Light

[Farsight]

I've been going down this road for almost four years pryzk. It's a very interesting one, and it's surprising who you bump into. Thanks again for a sincere and detailed response. There was a New Scientist article featuring Joy Christian back in 2007, see Quantum untanglement: Is spookiness under threat?. Looking at your previous post more closely:

Well delocalisation is part of what a wavefunction describes but there's more to it than that. As I said, the wavefunction is a complex quantity with both an amplitude and a phase (represented as a "length" and an angle in the complex plane), and only the amplitude comes into the delocalisation.

OK, but "complex" flags up "orthogonal" to me.

For example, the wavefunction of a particle with a definite momentum (in one dimension) is proportional to $$e^{i k x} = \cos(kx) + i \sin(kx)$$, where $$p = \hbar k$$. The "presence" of the particle in any given place is given by the norm squared of the wavefunction. This is just a constant for a de Broglie wave (the amplitude of $$e^{i k x}$$ is 1) and you're equally likely to find the particle anywhere in the universe. You don't see that a particle of well-defined momentum has any "wave-like" behaviour in this sense - it's completely contained in the phase part of the wavefunction. You'll only "see" it in position space in interference effects (eg. if you send your particle through a double slit).

Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean by this. If you fire a neutron in a given direction, you don't expect to find it anywhere in the universe, but you can perform the dual slit experiment with neutrons.

Well I don't particularly like saying negative things about people or their work (I wish we could all just get along) but I'm not going to state a falsely positive opinion. To me, it looks like the authors were, in 2008, suggesting that we think of the photon as just a classical wave pulse - really nothing more than a small electromagnetic wavepacket. If I haven't misinterpreted anything, then to state my opinion bluntly: that's a really naive idea. For starters, it misses the point of even the earliest concept of the photon (a smallest "unit" of electromagnetic field), which is something that's been amply confirmed in quantum optics experiment. For instance, single photons are always either transmitted or reflected through beam-splitters; they're never split in two like a classical pulse is.

I don't think it's naive przyk. But to persuade you would be difficult. It involves a reversal of the relationship of the photon and the electromagnetic field. There are some important clues in electromagnetism. Maybe I ought to start a separate thread on that.

A second reason, even if they can explain why a light pulse would hold together and act as an indivisible particle, is that a classical electromagnetic pulse is just that - a classical object. We have a way (via Bell's theorem) of distinguishing quantitatively between "classical" and "quantum" behaviour, and the results of Bell experiments involving photons render the idea of viewing photons as classical light pulses (or any other type of classical object) rather implausible.

See above.

Again, this is if I've understood the article correctly. I keep adding this caveat because the idea of a photon as a classical pulse is a really surprising one to see proposed by what are apparently two working physicists.

Don't be surprised to find rational scientists pursuing meaning and understanding just because this makes things "classical". The alternative is arguably mysticism. Here's a few things to mull over: the wave function is the particle, the "presence of the particle" is the centre of interaction with more of the same, different wavefunction dispositions are different particles, a spin 1/2 particle has two orthogonal real rotations, and rotations do not commute.

Sorry to wander off topic.

 

[przyk]

I've been going down this road for almost four years pryzk.

What, the possibility of describing qubit states with Clifford algebra variables?

OK, but "complex" flags up "orthogonal" to me.

What's orthogonal to what?

Sorry, I'm not clear what you mean by this. If you fire a neutron in a given direction, you don't expect to find it anywhere in the universe, but you can perform the dual slit experiment with neutrons.

If you somehow manage to prepare a neutron with a perfectly well defined momentum, then according to QM it's completely delocalised in space. Conversely, a particle completely localised at a point is completely delocalised in momentum space. Of course those are just the two extreme cases and you can have anything in between (you'd usually describe these with Gaussian wavepackets) in a way that satisfies the Heisenberg uncertainty relation $$\Delta x \Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}$$. $$\hbar$$ is of the order of 10[sup]-34[/sup] in SI units, which is tiny, so there should be plenty of room for a neutrino to have a well enough defined momentum to produce a clear interference pattern, without the neutrino being delocalised to the point you don't know whether it's in your lab or not.

I don't think it's naive przyk. But to persuade you would be difficult.

Well I'm not really motivated to look for a replacement for QM unless someone can show it fails experimentally. Otherwise QM as it is really doesn't bother me (well, I think there are some consistency issues in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, but I don't subscribe to it and that's another story anyway).

See above.

See what? If you mean J. Christian's article then I've already told you what I think is wrong with it, and the more I think about it the more I'm convinced he's simply misunderstood how Bell's theorem is formulated. I'm not against theories that use Clifford algebras as a matter of principle, but the way he puts them in the Bell correlators doesn't make sense (he's apparently mistaken the variables A and B for a fundamental description of spin - they're not) and it's impossible if you use the alternative expression I posted in terms of the joint probabilities.

