. Yet in the 10~20 years of the internet not one such person has come forward and produced any of the results they claimed.

Rather than developing a persecution complex why don't you put your physics where your mouth is? Why don't you prove via an experiment that E=pc is wrong for a photon. It'd be very interesting, given such a relationship is well tested in experiments.

With cranks it's always "You must keep an open mind! Question those textbooks!" but when you question them suddenly its "No, don't question me, I'm obviously right!". Most cranks contradict one another, so who to trust? The people who do careful experiments and whose work is published and peer reviewed, or a hack on an internet forum who is deliberately and profoundly ignorant of all science?

Yeah, that's a tough one. And unless you're able to experimentally justify your claims E=pc is wrong you're just another internet hack making claims he can't back up.

 

[raggamax]

So you finally returned just as expected just couldn't keep away from the thread or did you got tired of spewing vitriol in QWC's threads.

No, I haven't done every experiment. But I could pick any one of them to redo and I'd find they come out as said in the book. That's the point of science, to be reproducible, verifiable. And what a surprise, you make a claim and when pushed you can't back it up.

Oh don't make me laugh. You are just as much a crank as any other. You just exist to provide the lip service to mainstream theories you like.

So I'm arrogant for knowing a bit about what scientific theories are used in which areas of technology but you're not arrogant for proclaiming all scientists wrong, even when you know nothing of their work?

Bla Bla..

Do you even think about what you say?

Yes but do you?

And history (and the internet) is filled with even more people who believed they knew all the answers for areas of work they knew nothing about, that they were right and everyone else was wrong and it turned out they were wrong. Anyone can say "I'm the next Galileo", most of the cranks on the internet develop some kind of affinity for him, someone else who was put down by the Establishment. Yet in the 10~20 years of the internet not one such person has come forward and produced any of the results they claimed.

I didn't claim anything pinhead you did.

Rather than developing a persecution complex why don't you put your physics where your mouth is? Why don't you prove via an experiment that E=pc is wrong for a photon. It'd be very interesting, given such a relationship is well tested in experiments.

And why don't you prove that there is a photon first of all. It should be easy for someone who a genius who has published papers in science. What You can't?? Of course you can't because you are just as much a crank as many other on the forums.
I can try but my effort would be wasted on you.

With cranks it's always "You must keep an open mind! Question those textbooks!" but when you question them suddenly its "No, don't question me, I'm obviously right!". Most cranks contradict one another, so who to trust? The people who do careful experiments and whose work is published and peer reviewed, or a hack on an internet forum who is deliberately and profoundly ignorant of all science?

More bla bla

Yeah, that's a tough one. And unless you're able to experimentally justify your claims E=pc is wrong you're just another internet hack making claims he can't back up.

I can use existing theories to show there is a kind of contradiction when you assume light has momentum but obviously you deserve insults not explanations.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So you can't back up your claim E=pc is wrong. What a surprise. And calling me 'pinhead' when you show you're profoundly more ignorant than I and certainly less capable of rational discussion only reflects poorly on you.

 

[raggamax]

So you can't back up your claim E=pc is wrong. What a surprise. And calling me 'pinhead' when you show you're profoundly more ignorant than I and certainly less capable of rational discussion only reflects poorly on you.

Why should I waste my time with you? Anything outside of a textbook is automatically wrong in your narrow mind. Go and waste your time with QWC. He should be waiting for your next vitriolic post. Trying to goad me into an argument isn't gonna work hotshot.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
So you can't back up your claim E=pc is wrong. What a surprise. And calling me 'pinhead' when you show you're profoundly more ignorant than I and certainly less capable of rational discussion only reflects poorly on you.

Why should I waste my time with you? Anything outside of a textbook is automatically wrong in your narrow mind.

is that true , AlphaNumeric ?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Why should I waste my time with you? Anything outside of a textbook is automatically wrong in your narrow mind.

You have a go at me for supposedly not backing up my claims but when you make a claim you don't need to back it up?

And you're making hyperbola. The fact textbooks are written on material which have a great deal of experimental evidence and are, demonstrably, approximations to the behaviour of Nature doesn't mean that saying "I think that this is worth knowing" is equivalent to "This and only this is worth knowing". I know Newtonian gravity is wrong, but I none-the-less think its important to know for anyone doing gravitational work. I know Newtonian mechanics is wrong but I think its important for anyone to know before they do relativity. I know Maxwell's electromagnetism is only an approximation to the true behaviour of electromagnetic phenomena but its essential reading for anyone doing work in that area. Science only advances by learning about previous work, either to build on it or to avoid repeating its mistakes.

If you have an experiment which demonstrates E=pc is wrong for a photon then it would be an enormous thing and the investigation of such an effect would greatly advance our understanding of Nature. I've sat through dozens of seminars on people explaining how they test their ideas using experiments to parts per thousand or million or billion. Or how their idea can be tested. The people who think science is about close mindedness and never testing models are just plain fucking ignorant of science.

If $$E \neq pc$$ then a model which accounts for this needs to also have a reason why E=pc is true for most experiments, because every experiment done thus far has seen E=pc. That's an unavoidable fact and any model which says $$E \neq pc$$ is always the case is going to be wrong. Relativity explains why people arrive at the notion that Nature has Galilean symmetry and not Lorentz symmetry, because when you're moving very slowly Lorentz transforms look like Galilean ones. Quantum mechanics explains why large numbers of particles seem to behave in a predictably way, decoherence. The new idea explains why the old one seemed to work but on careful inspection actually doesn't.

You whine about how quantum mechanics doesn't have applications while sitting infront of such an application, in a room whose power comes from (partly) nuclear power stations. You whine about things you don't understand and you have the hypocrisy to criticise me for not backing up my claims when 1. you didn't bother to investigate yourself and 2. you don't back up yours.

And another example of your hypocrisy is saying I should go be vitriolic to q_w when you call me 'pinhead'. Wow, how mature of you. Do you and I learn your insults from the same place? Every time I type a coherent reply like this and you respond with 'pin head' or 'Blah blah blah' you show you're all talk and you can't even follow your own advice.