"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

[raggamax]

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

Nah gravitational lensing could also be due to refraction.

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?

Isn't compton shift=2h/m0c sin^2A/2 where A is the scattering angle

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

Oooo never heard of this insult before. I would like to say the same to you too.

Still waiting for you to justify your claims at all.

Keep waiting

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.

Actually buddy I can't really read wiki for more than 5 minutes as I have a really bad CRT monitor. It gives you migraine like headaches if you stare too long at it.

 

[James R]

anuraganimax:

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.

Please link me to the peer-reviewed publication in which this amazing discovery has been published. Thanks.

MRI are 95 percent magnetism.

What are you talking about?

QM is in decline as more and more of these mysterious phenomenon are uncovered.

Nah. QM has been the main deal in Physics for 100 years now and is showing no signs of going away.

SRT is just plain wrong.

And you're just plain making stuff up. Empty, worthless claims that make you look stupid.

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

The Compton effect is a good place to start.

Do you believe that photons do not have momentum? If so, show me your derivation of the Compton formula (which has been extensively verified in experiments, by the way).

 

[James R]

Nah gravitational lensing could also be due to refraction.

Refraction by what?

 

[Montec]

Refraction by what?

Best guess would be the space-time gradient around said gravitational mass. However, unlike crystals, glass,water, etc., the refraction from the space-time gradient is not frequency dependent.

 

[raggamax]

Refraction by what?

Refraction by the atmosphere around the celestial body.

 

[raggamax]

anuraganimax:
Please link me to the peer-reviewed publication in which this amazing discovery has been published. Thanks.

It has been found at the Naval research laboratory. The explanation goes like this - given a magnetic field and an electron if it has the right spin value it can pass through a normally impenetrable potential barrier.
The Quantum tunneling phenomenon is controlled by a magnetic field not by probabilistic phenomenon.

What are you talking about?

Either read the context in which conversation is going or don't butt in.

Nah. QM has been the main deal in Physics for 100 years now and is showing no signs of going away.

I will say no.

And you're just plain making stuff up. Empty, worthless claims that make you look stupid.

Same to you

The Compton effect is a good place to start.

Do you believe that photons do not have momentum? If so, show me your derivation of the Compton formula (which has been extensively verified in experiments, by the way).

That is the point. The compton shift formula is derived by using principles of conservation of momentum. But a photon cannot really have momentum as it always moves with a velocity of c. Thus momentum change can only be dependent on relativistic mass which in turn is invariant. Trying to attribute radiation pressure to photon is useless as to apply a force a change in dp/dt must be present but it can't be.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

anuraganimax, don't you see the hypocrisy in your attempts to knock me for supposedly not providing evdience of my claims yet you now refuse to provide any for yours. I said "I'm still waiting" and you reply "Keep waiting". If I had said that to you you'd be saying "So science can't back up its claims, it's all a big con", so why do you think you're above that? All you have done is say "Science is wrong!" but you can't offer a single bit of evidence for your claim and you have to repeatedly ignore evidence I provide you.

Do you honestly think no one sees through that? That you're complete lack of justification for your claims isn't very obvious?

 

[raggamax]

anuraganimax, don't you see the hypocrisy in your attempts to knock me for supposedly not providing evdience of my claims yet you now refuse to provide any for yours. I said "I'm still waiting" and you reply "Keep waiting". If I had said that to you you'd be saying "So science can't back up its claims, it's all a big con", so why do you think you're above that? All you have done is say "Science is wrong!" but you can't offer a single bit of evidence for your claim and you have to repeatedly ignore evidence I provide you.

Do you honestly think no one sees through that? That you're complete lack of justification for your claims isn't very obvious?

You misunderstood as usual. I did not meant that I was going to prove E=pc wrong.....

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Oh so you aren't going to prove it's wrong, you're just going to repeatedly claim it and refuse to back up those claims. Or your claims about SR or QM being wrong.

Well that makes a world of difference!

