not lost at all Alphanumeric.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 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?
Obviously my point is lost on you.
only because that's the best MODEL we could think of.Surely the photoelectric effect proves the existence of a traveling photon?
only because that's the best MODEL we could think of.
and as you know just because it is the best we "could" do doesn't make it a reality. It is still only a model.
only because that's the best MODEL we could think of.
and as you know just because it is the best we "could" do doesn't make it a reality. It is still only a model.
and how does this prove that light has travelled across vacuum to the plate?Poppycock. If you do the expt carefully so that there is only light incident on the metal in a vacuum you get emission of electrons. That has to mean there is something being emitted from the light source and traveling to the surface of the metal. The nature of the emission proves the light is a particle. Whatever you argue about the specifics of QED, you must surely agree with this?
Not necessarily. This does not mean that the light is quantised it only meansThe nature of the emission proves the light is a particle. Whatever you argue about the specifics of QED, you must surely agree with this?
Not necessarily. This does not mean that the light is quantised it only means
that the interaction of light with the object is. Meaning the object can only interact with light in some fixed ways. This implies quantisation is a property of objects of mass and not energy.
Light has definitely more of a wave character as far as I'm concerned.
Light meaning what? I think the problem with the question "Does Light Move?" has too many meanings. Does a Photon create the wave that travels? would be a better question.
The question in my mind for now is does a photon even exists? And yes I'm plagued by the same dilemma as to how can a wave exist without a medium. The very definition of a wave requires a medium.
That's just the thing, your 'opinion' is both uninformed, ignorant and biased. Hardly a good starting point for you redoing physics. Still nothing to show for all your big claims I see. The mainstream theory involving the photon continues to pass experiments and will be further tested by the LHC. Of course you'll simply deny everything, but then what more can we expect from someone who so obviously has little interest in rational discussion.not lost at all Alphanumeric.
fairies = flying pigs = traveling photon. same diff IMO.
none of them have "hard" evidence to support their reality in physics.
No, that wouldn't be the definition of a wave unless you deliberately narrow your horizons to explicitly make it your definition.The question in my mind for now is does a photon even exists? And yes I'm plagued by the same dilemma as to how can a wave exist without a medium. The very definition of a wave requires a medium.
That's just the thing, your 'opinion' is both uninformed, ignorant and biased. Hardly a good starting point for you redoing physics. Still nothing to show for all your big claims I see. The mainstream theory involving the photon continues to pass experiments and will be further tested by the LHC. Of course you'll simply deny everything, but then what more can we expect from someone who so obviously has little interest in rational discussion.
No, that wouldn't be the definition of a wave unless you deliberately narrow your horizons to explicitly make it your definition.
The quantum field theory description of the photon or any other particle has all the things you'd associated with a wave, such as obeying the wave equation, frequency, periodic oscillations, Fourier mode decompositions, all there. Infact, the method of learning how to do quantum field theory is basically an extension of classical wave mechanics.
The concept of a 'field' is not synonymous with an aether or a model, its a more fundamental and general notion. Unfortunately its one which few people outside of a physics or maths degree will come across, you being such a person. The fact you're ignorant of an alternative to a medium doesn't mean there isn't one.
Well you read wrong. Do you honestly think I believe 'a wave is an equation'? How stupid are you? An equation is a way of formalising the description of something, it tellls you information about the behaviour of a system. In chemistry water is written as $$H_{2}O$$ but no one says "Water is a formula!". No, the formula is a way of representing the substance, just as an equation is a way of representing the properties of something.Did I just read that you have a wave down as an equation, and nothing more than that?
No. Look, you're stupid at the best of times so trying to put words in my mouth makes you look even more idiotic because you utterly fail to grasp anything I've said.Are you really expecting us to believe that nature is an equation?
Classic crank logic; I know some maths therefore all I know is maths. The fact I am able to formalise descriptions of systems doesn't make me blind to the more qualitative side of things. Just because mathematics is completely and utterly beyond your comprehension doesn't mean people suffer from knowing it. You (and other cranks) take such an attitude to make yourself feel better about why you're so ignorant, you delude yourself into thinking that knowing something would be harmful to your point of view and therefore you convince yourself that not only is it not a problem you're ignorant but its important to stay ignorant. This thread shows that, QQ doesn't know any SR and he refuses to look at any because he already 'knows' its wrong. He's ignorant of SR so he doesn't like it. He doesn't like it so he thinks its wrong. If its wrong, why learn it? Circular logic but a common crank view.I think you have studied until you can't see nature any more, and just numbers
You don't seem to realise what science actually is. You are ignorant of it and you will stay that way because obviously you lack any intellectual curiousity. Cranks keep saying that people who support the mainstream point of view should be more open minded but its a common crank behaviour to avoid reading other points of view, to avoid any information, to refuse to do any learning themselves. They don't want people to be more open minded, they just want people to stop doing something they don't understand. If physicists said "It's all wrong" cranks would say "See, I told you it'd be a waste of my time to learn it!", they want that excuse. Too bad its not happened. Too bad it is not an excuse for ignorance anyway.You don't seem to realise the dangers of giving nature no material that can be damaged, just a bunch of numbers that might not work.
