"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[thinking]

anuraganimax

well... it seems to me a sound response

 

[thinking]

but further

we need different sound ideas , and not all are from the ivory tower of knowledge

understand me

 

[Dywyddyr]

but further
we need different sound ideas , and not all are from the ivory tower of knowledge
understand me

So "sound ideas" don't stem from "knowledge"?
You expect sound ideas to spring from wild guesses?
From vapid speculation?

 

[thinking]

So "sound ideas" don't stem from "knowledge"?

sometimes yes and sometimes no

look at Faraday and Maxwell , neither understood the other but together they seem to have made sense , especially in that era

Einstein and Minkowski ( the geometry of curved spaces )

You expect sound ideas to spring from wild guesses?

define wild guesses , very few think this way on the whole

From vapid speculation?

why not in the manner of just calm discourse

just here ideas out , and go from there

so many ideas get rail roaded because the insults from bothsides and become more important than the ideas and therefore the discussion of

anyway , I don't know maybe its just me !!!!!

 

[Dywyddyr]

sometimes yes and sometimes no

Incorrect.
To be "sound" an idea must be workable and actually be demonstrable.
And that constitutes knowing that it does so (and usually "how").

look at Faraday and Maxwell , neither understood the other but together they seem to have made sense , especially in that era
Einstein and Minkowski ( the geometry of curved spaces )

Examples that were based on (and used) knowledge and built up from there to ADD knowledge.

define wild guesses , very few think this way on the whole

Anything not based on (or contrary to) knowledge.

why not in the manner of just calm discourse

Because unless both parties base their discourse on knowledge it's going to be fruitless speculation.

just here ideas out , and go from there
so many ideas get rail roaded because the insults from bothsides and become more important than the ideas and therefore the discussion of

See above.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
sometimes yes and sometimes no ”

Incorrect.
To be "sound" an idea must be workable and actually be demonstrable.
And that constitutes knowing that it does so (and usually "how").

yes but one must give a chance to those that have not the means to do as you describe above , demonstrable

then see how sound the idea is

 

[Dywyddyr]

yes but one must give a chance to those that have not the means to do as you describe above , demonstrable
then see how sound the idea is

But such ideas do NOT spring from "no knowledge"...

 

[thinking]

“ look at Faraday and Maxwell , neither understood the other but together they seem to have made sense , especially in that era
Einstein and Minkowski ( the geometry of curved spaces ) ”

Examples that were based on (and used) knowledge and built up from there to ADD knowledge.

of course but you missed the point

neither Faraday or Maxwell understood each other in the end , hence had different aspects of knowledge

Faraday > experimental

Maxwell > mathematical

Einstein > mathematics , geometry

Minkowski > mathematics , curved geometry

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
yes but one must give a chance to those that have not the means to do as you describe above , demonstrable
then see how sound the idea is

But such ideas do NOT spring from "no knowledge"...

true

 

[Dywyddyr]

of course but you missed the point
neither Faraday or Maxwell understood each other in the end , hence had different aspects of knowledge

No, you made MY point for me.
They BOTH worked from, and with, knowledge.

 

[raggamax]

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.

yes more bla blas
You are indeed a shallow one. Attributing nuclear power to QM. You made the same mistake of calling quantum tunneling a quantum phenomenon which it isn't. Its explainable by classical mechanics and is governed by classical phenomenons. This has been found out recently.
MRI are 95 percent magnetism.
QM is in decline as more and more of these mysterious phenomenon are uncovered. SRT is just plain wrong. Sooner or later it will be found that classical physics did not fail at any level.



O Mr. high and mighty you claim that you are some hotshot who has published papers in mainstream. If you consider yourself an ivory tower of knowledge tell me why do you linger around the pseudo section. Just remain in the physics and math section and post there. Or is it possible that you don't know the meaning of the word "pseudoscience".
You are entitled to your own opinions and you are welcomed to be a mainstream lapdog if you wish.

Why do you keep bickering with the people you yourself call cranks? You call other cranks and still expect a polite reply?



Well you said something about a photon having momentum. What is the proof? Radiation pressure? Or do you have any more evidences?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

If you consider yourself an ivory tower of knowledge tell me why do you linger around the pseudo section. Just remain in the physics and math section and post there. Or is it possible that you don't know the meaning of the word "pseudoscience".

I do post there occasionally but forums are for fun. And laughing at hacks and cranks is fun.

Well you said something about a photon having momentum. What is the proof? Radiation pressure? Or do you have any more evidences?

Is this your evidence? Your evidence for $$E \neq pc$$ is that you don't know any evidence for $$E=pc$$? Particle accelerators measure high energy photon production and interactions with other particles and the behaviour of precisely that of $$E=pc$$. A photon hits an electron and the electron gets a kick. That's Compton scattering, something observed and measured for close to a century now. Standard material in a quantum mechanics introduction course. Oh I forgot, you never did that. Or any other physics for that matter.

You said you had evidence against it. I can't help but feel you're now clutching at straws.

 

[raggamax]

I do post there occasionally but forums are for fun. And laughing at hacks and cranks is fun.

