Light

[Quantum Quack]

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. [It is saying a lot of different things and appears totally confused] 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. [hey! I didn't need to invent dark energy and matter, 98% missing, just to make up for the error ! You did!] You obviously don't have a firm grasp of what physicists say and yet you claim you know "that the photon is being inconsitently described" [sic]. [you only have to read this thread and it becomes totally obvious or can't you read?] You've set up a challenge to science you haven't read and declared yourself the judge. [ utterly false - link required ] 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.

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.

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?

assessment: 2/10: No useful content and fails to add anyting of value to this threads topic. | fail

It is off topic but whats a guy gotta do when falsely accused such as this:
Reagarding the Photon Challenge you can add another challenge that is
that Alphanumeric provide evidence to support his credibility attacks in future. Spewing verbal crap about what someone has said with out support is terribly dishonest IMO. The fact that the moderators are allowing him to make his unsupported allegations is truely one of concern. Poster Alphanumeric is probably a high quality software package that is designed to do exatly what IT is doing until banned which will eventually after a heap of pain, be the case.

You have claimed that I intend to be the judge of The Photon Challenge.

Provide links and quotatons that state this please and be assessed by the board [ peer review ]
here is the op you refer to :

A new web site is currently being developed by myself to allow persons to provide evidence of a photon particle or wave that is free of dependancy on massive objects or objects of mass.
The evidence must unambiguously show that a photon actually travels from point A to point B across a vacumous space in a way that unambiguously demonstrates that independance of the measuring device or sensor. The full details will be made available when the site is published.
The prize currently being offerred is $100 usd. This is over the next few months expected to grow as the money makers/media and marketers decide to move on a good proposition. As the site firms up, so to will the legal requirements such as prize money trust account and methodology in assessing responses.
The intention is to highlight that the light effect model has not been evidenced in a way that excludes alternative possibilities for the effects presented to scientists. It is not the object of the challenge to offer an alternative but to open the door to the possibility of such.

The web site domain name is www.photonchallenge.com and is currently a non commercial site being developed under username/password protected security. However depending on demand the site may become commercial in the forseeable future.

This has occurred primarilly due to the demonstrated incredible devotion to a possibly flawed model simply because of what may be realised in the near future as an observational over sight.
If persons wish to donate to the prize pool which will be refundable upon failure of anyone winning it with in a minimum 12 month offer period, please contact me by PM.
Obviously I am confident that the evidence required is impossible to present.
Yet this fact seems to fall on deaf ears belonging to those who need to hear it the most.

the slogan "show me the photon" may yet make world headlines.....

I clearly indicated that the terms and conditions of assessment were yet to be determined. Also the means by which lodgement of claim can be made, whether in an open special forum to facilitate transperancy or by independent application via email to avoid morons from truth suppression interest groups such as JREF from flaming the board.
The Photon Challenge when published must meet transperancy requirements which are currently being assessed.

You have made numerous unsupported accusations in an attempt to destroy credibility. You will stand in front of you peers and be judged accordingly.
Sorry board memebers but the fact that I have to defend myself from such vitriol is exactly why the Photon Challenge has been launched.
Deliberately motivated truth suppression tactics and one wonders how to get on the payroll that seems to be funding it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

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.

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.

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".

if you were able to read my posts and respond which you appeared to not be able to do so I would have let them remain. Leaving my posts there would have served no purpose other than confusion.
You failed to show any relevance to the posts or any ineterest in resolving the issues presented.

I note you still haven't responded to the fundamental questions I asked regarding the "Duration" of the "half circle" you recommended as analoguous to the photons size at t=0

And if you can not understand the question above then I see no point further discussing this with you in this thread. Perhaps you would like to start another?
I also note that Alphanumeric has yet to demonstrate any grasp of the complexity of clarifying the definition and description of the photon in a way that clarifies all confusion ...he can't and he knows it, and as usual resorting to credibility attacks, and slander instead, to deflect suspicion of his own inadequacies when highlighted.