Note that I'm not claiming there's no way around Bell's theorem. When I said "the results of Bell experiments involving photons render the idea of viewing photons as classical light pulses (or any other type of classical object) rather implausible" there's a reason I said "implausible" rather than "impossible": Bell's theorem only rules out local classical-type theories. In addition every Bell experiment performed to date suffers from at least one of a couple of loopholes. So you might be able to come up with a "classical"-type theory that can explain away QM, but it's either going to suffer a blatantly non-local structure or it's going to have to explain some strange coincidences and how detectors "conspired" to violate a Bell inequality in every Bell experiment performed to date.

the wave function is the particle

I'm the type of person who does think of the wavefunction as something "physical" (as opposed to "tool for calculating probabilities"), but I don't think you can identify the particle and the wavefunction. The most obvious problem is with entangled states: in QM, it's possible for (say) two particles to be described by a shared wavefunction $$\Psi(\bar{x}_{1},\,\bar{x}_{2})$$ that can't be factorised into a product of wavefunctions specific to each particle - ie. wavefunctions that you can't decompose as something like $$\Psi(\bar{x}_{1},\,\bar{x}_{2}) \,=\, \psi(\bar{x}_{1}) \, \phi(\bar{x}_{2})$$. Entangled states are specifically what allows QM to violate Bell inequalities, so there's good evidence for their existence: every Bell experiment is a test for entanglement.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You've been spoonfed on point particles, Alphanumeric.

Is this the kind of thing you tell yourself in order to excuse your lack of understanding and knowledge in physics? Besides, you know I've done string theory work, they aren't point particles. And neither are branes. You try to convince yourself you're putting forth new and novel ideas or notions but you aren't.

Your textbooks cut no ice

Yeah, whoever learnt something they could use in the real world from a textbook, other than everyone whose ever got an education beyond the age of 5. The people who designed the computer you're at learn stuff from textbooks, the usefulness and practical application of the science they contain is literally staring you in the face. Engineers, chemists, biologists, doctors, physicists, mathematicians. If textbooks didn't 'cut the ice' people wouldn't be able to apply the results and methods in them to solve real world problems.

Its one thing to say "I don't accept what this textbook says about this thing", its another to say textbooks are failing to 'cut the ice'.

we're writing new textbooks

Are you using the 'Royal we' here or are you talking about the voices in your head or are you referring to real people? Your 'work' failed to get published in any journal and its been ridiculed on many forums you posted it on. Yes, new textbooks are being written and will continue to be updated as we learn more about the universe but that'll not be your doing. You really do need to face up to the fact you're not very good at mathematics or physics and certainly haven't produced anything worthy of publication.

Action is "kick", in the photon it's spatial momentum, and the dimensionality of action is momentum x distance. HUP applies because the photon isn't some point-particle where you have a "probability" of determining its location, but because it's an extended entity. It's delocalised. Think of it as "spacewarp", like a gravitational wave. See LIGO re length-change, though there are immersive scale change issues re measurement.

Vomiting out a slew of buzzwords which makes little to no coherent sense and is utterly without justification or rigour or any predictive ability is hardly doing you any favours. I asked you many times on PhysOrg to name one just one phenomenon you can accurately model with your 'work' and you couldn't provide one. And I'm betting you still can't.

IMHO if one doesn't have a conceptual grasp of the photon and thence the electron, and thus a handle on the underlying reality of QED, one cannot make secure progress.

Do you really think you're in a better position than the scientific community to address such things? You don't know any mainstream physics, you don't do experiments or considered raw data from other peoples' experiments and
yet you believe someone you've got a handle on the nature of the photon and electron? How do you arrive as such a conclusion? Surely if you want to examine the nature of photons and electrons you need to look at experimental results and to be able to understand them and their methodologies. You have not done any of this so its irrational for you to imply you're somehow ahead of people who have done such experiments.

But then all you're doing it making up arm wavey babbling, not one single thing can you actually model. And that makes your whining about how, in your opinion, string theory can't be science due to lack of predictive power all the more ironic. String theory can accurately model the same stuff as GR and in some cases even extends our understanding of various semi-classical things like black hole thermodynamics. You've provided nothing.

I've been going down this road for almost four years pryzk

And in all that time you've learnt nothing. You haven't learnt any mathematical techniques or grasped quantitative predictive models for any area of physics. You simply squandered the time believing you didn't need to put in any effort to learn and understand, you believe you've got all the answers now. In 4 years you could have done an entire MSc in physics! Or an entire PhD, assuming you have a degree in something)!

OK, but "complex" flags up "orthogonal" to me.

If you'd started reading about complex numbers 4 years ago you could be doing functional analysis in complex variables by now, a very powerful tool in physics. Instead you make it clear you haven't even go the understanding of an A level maths student. And thus you also demonstrate you've not learnt or read any quantum mechanics because you failed to understand what przyk meant, both the words he said and the concept in QM he was referring to. And yet you try to convince people you grasp quantum field theory well enough to be worth listening to. If you'd started doing vector calculus 4 years ago you'd know how to do a lot of quantum field theory now, that's how long it typically takes a university student to read QFT courses. But you squandered your time convincing yourself you didn't need to put in any effort as you know everyone but you is wrong.

It involves a reversal of the relationship of the photon and the electromagnetic field.

A photon is a disturbance in the EM field. Your comment is like saying "It involves a reversal of the relationship between dogs and animals".

There are some important clues in electromagnetism.

