The Photon Challenge

[Quantum Quack]

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.....

 

[funkstar]

I want... One HUUUNDRED dollaz!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

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.

We've been over this before. You refuse to read anything which requires you to think or put in effort or which you don't immediately understand and given you don't understand any science that immediately excludes any viable experiment. It's Catch 22. If someone doesn't provide enough scientific rigour then you dismiss them as not justifying their argument and if someone does provide enough scientific rigour then you don't understand and you dismiss them as not making their argument simple enough.

his 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.

I think you massively over estimate the attention you'll get or the 'concern' you'll raise in the scientific community. The manipulation of photons on an individual quantum basis is well established within the science community, including large amounts of applications to commercial markets. I don't really think any serious company (ie one which isn't just some Ltd started up by a crank to sell 'free energy' to stupid investors) would want to be associated with you and your 'challenge' to the science community, given you lack any of the relevant skills, experience or knowledge to honestly assess anyone who bothers to take the time to respond to your challenge. You're just the physics version of Kent Hovind and his $250,000 challenge.

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.

If someone presents a model of light tomorrow which explains all relevant phenomena more accurately and is much simpler than the current models then they'll eventually replace the current models. The issue is that no one has. You claim the photon is some kind of disturbance through material (hence why you want evidence photons can go through vacua) but you haven't ever provided any viable model. You aren't even aware of the vast majority of phenomena which need to be explained. As I said, you lack the knowledge and experience relevant to your own challenge and you fail to meet the criteria of the scientific method, namely providing a working viable model. All you've ever provided has been a few lines of arm wavey text. You claimed you were working on a quantitative model once but its now months (probably close to a year) later and you've done nothing. Looks like you were all talk.

Obviously I am confident that the evidence required is impossible to present.

Of course it is, you've constructed it to be so. You will dismiss things too simple for not being rigourous and you'll dismiss things which are rigorous for not being simple enough. Like Kent Hovind you evalute your own challenge and you have an agenda and motivation to prevent anyone winning. Your 'challenge' is thus flawed unless you appoint a person (or persons) who are independent but who have sufficient physics knowledge to be able to evaluate any submissions. If you can't or won't do this then you're basically admitting to having constructed an unwinnable competition.

All of this is because you couldn't back up your claims. If you could have backed up your claim of having a model which describes light and which doesn't have a photon in it then you'd be able to submit it to peer review. All of this is because you failed to meet the criteria of science and you're upset about it. As a result you're trying to deflect the issue. Kent Hovind can't provide viable evidence for creationism and works on the principle that if he rubbishes the mainstream view he'll be validating his position. Wrong. Just as you are wrong.

 

[(Q)]

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.

Give us a shout then when it's worth our while. Thanks.

 

[prometheus]

Here you are:

I'll pm you my email address so you can paypal me the money.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I want... One HUUUNDRED dollaz!

ha ha ha so funny....

 

[Quantum Quack]

We've been over this before. You refuse to read anything which requires you to think or put in effort or which you don't immediately understand and given you don't understand any science that immediately excludes any viable experiment. It's Catch 22. If someone doesn't provide enough scientific rigour then you dismiss them as not justifying their argument and if someone does provide enough scientific rigour then you don't understand and you dismiss them as not making their argument simple enough.

I think you massively over estimate the attention you'll get or the 'concern' you'll raise in the scientific community. The manipulation of photons on an individual quantum basis is well established within the science community, including large amounts of applications to commercial markets. I don't really think any serious company (ie one which isn't just some Ltd started up by a crank to sell 'free energy' to stupid investors) would want to be associated with you and your 'challenge' to the science community, given you lack any of the relevant skills, experience or knowledge to honestly assess anyone who bothers to take the time to respond to your challenge. You're just the physics version of Kent Hovind and his $250,000 challenge.

If someone presents a model of light tomorrow which explains all relevant phenomena more accurately and is much simpler than the current models then they'll eventually replace the current models. The issue is that no one has. You claim the photon is some kind of disturbance through material (hence why you want evidence photons can go through vacua) but you haven't ever provided any viable model. You aren't even aware of the vast majority of phenomena which need to be explained. As I said, you lack the knowledge and experience relevant to your own challenge and you fail to meet the criteria of the scientific method, namely providing a working viable model. All you've ever provided has been a few lines of arm wavey text. You claimed you were working on a quantitative model once but its now months (probably close to a year) later and you've done nothing. Looks like you were all talk.