He is not a scientist who has any interest in science or furthering understanding of the photon for the benefit of the boards collective and the world generally.

Try this for size:
Contention:
the equation E=mc^2 is an absolutely absolute equation [ universally]. It has no exceptions available except to those who don't understand how to apply it properly or those who wish to compromise that absoluteness to serve some other inferior purpose. And No I don't have the technical expertise to detail why you are allowing an absolute equation to be compromised. That is your job not mine.
What say you: Actinoids?
this is in part, Why the Photon challenge!

 

[Billy T]

To Quantum Quack:

You were provided with good proof long ago by me that an energy packet does travel between point S and D (source and detector) but you welshed on the pay out. Now you seem to be requiring this be done without any matter being involved. I.e. you say:

"... A new web site is currently being developed by myself to allow persons to provide evidence of a photon particle or wave that is free of dependancy on massive objects or objects of mass. ..."

With this new requirement you are obviously safe for paying anyone as all experiments in physic do need some masses or "objects" Only philosophy can conduct experiments without masses in objects - I.e. pure thought experiments (and even they are about some objects.)

In my procedure for measuring the length of photons there is only a slight change in the configuration of the masses, so that in my case one of two possible paths between S & D was progressively increased 30 cm.

Here again is my proof: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52

You foolishly and stubbornly refuse to admit that changing ONLY the path length does PROVE that something is traveling that path. When I first proved that there is an energy packet passing between S & D by this demonstrated great change in D produced ONLY by change in the space / path between S & D you refused to pay up - exactly as I predicted you would. I still and quite confident you will continue to welsh on the payment. Perhaps now because I do use some objects?

PS James R & Farsight need to read post 100 which has been quickly push back by QQ's long posts.

 

[Quantum Quack]

To Quantum Quack:

You were provided with good proof long ago by me that an energy packet does travel between point S and D (source and detector) but you welshed on the pay out. Now you seem to be requiring this be done without any matter being involved. I.e. you say:

"... A new web site is currently being developed by myself to allow persons to provide evidence of a photon particle or wave that is free of dependancy on massive objects or objects of mass. ..."

With this new requirement you are obviously safe for paying anyone as all experiments in physic do need some masses or "objects" Only philosophy can conduct experiments without masses in objects - I.e. pure thought experiments (and even they are about some objects.)

In my procedure for measuring the length of photons there is only a slight change in the configuration of the masses, so that in my case one of two possible paths between S & D was progressively increased 30 cm.

Here again is my proof: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52

You foolishly and stubbornly refuse to admit that changing ONLY the path length does PROVE that something is traveling that path. When I first proved that there is an energy packet passing between S & D by this demonstrated great change in D produced ONLY by change in the space / path between S & D you refused to pay up - exactly as I predicted you would. I still and quite confident you will continue to welsh on the payment. Perhaps now because I do use some objects?

PS James R & Farsight need to read post 100 which has been quickly push back by QQ's long posts.

you "proof " will be assessed along with others when the time comes and maybe the $100.usd could be considerably more then.

You have stated two things :
1.

With this new requirement you are obviously safe for paying anyone as all experiments in physic do need some masses or "objects" Only philosophy can conduct experiments without masses in objects - I.e. pure thought experiments (and even they are about some objects.)

and then:
2.

I still and quite confident you will continue to welsh on the payment. Perhaps now because I do use some objects?

so who is acting foolishly?

The challenge has always been to show the photon in a way that removes the ambiguity created by the necessity of mass involvement in any experiment or measurement of photon activity.
As you rightly state this is not possible to do. Yet you FAIL to realise what that means to science and it's future.
When you can elliminate the possibility that the photon is a myth by removing the possibility of light being derived from an effect of mass then and only then will you not only get the award offered but a Nobel as well, no doubt.

