This is interesting, Photons dont have gravity so they wont be attracted by other G capable matter, but Space itself is attracted without requirement of G generation :shrug:
The unambiguous proof of light actually traveling - does it exist?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
This is interesting, Photons dont have gravity so they wont be attracted by other G capable matter, but Space itself is attracted without requirement of G generation :shrug:
Ben the man:
Sometimes asking questions about the seemingly obvious can be considered as naive, however I note that you are supporting the notion that EM can not be differentiated from an object of reflective mass. That in itself is a major accomplishment.
I am not sure the word "naive" is appropriate, please explain why you think so? Please note I am not argueing that the value of 'c' is incorrect except to say that it may be derived using the wrong premise. All you have said proves the accuracy of only one part of the observation and not necessarilly the reasons for the observation.
What am I being wrong about ? Please explain? "Am I wrong to question the obvious?"
Thank you for being so nice about it....ha
The point being that if you cannot differentiate between EM radiation and the object of reflective mass one can not be sure about what one is measuring. The EM in transit or changes to the object of reflective mass.
Can you promise me in absolutum that 'c' is a transit d/t given that we can not differentiate between Em and reflector [ as you have agreed is the case]?
Do you understand the question and why it is important and also why it is so difficult to get rational answers?
Sometimes asking questions about the seemingly obvious can be considered as naive, however I note that you are supporting the notion that EM can not be differentiated from an object of reflective mass. That in itself is a major accomplishment.
Further, before spontaneous symmetry breaking (in the first 10^-12 seconds), there were no photons! Photons only exist when the electro-weak symmetry breaks.
This is where the questions become more naiveWe have predicted and tested QED, the quantum theory of light, more accurately than any theory in the history of mankind---to better than one part in 10^13.
I am not sure the word "naive" is appropriate, please explain why you think so? Please note I am not argueing that the value of 'c' is incorrect except to say that it may be derived using the wrong premise. All you have said proves the accuracy of only one part of the observation and not necessarilly the reasons for the observation.
What am I being wrong about ? Please explain? "Am I wrong to question the obvious?"
Everything we know is right. I promise. You won't get a crackpot count cause you were polite enough to phrase your posts as questions
Thank you for being so nice about it....ha
The point being that if you cannot differentiate between EM radiation and the object of reflective mass one can not be sure about what one is measuring. The EM in transit or changes to the object of reflective mass.
Can you promise me in absolutum that 'c' is a transit d/t given that we can not differentiate between Em and reflector [ as you have agreed is the case]?
Do you understand the question and why it is important and also why it is so difficult to get rational answers?
Farsight:
You would be doing me the greatest of favours if you could find such experiment that proves that EM radiation can be differentiated from an object of refelctive mass. Seriously!!
How would an experiment be set up to prove this question one way or the other?
I would surmise the same question could be asked for gravity and if an experiment can be shown that gravity can be differentiated from an object of mass I would be utterly amazed.
Btw every one......thanks for posting
You would be doing me the greatest of favours if you could find such experiment that proves that EM radiation can be differentiated from an object of refelctive mass. Seriously!!
How would an experiment be set up to prove this question one way or the other?
I would surmise the same question could be asked for gravity and if an experiment can be shown that gravity can be differentiated from an object of mass I would be utterly amazed.
Btw every one......thanks for posting
Explanation for thread question:
There is a logic riddle regarding inertia that I am attempting to nut out but if it can be proven that Em can be differentiated I will stop wasting my time.
There is a logic riddle regarding inertia that I am attempting to nut out but if it can be proven that Em can be differentiated I will stop wasting my time.
I don't think it can be proven to your satisfaction since you insist on excluding a receiving device.
That's perfectly comparable to attempting to detect gravity without the use of mass. I don't mean this in any sort of unkind way, so don't be offended, OK? But both would be a fool's errand since the existence of each is well-known, demonstrable and widely used in thousands of working applications. Would you also try to deny the existence of the sun, it's thermonuclear processes and the radiation it emits? Seems just as (ill)logical to me. Why would a photon travel in a tight spiral? It would require energy to keep it travelling along the spiral, and there is no reason for it to do so in free space.
Fair enough---I always get picky when one compares things like photons and neutrinos. Such comparissons obfuscate the fact that they are entirely different species.
Ummm yes, and no. Compton scattering occurs, yes. But the distinction between bosons and fermions is VERY hard and fast. We can arrive at these hard and fast differences in many ways.
Naive in the sense that you haven't done your homework. Had you studied quantum mechanics, then you would know that photons couple only to things that are charged, and all of the charged things we know about have mass. This is Feynman's QED, which has been tested more accurately than any theory in the history of man.
Yes, your questions are naive.
I don't think it can be proven to your satisfaction since you insist on excluding a receiving device.
Ok Read only, I see that I have at least 4 posters who think in similar terms about the question. Yep.....hard up against it.....
To be expected I guess.
I would agree that it would be naive as a scientist to accept a theory without ruling out all other possible explanations.
And what I am attempting to discuss is one such possible exception. That our determination of 'c' may very well hold as a value but it is exactly what that value refers to that is in question.
If Em can not be differentiated from an object of mass and there is no way of proving the existence of a photon other than by using an object of mass then I see the belief in a photon as akin to that of a religious belief in divinity who also can only be guaged by his her effect on humanity. [ certainly not his her substance]
It is true that the existing theory about Em is very very pratical and has great utility. There is no doubt of the benefits of holding to this theory. In fact this is why it is hard to get proper responses to this question.
So as it stands regardless of how naive you all think I am the question still remains answered as NO. It is impossible to differentiate between EM and reflector mass.
This is enough for me and I wonder whether it is enough for you?