Of course it is, you've constructed it to be so. You will dismiss things too simple for not being rigourous and you'll dismiss things which are rigorous for not being simple enough. Like Kent Hovind you evalute your own challenge and you have an agenda and motivation to prevent anyone winning. Your 'challenge' is thus flawed unless you appoint a person (or persons) who are independent but who have sufficient physics knowledge to be able to evaluate any submissions. If you can't or won't do this then you're basically admitting to having constructed an unwinnable competition.

All of this is because you couldn't back up your claims. If you could have backed up your claim of having a model which describes light and which doesn't have a photon in it then you'd be able to submit it to peer review. All of this is because you failed to meet the criteria of science and you're upset about it. As a result you're trying to deflect the issue. Kent Hovind can't provide viable evidence for creationism and works on the principle that if he rubbishes the mainstream view he'll be validating his position. Wrong. Just as you are wrong.

yeah right.....
Indendance of matter and mass is what it is all about. that a photon travells independant of it's source AND it's destination is all the evidence required and the prize is yours.
Do you mind if I use your post as an example of the opposition to opening doors to alternative models? I will ensure it is credited properly with your user name etc etc
upset! me? naah...but I know some one who is...

The thing about making enemies of people through nasty ego based tactics such as the ones you employ when attempting to destroy a fellow poster is that those enemies will always come back to haunt you...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Here you are:

I'll pm you my email address so you can paypal me the money.

so can you show how the photon is travellling and is independant of matter/mass?
......nope!
uhm...what sort of film do they use or digital interface...?
Was imprinted on paper directly? Is not paper, lenses, film object of mass/matter etc etc
you will have to try harder next time

 

[Quantum Quack]

Give us a shout then when it's worth our while. Thanks.

ok so when it gets to $100,000 usd plus you may be interested yes?

 

[CptBork]

ok so when it gets to $100,000 usd plus you may be interested yes?

How will you manage to save up $100 000 when you spend so much time posting over the same obsessions year after year, day after day?

 

[Quantum Quack]

How will you manage to save up $100 000 when you spend so much time posting over the same obsessions year after year, day after day?

I think you fail to see the significance of what is at stake... a lack of vision perhaps eh?
what makes you think I will be saving $100,000 usd...?
I have been in marketing for enough time to know a few people who are going to love this...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Providing hard evidence that a photon travells independant of it's source AND it's destination is all the evidence required and the prize is yours.
Given how strongly the light effect model is held as properly evidenced this should be very easy to accomplish.

 

[(Q)]

ok so when it gets to $100,000 usd plus you may be interested yes?

More than that, much more. That will barely cover my expenses.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I'll pm you my email address so you can paypal me the money.

While you and I and anyone rational sees those pictures as explicit demonstration light comes in little packets QQ won't. He won't accept anything which involves the photon physically interacting with a detector of any kind, hence his talk about the vacuum. As I commented above this is simply a dishonest Catch 22 like Hovind, the criteria are designed so that its impossible to 'win', even if you present a working quantative predictive model which has decades of experimental testing.

yeah right.....

Excellent response, just sticking to denial. Do you admit you claimed to have been working on an alternative model? Do you admit you don't know any quantum mechanics or electromagnetism? Do you admit its dishonest if you evaluate the submissions when you clearly have a vested interest in just saying "No" to them all, regardless of merit?

that a photon travells independant of it's source AND it's destination is all the evidence required and the prize is yours.

You want experimental evidence relating to a photon which doesn't in any way involve a detector. Given its impossible to do any experiment without some way of measuring the relevant things your challenge is flawed. And the fact we're been over this before demonstrates your dishonesty.

Do you mind if I use your post as an example of the opposition to opening doors to alternative models?

I really don't understand how someone can be so silly as to lie to me about something I said in a thread so short. Do you think I won't remember what I said in the other post of mine? I said that if someone presents a working model which does the job of quantum mechanics or electromagnetism but is much simpler then it'll be embraced. But they'll have to do a hell of a lot of work to demonstrate it. Your claims have failed to meet the burden of proof and your flat out denial of numerous experimental results relating to photons doesn't make that go away.