And you have a firm grasp of electromagnetism, despite being unable to do any vector calculus which electromagnetism is formulated and modelled using, because....?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Is this the kind of thing you tell yourself in order to excuse your lack of understanding and knowledge in physics? Besides, you know I've done string theory work, they aren't point particles. And neither are branes. You try to convince yourself you're putting forth new and novel ideas or notions but you aren't.

Yeah, whoever learnt something they could use in the real world from a textbook, other than everyone whose ever got an education beyond the age of 5. The people who designed the computer you're at learn stuff from textbooks, the usefulness and practical application of the science they contain is literally staring you in the face. [ Bill Gates didn't use a text book to create Microsoft he used his vision and creativity] Engineers, chemists, biologists, doctors, physicists, mathematicians. If textbooks didn't 'cut the ice' people wouldn't be able to apply the results and methods in them to solve real world problems. [well solve them.... we are waiting and in the mean time please take your rubbish home with you]

Its one thing to say "I don't accept what this textbook says about this thing", its another to say textbooks are failing to 'cut the ice'. [same thing yes]


Are you using the 'Royal we' here or are you talking about the voices in your head or are you referring to real people? Your 'work' failed to get published in any journal and its been ridiculed on many forums you posted it on. [only by people such as you self] Yes, new textbooks are being written and will continue to be updated as we learn more about the universe but that'll not be your doing. You really do need to face up to the fact you're not very good at mathematics or physics and certainly haven't produced anything worthy of publication. [according to a moron yes]

Vomiting out a slew of buzzwords which makes little to no coherent sense and is utterly without justification or rigour or any predictive ability is hardly doing you any favours. I asked you many times on PhysOrg to name one just one phenomenon you can accurately model with your 'work' and you couldn't provide one. And I'm betting you still can't. [ you can model but you don't understand how or why the model works]
Do you really think you're in a better position than the scientific community to address such things? You don't know any mainstream physics, you don't do experiments or considered raw data from other peoples' experiments and
yet you believe someone you've got a handle on the nature of the photon and electron? [ snide sarcasm, nasty and bitter - well done] How do you arrive as such a conclusion? Surely if you want to examine the nature of photons and electrons you need to look at experimental results and to be able to understand them and their methodologies. [ something worth doing yes? given that tehphoton is being inconsitently described ] You have not done any of this so its irrational for you to imply you're somehow ahead of people who have done such experiments.

But then all you're doing it making up arm wavey babbling, not one single thing can you actually model. And that makes your whining about how, in your opinion, string theory can't be science due to lack of predictive power all the more ironic. String theory can accurately model the same stuff as GR and in some cases even extends our understanding of various semi-classical things like black hole thermodynamics. You've provided nothing.
[Peter Pan was also good at modelling stuff, like cakes and fairies and even flying]

And in all that time you've learnt nothing. You haven't learnt any mathematical techniques or grasped quantitative predictive models for any area of physics. You simply squandered the time believing you didn't need to put in any effort to learn and understand, you believe you've got all the answers now. In 4 years you could have done an entire MSc in physics! Or an entire PhD, assuming you have a degree in something)!

If you'd started reading about complex numbers 4 years ago you could be doing functional analysis in complex variables by now, a very powerful tool in physics. Instead you make it clear you haven't even go the understanding of an A level maths student. And thus you also demonstrate you've not learnt or read any quantum mechanics because you failed to understand what przyk meant, both the words he said and the concept in QM he was referring to. And yet you try to convince people you grasp quantum field theory well enough to be worth listening to. If you'd started doing vector calculus 4 years ago you'd know how to do a lot of quantum field theory now, that's how long it typically takes a university student to read QFT courses. But you squandered your time convincing yourself you didn't need to put in any effort [ no doubt because of morons like you ] as you know everyone but you is wrong. [pot calling the kettle black eh what!]

A photon is a disturbance in the EM field. Your comment is like saying "It involves a reversal of the relationship between dogs and animals".

And you have a firm grasp of electromagnetism, despite being unable to do any vector calculus which electromagnetism is formulated and modelled using, because....? Summary: Vitriolic nonsense | Score : 2/10 | Result: Fail

excuse me Alphanumeric, but Far sight has every right to express himself in a civil and polite fashion, as you do in your usual ego slanted manner.
This is a discussion forum afterall and NOT a peer review journal that you seem so obsessed to think it is.

Despite your so called credentials and expertise in all manner of scientific understandings you have failed miserably where it counts the most.

You can not evidence the existence of a photon let alone describe it properly with out severe confusion.
Reason: You can not prove somethng exists when it is nonexistent!

The holy grail of science [ the photon ] is in utter confusion when it comes to qualifying it in a way that is consistant and evidenced properly.

Farsight is quite correct in saying:

IMHO if one doesn't have a conceptual grasp of the photon and thence the electron, and thus a handle on the underlying reality of QED, one cannot make secure progress.

your response was utterly unfitting not only of a human being but a scientist.

Quoting an illusion of success in the use of the model is far from actually demonstrating the models validity.

If you would care to provide a proper accounting of the photon that is totally consistent you would go a long way to gaining credibility in your profession of choice.