 

[raggamax]

Oh so you aren't going to prove it's wrong, you're just going to repeatedly claim it and refuse to back up those claims. Or your claims about SR or QM being wrong.

Well that makes a world of difference!

Nope I never claimed that E=pc was wrong either. What I meant was that photon was a logical fallacy. Your fault you misunderstood.

 

[prometheus]

Best guess would be the space-time gradient around said gravitational mass. However, unlike crystals, glass,water, etc., the refraction from the space-time gradient is not frequency dependent.

Actually, Space time can cause refraction (although the effect is extremely small, and not large enough to account for gravitational lensing which is geodesic motion of light) and the refractive index is frequency dependent. See the series of papers here, the most relevant being number 1).

 

[Quantum Quack]

"Bohr had always been reluctant to accept the reality of photons" ~wiki

The Compton effect could be described with out the use of photons and the so called kick could be a dynamic change in the resonance of the electrons mass which gives every indication of momentum delivered.

The Compton effect unfortunately doesn't prove the existance of a photon as a moving object through vacant space. It does how ever prove that an energy transfer has taken place. I can't recall the exact details of the old discussion I had about this effect but needless to say it appeared to continue the ambiguity between reflector [mass] and photon as to the cause of the light effect.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The Compton effect could be described with out the use of photons and the so called kick could be a dynamic change in the resonance of the electrons mass which gives every indication of momentum delivered.

Oh really? Let's see such a model and its experimental justification.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Oh really? Let's see such a model and its experimental justification.

hang on a minnie I'll have a chat to me ole mate Niels B and get back to you...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Which means what exactly? If its a model by Bohr it'll be mentioned online somewhere, in which case you can give a reference. If its a model you've come up with, post it. Either way you should be able to back up such a claim.

Simply saying "Oh it could be something else!" doesn't mean it is. Gravity could be invisible fairies pushing things around but me simply saying gravity could be so doesn't make it true. Now if I could provide evidence for the existence of such fairies that's another thing.

Yet again you fail to notice your hypocrisy. You complain there's no evidence for the photon then make your own supposition and refuse to back it up. Is there some reason you fail to see such clear self contradiction?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Which means what exactly? If its a model by Bohr it'll be mentioned online somewhere, in which case you can give a reference. If its a model you've come up with, post it. Either way you should be able to back up such a claim.

Simply saying "Oh it could be something else!" doesn't mean it is. Gravity could be invisible fairies pushing things around but me simply saying gravity could be so doesn't make it true. Now if I could provide evidence for the existence of such fairies that's another thing.

Yet again you fail to notice your hypocrisy. You complain there's no evidence for the photon then make your own supposition and refuse to back it up. Is there some reason you fail to see such clear self contradiction?

so there is no evidence of a photon. And the Compton effect doesn't cut it either.

as to what is actually happening well...hey...uhm...what ever....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Now if I could provide evidence for the existence of such fairies that's another thing.

really?!!!
fairies?
I gotta see that!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

so there is no evidence of a photon. .

How did you reach that conclusion from what I said? I listed a number of phenomena which provide evidence for the photon and its properties to anuraganimax and all he could say was "Gravitational lensing doesn't count". You have not retorted any of them and simply repeating "So there's no evidence?" doesn't magically invalidate those experiments.

And the Compton effect doesn't cut it either..

And your evidence is.....? Oh yeah, nothing.

Why do you think its not hypocritical for you to complain of a lack of evidence in science when you provide none for your ideas?

really?!!!
fairies?
I gotta see that!

Obviously my point is lost on you.

 

[raggamax]

How did you reach that conclusion from what I said? I listed a number of phenomena which provide evidence for the photon and its properties to anuraganimax and all he could say was "Gravitational lensing doesn't count". You have not retorted any of them and simply repeating "So there's no evidence?" doesn't magically invalidate those experiments.

Thats deduction not observation.

Obviously my point is lost on you.

Same goes for you.

 

[prometheus]

Surely the photoelectric effect proves the existence of a traveling photon?