Meaning its fun to troll. Correct?

Is this your evidence? Your evidence for $$E \neq pc$$ is that you don't know any evidence for $$E=pc$$? Particle accelerators measure high energy photon production and interactions with other particles and the behaviour of precisely that of $$E=pc$$. A photon hits an electron and the electron gets a kick. That's Compton scattering, something observed and measured for close to a century now. Standard material in a quantum mechanics introduction course. Oh I forgot, you never did that. Or any other physics for that matter.

You said you had evidence against it. I can't help but feel you're now clutching at straws.

Then radiation pressure and Compton scattering is all the proof of momentum of photon? Am I correct?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Did I say that was all the evidence? Photon scattering experiments are not just confined to them. Why don't you do a little research yourself, rather than assuming "If I haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist!". Besides, clearly there is evidence for E=pc and I'm still waiting for your evidence to the contrary.

Let's see, evidence for my claims, none for yours. What a surprise....

 

[raggamax]

Did I say that was all the evidence? Photon scattering experiments are not just confined to them. Why don't you do a little research yourself, rather than assuming "If I haven't heard of it, it doesn't exist!". Besides, clearly there is evidence for E=pc and I'm still waiting for your evidence to the contrary.

Let's see, evidence for my claims, none for yours. What a surprise....

Don't be too hasty. Tell me when Compton scattering occurs is the process same as in the case of an elastic or an inelastic collision? Meaning is the collision between a free electron and a photon governed by the rules of Newtonian mechanics ? Or is it absorption first and then re emission?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Don't be too hasty.

What, in asking you to back up a claim you made a considerable time ago and which you never justified? How is that 'hasty'?

Tell me when Compton scattering occurs is the process same as in the case of an elastic or an inelastic collision? Meaning is the collision between a free electron and a photon governed by the rules of Newtonian mechanics ? Or is it absorption first and then re emission?

Don't you know how to compute the QED processes associated to such interactions? Surely you're not dismissing an idea you know nothing about, wouldn't that be a little close minded of you?

 

[raggamax]

What, in asking you to back up a claim you made a considerable time ago and which you never justified? How is that 'hasty'?

I'm coming to that besides you are not the one to be talking about justifications. You claimed there was a photon and gave no evidences yourself. Cut that holier than thou attitude.

Don't you know how to compute the QED processes associated to such interactions? Surely you're not dismissing an idea you know nothing about, wouldn't that be a little close minded of you?

You yourself said that I don't know any physics. So why the surprise?

And nope I don't know any QED. Now answer whether it collides in a Newtonian way or is it absorbed and then reemitted.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I'm coming to that besides you are not the one to be talking about justifications. You claimed there was a photon and gave no evidences yourself. Cut that holier than thou attitude.

Other than photon scatterings, photoelectric effect, the ability to see, thermal radiation, radios, microwaves, crystalography, lasers, gravitational lensing and all that jazz?

No, no evidence at all.

And nope I don't know any QED. Now answer whether it collides in a Newtonian way or is it absorbed and then reemitted.

If you bothered to go a single Google for Compton scattering you'd find plenty of information about it. Clearly you have no real interest in the answer because if you possessed intellectual curiousity you'd have tried to search out the information yourself. Instead you expect to be spoon fed.

Collisions behave relativistically, using such things as 4-momentum, and the quantum mechanical point of view is they are absorbed and then reemitted. As shown in the Feynman diagram at the top of the Wikipedia page on 'Compton Scattering', which is the first hit on Google when you google 'Compton Scattering'. Wow, with it being so hard to find such an answer, no wonder you're an ignorant tool! :shrug:

 

[raggamax]

Other than photon scatterings, photoelectric effect, the ability to see, thermal radiation, radios, microwaves, crystalography, lasers, gravitational lensing and all that jazz?

No, no evidence at all.

Thank you but I can count lensing out of that one.

If you bothered to go a single Google for Compton scattering you'd find plenty of information about it. Clearly you have no real interest in the answer because if you possessed intellectual curiousity you'd have tried to search out the information yourself. Instead you expect to be spoon fed.

Actually I am deriving the expression for compton shift at the moment.

Wow, with it being so hard to find such an answer, no wonder you're an ignorant tool! :shrug:

You mean "ignorant fool". right?
Seems you are losing it.
What is four momentum? Is it related to this- E^2=p^2c^2+m0^2c^4?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Thank you but I can count lensing out of that one.

Yeah, once you remove lensing there's no evidence at all.

Actually I am deriving the expression for compton shift at the moment.

Is this in a pet theory of yours? How do you plan to derive an expression for a phenomenon you don't even know the behaviour of? Or are you asking whether Compton scattering is Newtonian just to make it seem like you're ignorant?

You mean "ignorant fool". right?

Nope, tool. As in a prat or jackass. If you like you can include 'fool' in there too.

Still waiting for you to justify your claims at all.

What is four momentum? Is it related to this- E^2=p^2c^2+m0^2c^4?

You do realise places like Wikipedia will answer the more innane of your questions, you need only put in the effort to read. I know it gives you a headache but it gets easier with practice.