The thing about making enemies of people through nasty ego based tactics such as the ones you employ when attempting to destroy a fellow poster is that those enemies will always come back to haunt you...

Are you so thin skinned that you'll resort to threats because I pointed out you've made a dishonest challenge, failed to justify your own claims and have little understanding of the relevant science? Its funny you call my posts 'nasty ego based tactics' and say I'm trying to 'destroy' you. How does my post imply I'm trying to 'destroy' you? Nothing I say here could 'destroy' you and I hate to break it to your ego that even if I thought otherwise you aren't worth the time.

I will ensure it is credited properly with your user name etc etc
upset! me? naah...but I know some one who is...

What have I got to be upset about? I've pointed out the issues with your 'challenge' and your reply didn't respond to any of those issues, you just say "yeah right". Can't you defend your position any better than that? For instance, please explain to me how you expect to evaluate quantum mechanical experiments when you don't know the models which are used by those doing the experiments? And please retort my comment about how you shouldn't be the judge in a challenge where you firmly believe in one and only one outcome. Why not get a learned independent person to assess any submissions?

Given how strongly the light effect model is held as properly evidenced this should be very easy to accomplish.

There's tons of evidence for the photon and the properties it has in the mainstream models. The fact you refuse to assess any of said evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you think 'the media' will want to pay any attention to someone whining about QM when that someone has absolutely no experience or knowledge in any relevant areas and thus lacks the tools to make a proper assessment of any submission? Kent Hovind knows no biology or chemistry or physics beyond high school level and yet he is the person who submissions go through. His criteria for 'proof of evolution' demonstrates he doesn't even know anything about evolution. You're doing the same with physics, you're constructing flawed challenges either accidentally due to ignorance or deliberately due to dishonesty. Either way your challenge is null and void until you reformulate it more clearly and more consistently.

You (and plenty of other cranks) mistake the requirement of the mainstream in regards to any new model, enormous amounts of justification and work, to be flat out denial of anything else. That's wrong. The people who fail to make the grade in science 'research' always whine about close mindedness or elitism, they never face up to the fact its their fault their work is rejected, its crap.

Tell me, how's that pet theory of yours going?

 

[Quantum Quack]

More than that, much more. That will barely cover my expenses.

yeah and as we know ISP provisioning is way tooo expensive even for forum postsing like the one you just made...

 

[Quantum Quack]

While you and I and anyone rational sees those pictures as explicit demonstration light comes in little packets QQ won't. He won't accept anything which involves the photon physically interacting with a detector of any kind, hence his talk about the vacuum. As I commented above this is simply a dishonest Catch 22 like Hovind, the criteria are designed so that its impossible to 'win', even if you present a working quantative predictive model which has decades of experimental testing.

as I haven't made the proposition that a photon travels from A to B across a vacuum independently of it's source and destination [ matter/mass] it is not up to me to complain about your catch 22.

You have set yourselves up for it now you gotta wear it.

If I proposed such a model I would receive much greater flak for this glaring omission that I am dishing out here with this challenge. In fact given the caliber of the scientists involved the fact that you or I cannot evidence the most important part of the light effect model is utterly amazing!
It is not my catch 22 it is yours so what are you going to do about it? It wont go away and it's here to stay.

and you have the nerve to complain about my denial! ha

Excellent response, just sticking to denial. Do you admit you claimed to have been working on an alternative model? Do you admit you don't know any quantum mechanics or electromagnetism? Do you admit its dishonest if you evaluate the submissions when you clearly have a vested interest in just saying "No" to them all, regardless of merit?

I don't have to know jack shit..It's what you know that is important in this instance. Given your inability to reconcile this gross over sight it appears you believe more than you realize. certainly more than you know.

You want experimental evidence relating to a photon which doesn't in any way involve a detector. Given its impossible to do any experiment without some way of measuring the relevant things your challenge is flawed. And the fact we're been over this before demonstrates your dishonesty

nope ....all I, want is evidence to support the most important part of your light effect theory. How you go about it is your problem.
you gotta problem with that? Well it's your problem not mine.