Please ensure you quote the various titles of text that offer incredible confusion as the reality of the photon and possibly then offer a solution to the issue, which is what science is about. Not just quoting text books but actually applying what you read and improving upon it.
You are utterly offensive in your approach to your own inadequacies demonstrated by the intesnsity of your hatred for any one with a inth of creativity.
When you can support your credentials with real scientific process which includes creativity and vision then and only then do you have the credibiity of the label scientist.
We [ yes the royal we ] look forward to reading your correct and unambiguous accounting of what a photon is exactly including the FACT that it can not be differentiated from massive objects. [ and I would bet without any doubt that you will not be able to do so and I don't need to be a erudite scientist to know that]

 

[Quantum Quack]

So I ask again as a novice and naive innocent:

• How big is a photon?
• How can a photon exist with out compromising E=mc^2 ?
• How can you show a photon exists as modelled apart from the effect observed upon massive objects?
• How can a zero dimensional massless and charged object exist in 3 dimensional space with out being purely imaginary. [not a fluffy question I can assure you]
• Why is it as observed, to be both particle and wave?

and the list goes on....

I can guarrantee there will be no single unambiguous answer to any of the above....
The reason IMO:
"Energy is only a property of mass when dealing with 4 dimensions"
"A photon is only a property, an attribute, a quality, a value placed upon mass"
it is merely a value of "work" potential and nothing more....
Conclusion:
The photon as described by science does not exist.
and all those text books that use a photon simply just don't, to use someone elses words, cut ice.
Maybe a thread on the basics of what energy is would be worth starting.
Oh sorry! it would have to be in pseudo science forum as the usual definition of energy would be deemed way too be contraversial.

 

[Acitnoids]

QQ,
There is no contradiction in what Alpha said. What he ment by ...

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Wavelength is not the physical size of a photon, it's length of the photon path which the photon moves along over one period ...

... can be visualized with my prior demonstration. Instead of discarding the other half circle you could tape it onto the pencil. It would have to be just in frount of the other half circle (endpoints matching ... Remember my tail about endpoint?) and it has to be orientated at a nintey degree angle from the first (I left this out for simplicity sake). Now we must lable each half circle. We could call the first half circle "E" (for electro) and the other "M" (for magnetism)(electro-magnetism). This gives rise to a photons' period and its forward motion. The word "photon" is a reference to the point particles wavefunction and the word "light" refers to the photons' wave like behavior (Alpha, please correct me if I've misspoke seeing as I'm putting words into your mouth). Keep in mind that this is an overly simplistic representation. Both half circles are essentially the same wave. In other words, you can only see one half circle at a time.

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
so how big is a photon at t=0?

You have to define what you mean by t=0. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything. It's just that, t=0 doesn't mean anything.

and so how big a point particle presuming that I can barely tie my shoelace my guess that you guys consider a point particle as being zero dimensional would probably be wrong? oops! Again sorry, it appears I was trying to tie up my shoe laces...this is suprising difficult to do given I am wearing sandles.

I'm sorry for your frustration QQ but, you're not the only person who is going to read this thread. I don't know, something tells me that some fourteen year old out there will get it before you do.

so how can a zero dimensional particle exist in 4 dimensional space other than as pure imagination?

It's called Geometey.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You have to define what you mean by t=0. I'm not trying to be an ass or anything. It's just that, t=0 doesn't mean anything.

I'm sorry for your frustration QQ but, you're not the only person who is going to read this thread. I don't know, something tells me that some fourteen year old out there will get it before you do.

It's called Geometey.

oh I got it when I was 13 and that was a long time ago, it was wrong then and it is still wrong now.

 

[Quantum Quack]

In other words, you can only see one half circle at a time.

and how much time does this half circle take up?
Remember the question is "How big is a photon particle?"

I have deleted the previous posts as being inappropriate for this level of discussion

so do you know what t=0 most usually means?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

excuse me Alphanumeric, but Far sight has every right to express himself in a civil and polite fashion, as you do in your usual ego slanted manner.

I love how cranks call me egotistical. Farsight is claiming he's rewritten the entirity of high energy physics from the last century, without having to open a book on anything relevant and you're calling me egotistical?!

I am fully aware that I am often abrasive and condescending but I, more often than not, aim such behaviour at people who make it clear their delusional egos far exceed my ego and that they know very little (or nothing) about which they speak. In this thread Farsight is trying to convince people he's informed about QED and I've slammed him for it. Him claiming to grasp QED is stupid, as he knows nothing of it. Me claiming to know some QED is entirely rational since I have studied it, I have qualifications in it, I have publications in it. Cranks mistake my confidence in something I was literally paid to do as egotism and arrogance. They do this because they know they are lying when they claim to understand quantum field theory, lying to serve their ego, so they assume others are too. No, it was literally my day job for half a decade. If someone came into your work and started telling your business you'd respond confidently because you (should) know your business. Physics is my business.

This is a discussion forum afterall and NOT a peer review journal that you seem so obsessed to think it is.

Farsight makes false claims in discussion. I point it out. I'm not expecting his posts to be journal worthy, forums aren't for 'publishing' your work. The work he has done which he claimed would be worthy of publication weren't. He fails on all counts.

Despite your so called credentials and expertise in all manner of scientific understandings you have failed miserably where it counts the most.

And you're the best person to evaluate the scientific ability and worth of other people because....? I can be perfectly civil and patiently explain things to people, if they want to learn. You and Farsight don't. The reason I'm abrasive to you is not because I'm abrasive to everyone, I'm abrasive to intellectually lazy liars.