So dig deep before you accuse me of fraud again..
any ways it appears the photon is a myth even unto science regarding what it is etc ect as proved by this thread. And science has had over 100 years to clear things up and it hasn't simply because the photon simply does not exist other than as a property, value or quality of mass.

you have a chance to prove me wrong but you can't....

 

[Billy T]

... you FAIL to realise what that means to science and it's future. ...

No. I realize that if one can not have any matter anywhere in your experiments, NOTHING can be proven and no science can exist.
It is you who do not seem to realize the implications of disallowing matter anywhere in experiments.

I only changed the length of the space between source S & D, to make a profound change in the detector D, but did have some matter as all experiments must.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No. I realize that if one can not have any matter anywhere in your experiments, NOTHING can be proven and no science can exist.
It is you who do not seem to realize the implications of disallowing matter anywhere in experiments.

I only changed the length of the space between source S & D, to make a profound change in the detector D, but did have some matter as all experiments must.

so what does it tell you about the light effect model. That the photon could very well be a myth? oh no!

take it up in the thread running if you like as it is off topic here...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=102307

 

[Quantum Quack]

I only changed the length of the space between source S & D, to make a profound change in the detector D, but did have some matter as all experiments must.

the results may actually prove very valuable when a new approach to the light effect take shape as obviously "mass" distance* has exactly the same bearing on the effect as if a photon existed.


*mass distance: distance determined by mass [ i.e a rule made of steel] as vacuum in itself can not be used to measure anything ~ just a distinction worth emphasising IMO

 

[CptBork]

If Quantum Quack gets to hijack a topic in the Physics section to go on yet another rant about his hatred for photon theory, do I get to post links to the threads where his reasons for hating this theory are explained? Can I link to the threads where he complained about members on this board attacking him with psychic mindshocks, and how he needed to disprove quantum mechanics to show that such attacks were actually possible?

 

[Billy T]

so what does it tell you about the light effect model. That the photon could very well be a myth? oh no!

Certainly not that it is a myth. Fact that a great change in the detector occurred when all I did was to change some empty space tells me something was passing thru that empty space.

Other experiments show this "something" is transporting energy. For example, sunlight passing from sun to my body on the beach makes it warm until some object, like a cloud, enters into the space thru which those solar energy packets were passing. You are just welching on your offer - as I predicted you would.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If Quantum Quack gets to hijack a topic in the Physics section to go on yet another rant about his hatred for photon theory, do I get to post links to the threads where his reasons for hating this theory are explained? Can I link to the threads where he complained about members on this board attacking him with psychic mindshocks, and how he needed to disprove quantum mechanics to show that such attacks were actually possible?

hey I tried.... all I asked was how big a photon was...
and the rest is history...

actually you only have to explain the mechanism behind quantum entanglements and tunneling and you have your answer....
but alas this is for another thread and another day.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Certainly not that it is a myth. Fact that a great change in the detector occurred when all I did was to change some empty space tells me something was passing thru that empty space.

Other experiments show this "something" is transporting energy. For example, sunlight passing from sun to my body on the beach makes it warm until some object, like a cloud, enters into the space thru which those solar energy packets were passing. You are just welching on your offer - as I predicted you would.

please take it the approproate thread Billy T.
refer previous post as to why you can't see the answer to your problem.
Any ways all you have to do is provide the evidence as requested with out whinging about the how's and why for's of an alternative model and the money is yours.
hint: what happens to the entanglement when a "cloud" passes in between the two 1/2 particles?

 

[Farsight]

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.

I read it and the rest of your post, but it doesn't say anything about how wide they are.

Edit: I've just read the rest of thread, and feel moved to say this - we won't all agree about everything, and if we did there wouldn't be any point discussing anything. But come on guys, try to keep it friendly. I've tried to put something up that I hope will help as regards this photon discussion, namely a new thread entitled The electromagnetic field. There's some clear evidence concerning the nature of the electromagnetic field that gives a robust indication as to the nature of the photon.