The next step for me to do is present, when completed, an alternative view of energy transfers. This alternative view includes the notion that distance is only relevant to objects of mass and that distance is non-existant for anything other than objects of mass except with regards to intensity or strength of reflection. That the issue of non-simultaneity as presented by Albert Einteins SRT is false as light does not indeed travel as the distance it needs to travel is non-existant. however for an object of mass distance does indeed exist.
Presenting the alternative is a long way off but I had to again see that the question about differentiation holds true and that Em theory as a whole has yet to be fully validated and proven. Thus lights travelling has yet to be fully proven as fact.
So far all posters to this thread have stated only that the theory is so accepted that it must be true and I find this a little saddening as obviously there is room for doubt. As no one has in 3 years of research been able to show what they hold as true to be in fact true.
So prove to me that light travels without relying only on it's effect on an object of mass and you should be able to do the same for gravity.
If I had a million dollars I would bet that you can not do so.
If you say yes to the question and so what?
I would ask then why believe in a photon at all? Other than it being a useful model. A helpful abstraction and one that can be extremely and negatively influencial in regards to the future of scientific discovery.
So you can prove the existance of charged particles and the changes they undergo but not the photon itself? If the photon can be proven as existant please provide links or relevant reference material.
I see you have the user motto of crackpot buster.....hmmmmm maybe you should prove that photon / EM theory is not one hell of grand piece of crackpottery and prove that the photon exists and the scope or limitations of it's existance.
Define our photon in a way that is totally conclusive and proves unambiguously that it exists.
Just because the theory seems to fit reality does not mean that it is the reality.
one possible alternative view:
The Em effects are a resonance effect. Where by distance only mitigates intensity.
like two high frequency bells ringing with "nothing" in between them but held at a distance by causes yet to be determined.
That the light effects we see are in fact harmonic effect associated with that resonation.
The Em effects are a resonance effect. Where by distance only mitigates intensity.
like two high frequency bells ringing with "nothing" in between them but held at a distance by causes yet to be determined.
That the light effects we see are in fact harmonic effect associated with that resonation.
And so it ends. Maybe Farsight can help you understand.
I have showed you where your ideas were flawed: the reason that we have to have matter around to prove photons is because photons only couple to charged particles, and the charged particles we have are all massive.
I have shown you where this has been tested: QED, which hinges on a massless photon mediating the electrostatic force, has been tested and proven more accurately than any theory in the history of human kind.
I have also showed you where you get inconsistencies in your logic: Specifically, without a particle mediating the electrostatic interaction, you have to have non-local interactions.
This thread started out with interesting questions, but you comments have quickly betrayed your utter lack of understanding for the physical world, and your failure to listen to reason.
Crackpot += 1.
so you are saying that a photon can only be proven by default?
Sorry for wasting your time Ben
but as I see it the photons proof of existance is purely circumstancial and not based on hard evidence
Sorry for wasting your time Ben
but as I see it the photons proof of existance is purely circumstancial and not based on hard evidence
and it is the hard evidence of it's exitance that I am looking for. Circumstancial effect based evidence is not sufficient I am afraid...not for me any way...
The thing to realise is that this question regardless of how it is answered does not negate QM etc.....but may change our approach only. Especially when considering tunneling and entanglement effects. [ Which I admit like most persons I have very little real understanding of.]
The thing to realise is that this question regardless of how it is answered does not negate QM etc.....but may change our approach only. Especially when considering tunneling and entanglement effects. [ Which I admit like most persons I have very little real understanding of.]
I'm saying that the theory which predicts photons is fantastically accurate...more accurate than the theory that predicts that humans evolved from chimps, more accurate than the theory which tells us that there is global warming, and more accurate than Newtonian Gravity.
Because we have a theory that predicts a photon, and we have tested the other predictions of that theory to such dramatic accuracies, one would have to be blind to dispute it.
The thing is Ben that I am not disputing those accuracies or predictable outcomes. I am not threatening the work that has been done, in fact I hold all of it with great respect. However what I am disputing is what may appear to be a superfluous point and that is actually what happens between source and reflector.
It is a very fine point but to me it is a very significant point. What transpires between source and reflector. It is not enough to "assume" that a photon travels across a vacuum in macro or micro scales although it would be very very tempting to do so.
And if doubt is agreed to exist then other perpectives as to what happens are allowed to be presented with out charges of crackpottery being laid.
It would change our approach to gravity and it's genesis and alter how we deal with issues such as previously mentioned ie entanglements etc.
For example it could be safe to assume that entanglement pheno must involve some form of zero dimensional space would it not?
Hi QQ.
Is not everything we know "proven" by it's interaction with something else? The very fact that you "see" is proof that there is some entity stimulating your rod and cone cells. There is an entity with certain properties that we call a "photon". Just like there is an entity with certain properties that we call a "shovel". We detect both of these entities by their interactions with out measuring instruments whether they be eyes or fingers or scales or mass spectrometers or spectrographs.
Right?
Why not? When an electron orbiting an atom transitions from one level to a lower one and an electron in another atom responds by transitioning from one level to a higher one, all in a given period of time, is it not completely safe to assume that some influence has "travelled" between the two? And if we quantify that influence and find that it is related to the energy of the electronic transitions in all cases, then can we not give this influence a label? Photon maybe?
But then your idea isn't testable. "What actually happens" isn't per se something that we can know---we can only say what we can test. We can test QED. QED is pretty accurate. So that's what we go with.
You'd need to come up with a way to distinguish your idea from QED.
The bells analogy a few posts back doesn't work, because the atoms propogate the compression wave. This is the idea of the aether, that was shot down in the early part of last century---light doesn't need an aether to propogate through.