The holy grail of science [ the photon ]

Why is it 'the holy grail'? It isn't. You're simply making things up to twist a narrative to serve your bias. The fact you're having to do such things sort of invalidates your attempts to play the person who evaluates the worth of other people's scientific knowledge/contributions.

your response was utterly unfitting not only of a human being but a scientist.

Shouldn't that be 'not only a scientist but a human being' else you're implying scientists are below human beings in some way? Besides, my pointing out he's being silly to claim some grasp of QED when he knows nothing of quantum field theory, special relativity, quantum mechanics or electromagnetism isn't 'below even a human being', its rational. Is it sensible to tell people who do know quantum electrodynamics their business when you don't know it? Farsight is trying to give scientists lessons on how to do science when he's demonstrated he's incapable of following the scientific method himself. To say my reply is inappropriate for a human being is utterly hyperbolic and demonstrates you have trouble presenting viable arguments, making your complaints about my arguments all the more ironic and hypocritical.

Bill Gates didn't use a text book to create Microsoft he used his vision and creativity

Says who? He excelled in school and got into Harvard (I think). He dropped out to spend more time working but he was extremely intelligent, hard working and well read. The reason he did so well was he had intelligence, drive and knowledge. He was willing to put in the effort to learn as much as possible to help his work. Farsight (and other cranks) hasn't put in any effort to learning anything in physics or mathematics, he's tried to convince himself he doesn't need to as its all 'wrong' and thus absolving himself of any requirement to learn (and thus find out he's unable to understand mainstream physics because he's not very good at it, which he doesn't want to accept). Cranks always associate themselves with people like Gates or Galileo, failing to realise the analogy is utterly flawed because the crank doesn't put in any of the effort and learning those people did.

well solve them.... we are waiting and in the mean time please take your rubbish home with you]

You make it sound like no one has applied physics to the real world. Every single piece of technology is the result of physics knowledge. The computer you're looking at, the phone you have in your pocket, the car, train and plane you use to travel, the TV you watch, the fridge which keeps your food fresh. Everything which elevates our society beyond the stone age is the application of science. And if you want specific examples involving photons or quantum mechanical effects there's the laser, the CPU, the Josephson gate, MRI and PET scanners. Serious money is being plowed into optical computers and quantum computers which use photons. If the science weren't viable and experimentally sound companies like Intel wouldn't be putting millions or billions into said research. Josephson gates are used in high speed, high sensitivity circuitry in mobile phone towers. PET scanners save thousands of lives every year. The CPU has revolutionised our civilisation. All the application of science to solve real world problems. So your 'we're waiting' is just flat out denial of the world around you. The fact you typed it on a computer, literally staring at the application of that science, is all the more ironic.

given that tehphoton is being inconsitently described

Citation needed. Remember, I actually do work in physics research and I've done such things as quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics. If you're going to claim something about science research you're going to have to provide evidence for you claims. Provide links to papers where the photon is modelled in inconsistent ways.

[Peter Pan was also good at modelling stuff, like cakes and fairies and even flying

That's your response to my comment you post meaningless nonsense? Couldn't you at least attempt to justify yourself rather than just go into flat out denial mode. How am I supposed to get my entertainment slapping you about when you're making it too easy?

no doubt because of morons like you

Yes, it's my fault cranks tell themselves lies in order to convince themselves its okay they can't do any mainstream physics. Yes, its my fault you're rubbish at physics and maths and yet you can't accept it so you lie to yourself. Yes, its my fault you couldn't do it when you were in school and you still can't. It's the "Its everyone else's fault but mine" routine. Most people realise at a fairly young age there's things they are good at and things they are bad at. I'm not particularly sharp at languages and I can't play a musical instrument. I accept that, I don't go up to musicians and say "Your instrument is rubbish, I've invented a much better one which I'm amazing at!!" or up to a French person and say "Your language is made up rubbish, English is much better and everyone should speak it!". That's what Farsight and other hacks are doing, trying to convince themselves its okay to be rubbish at mainstream science, its all wrong anyway.

[pot calling the kettle black eh what!]

I think cranks are wrong. Farsight claims he's got a much better idea than all of mainstream physics. I'm not claiming that. I believe I've contributed a tiny little bit to a specific area in physics which no one else had done. You're viewing yourself with too much of an egocentric mindset. The fact I constantly tell you you're wrong doesn't mean I tell everyone they are wrong, you've reached a flawed implication. You'll find I'm happy to agree with other people in other threads, you're the cause of "You're wrong" posts by me.

Please ensure you quote the various titles of text

Why bother, you have made it clear in the past you have no intention of reading information source you're pointed at and even if you did you'd not understand them since you haven't done any mathematics or physics since high school. You lack the skills to evaluate your own 'challenge', much like Hovind and his challenge.

ou are utterly offensive in your approach to your own inadequacies demonstrated by the intesnsity of your hatred for any one with a inth of creativity.