Well you read wrong. Do you honestly think I believe 'a wave is an equation'? How stupid are you? An equation is a way of formalising the description of something, it tellls you information about the behaviour of a system. In chemistry water is written as $$H_{2}O$$ but no one says "Water is a formula!". No, the formula is a way of representing the substance, just as an equation is a way of representing the properties of something.
No. Look, you're stupid at the best of times so trying to put words in my mouth makes you look even more idiotic because you utterly fail to grasp anything I've said.
Bits of Nature can be DESCRIBED by equations. $$E=mc^{2}$$ doesn't mean I think energy 'is an equation', it means that I can tell you how much energy is stored in a lump of matter if you tell me its mass. It's a way of formalising relationships between physical quantities, a way of representing dynamics or properties of systems which can be conveyed without ambiguity or misinterpretation.
Classic crank logic; I know some maths therefore all I know is maths. The fact I am able to formalise descriptions of systems doesn't make me blind to the more qualitative side of things. Just because mathematics is completely and utterly beyond your comprehension doesn't mean people suffer from knowing it. You (and other cranks) take such an attitude to make yourself feel better about why you're so ignorant, you delude yourself into thinking that knowing something would be harmful to your point of view and therefore you convince yourself that not only is it not a problem you're ignorant but its important to stay ignorant. This thread shows that, QQ doesn't know any SR and he refuses to look at any because he already 'knows' its wrong. He's ignorant of SR so he doesn't like it. He doesn't like it so he thinks its wrong. If its wrong, why learn it? Circular logic but a common crank view.
You don't seem to realise what science actually is. You are ignorant of it and you will stay that way because obviously you lack any intellectual curiousity. Cranks keep saying that people who support the mainstream point of view should be more open minded but its a common crank behaviour to avoid reading other points of view, to avoid any information, to refuse to do any learning themselves. They don't want people to be more open minded, they just want people to stop doing something they don't understand. If physicists said "It's all wrong" cranks would say "See, I told you it'd be a waste of my time to learn it!", they want that excuse. Too bad its not happened. Too bad it is not an excuse for ignorance anyway.
No, that wouldn't be the definition of a wave unless you deliberately narrow your horizons to explicitly make it your definition.
The quantum field theory description of the photon or any other particle has all the things you'd associated with a wave, such as obeying the wave equation, frequency, periodic oscillations, Fourier mode decompositions, all there. Infact, the method of learning how to do quantum field theory is basically an extension of classical wave mechanics.
The concept of a 'field' is not synonymous with an aether or a model, its a more fundamental and general notion. Unfortunately its one which few people outside of a physics or maths degree will come across, you being such a person. The fact you're ignorant of an alternative to a medium doesn't mean there isn't one.
So we have both agree on the same point must equate to we both being the same person. The shallow skimming of pages you have done proves you an outright idiot.Having read through a few pages of this drivel, I find it very hard to believe anuraganimax and Quantum Quack are not the same person.
Yes and you are included in the list too.Alternatively, there might just be more stupid people in the world than I like to allot for.
Then tell me have you seen it with your own eyes an electron that is?If you had a really powerful microscope and looked into the wire, you would never see a wavy snake looking thing. You would see a blizzard of electrons moving in pretty much straight lines, heading in every direction.
Again have you seen a photon?When you look at a picture of a light wave, it is a graph of the varying strength of the electric and magnetic field as it moves past you. In the photon model, you would see a blizzard of light particles moving in pretty much straight lines, heading in different directions. You would not ever see a wavy snake looking thing.)
If you have no idea of what an EM wave is supposed to be like in reality then what right do you have of lecturing him?So, your hex grid picture cannot be a real picture of what you could really see if you could directly see a light wave from the side as it flew past. It might somehow be a graphic representation like the textbook pictures are, if you were to write a math wave equation based on your concept(s).