 

[Billy T]

QQ’s theory is that photons don’t exist. This despite they have several observable properties. Such as:

(1)Wavelength (or frequency) measured by grading spectrometers of more precisely by interferometers.
(2) Energy, measured by heating when there are many or by the max electron ejection energy in the photo-electric effect individually
(3) Momentum, measured by and in practical use now by recently launched Japanese “solar sailing” satellite.
(4) Length, measured by the interferometer as I described in link twice given now. (mine were 30 cm long).
(5) Speed of propagation, measured by dozens of different ways and known in vacuum to at least 6 significant figures (possible 10 – I’m too lazy to check) Also the very well confirmed Maxwell’s equations predict from only laboratory measurements of the magnetic permeability and dielectric constant of vacuum both the existence of EM waves (later discovered by Hertz) and a speed which is in complete agreement with this measured speed (of the nothing, which is not going between, of course. )
(6) The discrete nature of optical EM waves as shown in the photo-electric effect. Especially with fast, electro-optical shutter in the path and such low intensity that only one photon exists at any one time. Very strange with nothing going between that electrons are ejected ONLY after a fixed delay from the shutter open time as it is in the path where there is nothing going thru it according to QQ. Just more magic as the explanation.

Strange that from same source, the results of these ALL these measurements are always the same – especially if QQ were correct and photons did not exist. Where are these correct, consistent, "answers" stored? (Perhaps in the "Handbook of Magic"?)

Note (5), speed of propagation, is true of all EM waves, in vacuum for all wave lengths, even those with frequencies of radars or gamma “rays.”

Also strange in QQ’s theory is how the separation between source, S, and detector, D. can possibly be known if nothing goes between.

For example the moon is slowly receding from the Earth as predicted by theory, measured first by noting the location where ancient total solar eclipses did occur (the Chinese cities that saw them). More recently in less than a month’s observation with precise timing of laser light reflected by the retro-reflector left on the moon by astronauts (and very precise timing clocks) In this case the S & D are approximately next to each other and the D responds after an exact delay which depends upon how far the moon is away from the Earth, but of course QQ is correct – it is by magic that these massive bodies make that delay, to femto second accuracy, reflect their constantly changing separation. (Moon' orbit is not circular.) – Nothing is actually traveling up to the retro-reflector on the moon and then returning to D.

The real conclusion of all this is that:
QQ is intellectually dishonest and welching on his offer;
as I predicted he would. IMHO, he should be permanently banned from making any scientific comments at least. Science REJECTS MAGIC.

 

[Quantum Quack]

QQ’s theory is that photons don’t exist. This despite they have several observable properties. Such as:

(1)Wavelength (or frequency) measured by grading spectrometers of more precisely by interferometers.
(2) Energy, measures by heating when there are many or by the max electron ejection energy in the photo-electric effect individually
(3) Momentum, measured by and in practical use now by recently launched Japanese “solar sailing” satellite.
(4) Length, measured by the interferometer as I described in link twice given now. (mine were 30 cm long).
(5) Speed of propagation, measured by dozens of different ways and known in vacuum to at least 6 significant figures (possible 10 – I’m too lazy to check) Also the very well confirmed Maxwell’s equations predict from only laboratory measurements of the magnetic permeability and dielectric constant of vacuum both the existence of EM waves (later discovered by Hertz) and a speed which is in complete agreement with this measured speed (of the nothing, which is not going between, of course. )
(6) The discrete nature of optical EM waves as shown in the photo-electric effect.

Strange that from same source, the results of these ALL these measurements are always the same – especially if QQ were correct and photons did not exist. Where are these correct, consistent, "answers" stored? (Perhaps in the "Handbook of Magic"?)

Note (5), speed of propagation, is true of all EM waves, in vacuum for all wave lengths, even those with frequencies of radars or gamma “rays.”

Also strange in QQ’s theory is how the separation between source, S, and detector, D. can possibly be known if nothing goes between.