I know you cranks like to think I 'hate' you but you give yourselves far too much credit. The 15 minutes or so a post like this takes me to type is hardly a dent in my day and your arguments and claims are so easily refuted they require no effort. You're entertainment. I can't 'hate' something I care nothing about. If you never posted again I'd not give it a second thought. I know you want to think you're 'hated', it gives you some feeling of importance, you're able to tell yourself you must be right if someone 'hates' you but you exagerate your importance. As you said in your challenge thread in pseudo, you're waiting for the media to get interested. You give yourself way too much credit and think your 'challenge' is in any way something which might worry actual scientists. Oh no an idiot online thinks he's challenging us!! That's never happened before.

When you can support your credentials with real scientific process which includes creativity and vision then and only then do you have the credibiity of the label scientist.

Nice one. You dismiss my credentials by saying I don't have any creativity and vision. I don't post any original work here because actual research level physics is totally inappropriate for forum discussions here, its too high level. None of my work has been posted here and even if I had done that only about 4 people would have had any change to even vaguely understand it. You seriously have no clue what I've done or what I'm doing. I got a job within a month of finishing my PhD and it is specifically to solve real world problems others can't. They hire people they believe can think creatively and apply their knowledge to big problems in novel and imaginative ways. I am employed precisely because people who have succeeded in business by thinking creatively believe I can too. And they actually read my research and understand it, unlike yourself. Again, the reason I don't discuss research with you is not because I'm incapable of it but because I know it'd be a waste of time discussing it with you.

How can a photon exist with out compromising E=mc^2 ?

E=mc^2 doesn't apply to a photon. I suggest you open an introductory book on relativity. This is your problem, you have no relevant knowledge and so all your complaints are not actually about mainstream physics but your completely flawed understanding of it. You want to be taken seriously yet you make it clear you refuse to be intellectually honest and look at something before dismissing it.

Such 'questions' of yours completely undermine your entire challenge by demonstrating you have no intention of being honest. Thanks for making it so easily demonstrable.

 

[Quantum Quack]

hee hee

As you said in your challenge thread in pseudo, you're waiting for the media to get interested. You give yourself way too much credit and think your 'challenge' is in any way something which might worry actual scientists. Oh no an idiot online thinks he's challenging us!! That's never happened before.

there's a lot of things that haven't happened before.
The scientists may struggle to deal with it but the general population wont.

And whats more you have already demonstrated why...

 

[Farsight]

What, the possibility of describing qubit states with Clifford algebra variables?

No, trying to understand the fundamental reality behind quantum electrodynamics and other areas.

What's orthogonal to what?

Two rotations of stress-energy-momentum propagating at c.

If you somehow manage to prepare a neutron with a perfectly well defined momentum, then according to QM it's completely delocalised in space. Conversely, a particle completely localised at a point is completely delocalised in momentum space. Of course those are just the two extreme cases and you can have anything in between (you'd usually describe these with Gaussian wavepackets) in a way that satisfies the Heisenberg uncertainty relation $$\Delta x \Delta p \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}$$. $$\hbar$$ is of the order of 10[sup]-34[/sup] in SI units, which is tiny, so there should be plenty of room for a neutrino to have a well enough defined momentum to produce a clear interference pattern, without the neutrino being delocalised to the point you don't know whether it's in your lab or not.

Thanks. I read about the HUP and see:

"In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the position of a particle. It could be anywhere the particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet."

..and I'm saying, no, it's a wave. It's an extended entity. This demand for a position is building in a point-particle assumption.

Well I'm not really motivated to look for a replacement for QM unless someone can show it fails experimentally. Otherwise QM as it is really doesn't bother me (well, I think there are some consistency issues in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, but I don't subscribe to it and that's another story anyway).

Fair enough. I'm not looking for a replacement either, just a better interpretation.

See what? If you mean J. Christian's article then I've already told you what I think is wrong with it, and the more I think about it the more I'm convinced he's simply misunderstood how Bell's theorem is formulated. I'm not against theories that use Clifford algebras as a matter of principle, but the way he puts them in the Bell correlators doesn't make sense (he's apparently mistaken the variables A and B for a fundamental description of spin - they're not) and it's impossible if you use the alternative expression I posted in terms of the joint probabilities.

OK noted. I'll read it again.

Note that I'm not claiming there's no way around Bell's theorem. When I said "the results of Bell experiments involving photons render the idea of viewing photons as classical light pulses (or any other type of classical object) rather implausible" there's a reason I said "implausible" rather than "impossible": Bell's theorem only rules out local classical-type theories. In addition every Bell experiment performed to date suffers from at least one of a couple of loopholes. So you might be able to come up with a "classical"-type theory that can explain away QM, but it's either going to suffer a blatantly non-local structure or it's going to have to explain some strange coincidences and how detectors "conspired" to violate a Bell inequality in every Bell experiment performed to date.

Interesting stuff przyk. Remember I mentioned displacement current and "spacewarp"? I think of a photon as a "pressure pulse" of spatial distortion. That's all it is, just distortion. And as a result, all the surrounding space is distorted too. Wherever there's distortion is where the photon is. So what path does it take from A to B? It takes many paths.