I really don't understand how someone can be so silly as to lie to me about something I said in a thread so short. Do you think I won't remember what I said in the other post of mine? I said that if someone presents a working model which does the job of quantum mechanics or electromagnetism but is much simpler then it'll be embraced. But they'll have to do a hell of a lot of work to demonstrate it. Your claims have failed to meet the burden of proof and your flat out denial of numerous experimental results relating to photons doesn't make that go away.

How many aspiring students to sciences have you destroyed with your ego destruction tactics? Do you think? Do you keep a scratch mark notch on your bed head?
The experiments you talk of have failed to show causation and only demonstrate effect. Yet you claim you have evidence of causation.

Well now is the time to support that claim.

Are you so thin skinned that you'll resort to threats because I pointed out you've made a dishonest challenge, failed to justify your own claims and have little understanding of the relevant science? Its funny you call my posts 'nasty ego based tactics' and say I'm trying to 'destroy' you. How does my post imply I'm trying to 'destroy' you? Nothing I say here could 'destroy' you and I hate to break it to your ego that even if I thought otherwise you aren't worth the time.

ha given the numbers of enemies you have created I don't need to threaten you. You certainly pose no threat to me as I am not claiming to be a scientist..you are!

What... do you feel threatened?

Sorry but I can't help that.

What have I got to be upset about? I've pointed out the issues with your 'challenge' and your reply didn't respond to any of those issues, you just say "yeah right". Can't you defend your position any better than that? For instance, please explain to me how you expect to evaluate quantum mechanical experiments when you don't know the models which are used by those doing the experiments? And please retort my comment about how you shouldn't be the judge in a challenge where you firmly believe in one and only one outcome. Why not get a learned independent person to assess any submissions?

all your issues were addressed in the OP.

As the site firms up, so to will the legal requirements such as prize money trust account and methodology in assessing responses.

given that the site and it's legal and ethical structure is currently being sorted out.

There's tons of evidence for the photon and the properties it has in the mainstream models. The fact you refuse to assess any of said evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you think 'the media' will want to pay any attention to someone whining about QM when that someone has absolutely no experience or knowledge in any relevant areas and thus lacks the tools to make a proper assessment of any submission? Kent Hovind knows no biology or chemistry or physics beyond high school level and yet he is the person who submissions go through. His criteria for 'proof of evolution' demonstrates he doesn't even know anything about evolution. You're doing the same with physics, you're constructing flawed challenges either accidentally due to ignorance or deliberately due to dishonesty. Either way your challenge is null and void until you reformulate it more clearly and more consistently.

You (and plenty of other cranks) mistake the requirement of the mainstream in regards to any new model, enormous amounts of justification and work, to be flat out denial of anything else. That's wrong. The people who fail to make the grade in science 'research' always whine about close mindedness or elitism, they never face up to the fact its their fault their work is rejected, its crap.

Tell me, how's that pet theory of yours going?

so you resort to ego/credibility attacks again....sorry it don't wash.
it is your credibility that is at stake not mine...

You have already admitted a catch 22 so I don't know which way you will go to support your theory/ model as it is by your own admission, deficient in being able to do so [ catch 22]

The "catch 22" is exactly the point that is being highlighted by this Photon Challenge and I thank you for showing that you at least understand it even if you deny that science has a tremendous need to reconcile it with the view to learnng from it.

 

[Quantum Quack]

In a nut shell;
It has yet to be evidenced that a photon exists separate to the mass that it effects.

 

[superluminal]

...If someone presents a model of light tomorrow which explains all relevant phenomena more accurately and is much simpler than the current models then they'll eventually replace the current models.

And they'll get a lot more than $100 US. More like a Nobel Prize and...

One MILLION dollars!

 

[Quantum Quack]

2 million dollars and 2 nobel prizes.
one for physics and the other for politics.

 

[superluminal]

In a nut shell;
It has yet to be evidenced that a photon exists separate to the mass that it effects.

In order to make a measurement of a thing, you must interact with said thing. A simple proof (in my mind) that photons exist "independently" as they travel is interference. As photons propagate they can interfere with each other, causing constructive and destructive interference that shows up as stripes on a wall. Unless the photons only interfere after the fact of interaction with the wall (which is absurd) then some independent entities had to be interfering along the way to the wall. That would be your proof.

Where's my $100 bucks?