For example the moon is slowly receding from the Earth as predicted by theory, measured first by noting the location where ancient total solar eclipses did occur (the Chinese cities that saw them). More recently in less than a month’s observation with precise timing of laser light reflected by the retro-reflector left on the moon by astronauts (and very precise timing clocks) In this case the S & D are approximately next to each other and the D responds after an exact delay which depends upon how far the moon is away from the Earth, but of course QQ is correct – it is by magic that these massive bodies make that delay, to femto second accuracy, reflect their constantly changing separation. (Moon' orbit is not circular.) – Nothing is actually traveling up to the retro-reflector on the moon and then returning to D.

The real conclusion of all this is that:
QQ is intellectually dishonest and welching on his offer;
as I predicted he would. IMHO, he should be permanently banned from making any scientific comments at least. Science REJECTS MAGIC.

Evidence as requested Billy T and the money is yours.

when you get round to applying that fantastic brain of yours to the problem instead of whinging, you might actually see something you can't at the moment.

Like the last few posts ...how big does a hint have to be...font size 250px maybe....

 

[Quantum Quack]

look Billy T if you really want me to post details you are wasting your time...call me any name you want to ..the evidence will be made public globally first before I bother publishing any further detail.
any ways I don't take too kindly to false accusations of fraud so you'll have to go back to the end of the line with Alphanumeric and a few others.
I have asked for evidence as descibed in the thread link posted..

This thread is about light and so far no one has decribed it in full and adequately even to suit your own needs after 100 years of trying...sheesh! So don't talk to me about fraud.
It's not my job to explain why you can't do your job ..that's for you to do

Now either stick to the topic or I am sure JamesR will lock the thread....which is probably what you want any way.
I'll withdraw my compliment as well...
as you seem to consider I give them lightly.

 

[Quantum Quack]

so Billy T back on topic,
How wide is a photon do you reckon?

 

[Billy T]

the results may actually prove very valuable when a new approach to the light effect take shape as obviously "mass" distance* has exactly the same bearing on the effect as if a photon existed....

Again more magic as the effect of Mass-Distance on the interference screen (or D1) is the SAME regardless of whether the mirror in top left of drawing is moved closer or further from the detector.

I.e. the Mass-Distance law does not depend upon the distance but knows by Magic to make the same effect that photons would exhibit.

with full discussion here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2539172&postcount=52

 

[Farsight]

Come on guys.

Billy, Quantum Quack said "The photon as described by science does not exist". See his post here. Alphanumeric, who considers himself to be a qualified physicist, said "A photon is certainly localised into a small region of space, even to a single point" here. And yet we know from the Double- slit experiment that interference occurs, so it isn't localised into a small region in space. If it were, the double-slit experiment would be magic. And science rejects magic. Hence this discussion.

Quantum Quack: Just to make sure I haven't misunderstood you, do you accept that electromagnetic waves exist, and that they have a quantum nature as demonstrated by Einstein in On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Again more magic as the effect of Mass-Distance on the interferenc screen is the SAME regardless of whether the mirror in top left of drawing is moved closer or further from the detector.

I.e. the Mass-Distance law does not depend upon the distance but knows by Magic to make the same effect that photons would exhibit.

you just don't get it do you?
For the photon, even according to your own model no time is experienced therefore distance has to be zero. [ it is a zero dimensional point particle after all]

so tell me more about magic....yours that is...

 

[Billy T]

I read it and the rest of your post, but it doesn't say anything about how wide they are. ...

Although a large number of photons does follow classical laws, individual photons do not - they follow the laws of quantum mechanics. Some things that seem very sensible from a classical law are not defined and do not really exist in QM theory. For example an electron does not have an exact location and this fact is NOT just that we can not measure it position precisely. Its precise position does not exist so asking where it is precisely in a non-sense question.

I strongly suspect that is also true of your question - I.e. it is fundamentally a non-sense question. - Such as: "Does the tail of a unicorn touch the ground when it stands still?" is a classical non-sense question. And for the same reason I.e. neither unicorn tails not electron positions exist.