I'm the type of person who does think of the wavefunction as something "physical" (as opposed to "tool for calculating probabilities"), but I don't think you can identify the particle and the wavefunction. The most obvious problem is with entangled states: in QM, it's possible for (say) two particles to be described by a shared wavefunction $$\Psi(\bar{x}_{1},\,\bar{x}_{2})$$ that can't be factorised into a product of wavefunctions specific to each particle - ie. wavefunctions that you can't decompose as something like $$\Psi(\bar{x}_{1},\,\bar{x}_{2}) \,=\, \psi(\bar{x}_{1}) \, \phi(\bar{x}_{2})$$. Entangled states are specifically what allows QM to violate Bell inequalities, so there's good evidence for their existence: every Bell experiment is a test for entanglement.

SOunds good. Maybe in the end entaglement won't be so much of a problem. Interesting stuff. Thanks.

 

[Farsight]

Thanks for your previous comments QQ. I do wish people would try to stay friendly and calm on discussion forums like this.

So I ask again as a novice and naive innocent:

• How big is a photon?
• How can a photon exist without compromising E=mc^2 ?
• How can you show a photon exists as modelled apart from the effect observed upon massive objects?
• How can a zero dimensional massless and charged object exist in 3 dimensional space without being purely imaginary. [not a fluffy question I can assure you]
• Why is it as observed, to be both particle and wave?

I can get you part of the way there. It won't be a complete or formal description, just an outline using analogies, though hopefully of some use. But you have to get a handle on electromagnetism first. To understand the electromagnetic wave, you have to understand the electromagnetic field, and that it's one field, not two. I've got to go out now, but I'll post something up later. I'll start a new thread to avoid hijacking this one.

 

[QuarkHead]

To understand the electromagnetic wave, you have to understand the electromagnetic field

You will forgive my stupidity, I hope, but what have waves and fields to do with each other?

and that it's one field, not two. .

Is there any assertion anywhere to the contrary? Tell me - unlike you (perhaps), I am not a physicist, and I am anxious to learn.

But I can do a little simple arithmetic, so try me out that way.

 

[James R]

QQ:

So I ask again as a novice and naive innocent:
How big is a photon?

It doesn't have a well-defined size.

How can a photon exist with out compromising E=mc^2 ?

The full equation is $$E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2$$. That applies to photons the same as everything else.

How can you show a photon exists as modelled apart from the effect observed upon massive objects?

You can't. Experiment is always the final arbiter of the accuracy of a model.

How can a zero dimensional massless and charged object exist in 3 dimensional space with out being purely imaginary.

Please give an example of a zero-dimensional massless and charged object.

Why is it as observed, to be both particle and wave?

It isn't. It is observed to behave in ways similar to a particle or a wave. That's the same for all quantum objects.

 

[Farsight]

You will forgive my stupidity, I hope, but what have waves and fields to do with each other?

A lot. The photon is considered to be the messenger particle of the electromagnetic interaction.

Is there any assertion anywhere to the contrary? Tell me - unlike you (perhaps), I am not a physicist, and I am anxious to learn.

Apologies. I'm just an amateur, but I see a lot of people talking about the electric field and the magnetic field as if they're two totally different things, and it seems to cause problems. I presumed this would be an issue here too.

But I can do a little simple arithmetic, so try me out that way.

IMHO the only way to really get it across is to refer to experiment, evidence, and observables. Or should I say get it part-way across. Then you can pick up on the mathematics to take it further.

Edit: Meanwhile here's my two-pennyworth:

Q: How big is a photon?
A: It doesn't have a size. You might think of it as being as long as its wavelength and with a given amplitude, but the question is rather like asking how big is a seismic S-wave.

Q: How can a photon exist without compromising E=mc^2 ?
A: It moves at c and so is massless, so E=hf and p=hf/c applies instead.

Q: How can you show a photon exists as modelled apart from the effect observed upon massive objects?
A: You can do pair production to create an electron and a positron out of two photons.

Q: How can a zero dimensional massless and charged object exist in 3 dimensional space without being purely imaginary.
A: It can't.

Q: Why is it as observed, to be both particle and wave?
A: Because it's a wave that delivers a "kick" of action.

 

[Acitnoids]

I'm sorry everybody. This should be a privet message but, in light of the circumstances, I found it important to make my opinion public.

Originally Posted by Quantum Wave
I deleted the previous posts as being inappropriate for this level of discussion

So let me get this strait. I commented on a post of yours which you later deleted and yet you still commented on my post to make me out to be the ass.

oh I got it when I was 13 and that was a long time ago, it was wrong then and its is still wrong now.

What a crooked thing to do. Listen, there are a few posts on this forum that I'd like to take back as well but, there they are. I said it and now I have to face the music when the occasion arises. That's twice now (in this thread) where I've commented on a post of yours that you've deleted. Why should I ever reply to your posts again? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Please, think about what you are saying before you post it (you have all the time in the world) so that this does not happen again. Thank you.
.
QQ. If you feel the need to reply to this post then please, do it by PM. Anything less would be "inappropriate for this level of discussion".

 

[AlphaNumeric]

there's a lot of things that haven't happened before.

Are you familiar with sarcasm?

And I note you ignored where I explicitly demonstrated you don't know what the mainstream community says about the photon. You asked "How can a photon exist with out compromising E=mc^2 ? ", making it clear you don't know even what equations apply to the photon or how its described. You obviously don't have a firm grasp of what physicists say and yet you claim you know "that tehphoton is being inconsitently described" [sic]. You've set up a challenge to science you haven't read and declared yourself the judge. You couldn't explain why you're suitable to be a judge, given you lack knowledge, understanding and impartiality. You couldn't provide a reference to your claim the photon is modelled inconsistently. How can you even make that claim when in the same post you demonstrate you haven't even read how the photon is described!

Come on QQ, even you should grasp this. You've made is abundantly clear you haven't looked at how the photon is modelled or any experiments involving it so your claims about the mainstream are based on your ignorance and bias. And this isn't me being hateful or anything, its a justifiable opinion about your level of knowledge given your posts. I asked you to explain why you're a suitable judge of your challenge and also why you're in any way in a position to judge my abilities and contributions to physics when you don't know my work, even if you did you'd not understand it and you have made no contribution to any area of science yourself. You try to insult me by saying "Despite your so called credentials and expertise". My 'so called credentials' aren't qualifications from a diploma mill or a dodgy correspondence course in some dubious subject like 'surfing' or 'David Beckham studies', they are from actual well respected universities in academic and relevant (to this forum) areas. So they are not 'so called credentials', they are credentials. You're not the first to try insulting me for having qualifications, for having put in years of time and effort and achieving something. Cranks often have a chip on their shoulder about people who are willing to put in time and effort to learn and achieve things, as often the crank hasn't and won't. Do you say to your doctor "Well I'm not listening to you, all you've got is so called 'credentials'."? I doubt it.

The scientists may struggle to deal with it but the general population wont.

Another usual crank tactic. Rather than provide justification and reasoning for your claim, so as to follow the scientific method, you try to go to the general public to swindle people who can't spot your lies so easily. Its an attempt to make science a popularity contest, which is ironic because you're complaining science clings to models popular with scientists, rather than what's true.

And whats more you have already demonstrated why...

Yes, I've demonstrated you're going to fail with scientists because I'd demonstrated you're intellectually dishonest, have clear massive shortfalls in your knowledge and ability and are willing to misrepresent scientific work, on the rare occasions you actually read some science. All of those don't go down well in the scientific community. Naivety is one thing, deliberate deception and wilful ignorance are entirely something else and you have all three in spades. If I'm wrong about this please answer my questions about how you're in any position to be able to honestly and impartially evaluate any submissions to your challenge or to say "Science says..." or "The mainstream model of the photon implies..." when you have absolutely no understanding of what the mainstream says. Do you still think the mainstream says $$E=mc^{2}$$ applies to a photon?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

but I see a lot of people talking about the electric field and the magnetic field as if they're two totally different things

Perhaps you should stop talking to laypersons because no one in the mainstream physics community for about 150 years has treated electric and magnetic fields are fundamental separate. Maxwell unified them in the 1800s, electrodynamics demonstrates their interplay under Lorentz transformations and their dynamics follow from the simplest non-trivial gauge theory possible.

Stop reading pop science books and open a textbook once in a while. You might learn something.

Then you can pick up on the mathematics to take it further.

Is that what you tell yourself, you've got all the right qualitative understanding, you just fill in the quantitative stuff later? Hasn't worked for you thus far.

 

[Billy T]

QQ {who asked how big is a photon and James replied} It doesn't have a well-defined size. ... Experiment is always the final arbiter of the accuracy of a model.

... Q: How big is a photon?
A: It doesn't have a size. You might think of it as being as long as its wavelength and with a given amplitude,...

I think James I will need to count this as your error number 4, but it does depend upon exactly what you mean by "well-defined" so you can, with some shame in you face, wiggle out. Farsight though has no "wiggle room" - he is just plain wrong.

Both go here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52
to see how to measure the length of photons. I did this measurement and mine, from a modest pressure sodium lamp, were ~30 cm long.

Some from low pressure lamps are more than a meter. If also, in addition to being from a very low pressure source with few collisions during their upper state life time, that lifetime is very long lived, they can be many meters long.

For example, the "oxygen green line" produced in the Northern Lights is actual a first order forbidden line - impossible to produce in the laboratory so it's photons are many meters long. (Not impossible because they are long, but because the volume of source required is more than a very large building to get detectable light.)

I.e. in this very low density, very low transition probability, case the radiating atoms are all with exactly the same energy levels so the spread in the energy is determined by the uncertainty principle's Delta E x Delta T product.

I.e. the radiated wavelength is extremely narrow - a very "sharp" spectral line. If you know any Fourier analysis, any extremely well defined wavelength implies a huge number of cycles - I.e. to be so well defined ALL the photons from that source MUST be many meters long and exactly the same length.

AFAIK, it is impossible to measure the length of a single photon. Perhaps all are many meters long, but a measurable collection of them has an energy spread so appears / behaves as if shorter when its length is measured as described in the above link. I.e. measured spectral lines do have a width. Probably the correct classical POV when "collisions" occur during the radiation process so the upper energy level is constantly changing then the "front" of the photon will have a slightly different frequency than the "tail end" of the photon. I.e. each photon would have an energy spread but might be quite long.

... I'm just an amateur, but I see a lot of people talking about the electric field and the magnetic field as if they're two totally different things, ...

Static fields in any one reference frame are two totally different things. There is no magnetic field produced by a static set of charges - only an electric field; however in any other frame these charges are moving so both fields are present.